THE ANARCHIST INTERNATIONAL
http://www.anarchy.no/ai.html
The International Anarchist Congress
The 7th Anarchist Biennial - Medio
December 2002
INVITATION
AND CALL FOR PAPERS - PROGRAM AND SUMMARY OF RESOLUTIONS
To
all anarchists and others interested in anarchism in federations
and sections listed on the official links-site of the Anarchist
International (Click on "links" below) and their own
networks. The International Anarchist Congress calls libertarians
from all countries world wide to report about the labor
economical situation, unemployment etc., in the respective areas.
The aim is to get an overview of the situation for the geographical
sections of the Anarchist International world wide.
Feel free to forward this note to your own network.
PROGRAM
International Congress-Seminar on Anarchism:
Saturday 14.12.2002
I. LABOR ECONOMICS
A. Papers on anarchist economics related to unemployment.
Sunday 15.12.2002I
B. Special invited paper: IIFOR's labor market paradox: Why a more efficient labor market may create more unemployment
C. Discussion of papers
II. ON THE LOGIC OF COLLECTIVE ACTION
A. Preliminary research on anarchism vs "free riders"
B. Discussion of papers
Arranged by the Anarchist
International
via Internet & e-mail
Reply to this note before 01.11.2002
if you are interested in participation.
Papers and comments should be written in the same way as articles
to IJ@
Best regards
H. Fagerhus
editor of IJ@
RESOLUTIONS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL
ANARCHIST CONGRESS
A crude translation from English to Spanish or French etc.
may be done at URL: http://www.freetranslation.com/ or http://www.worldlingo.com/wl/Translate
The International Anarchist Congress
The 7th Anarchist Biennial - Medio
December 2002
The 7th Combined IFA -AI & FICEDL CONGRESS in Oslo
SUMMARY
OF PAPERS
PROGRAM
International Congress-Seminar on Anarchism:
Saturday 14.12.2002
I. LABOR ECONOMICS
A. Papers on anarchist economics related to unemployment.
Preliminary research on unemployment of different lands world wide show a.o.t that the percentage degree of unemployment is correlated with the authoritarian degree, say, relative libertarian societies as the Swiss Confederation, Iceland, Liechtenstein, the Isle of Man, Andorra and Norway have a tendency of less unemployment compared to more authoritarian countries, and the more authoritarian the more unemployment.
Sunday 15.12.2002I
B. Special invited paper: IIFOR's labor market paradox: Why a more efficient labor market may create more unemployment
Better labor market
administration is often focused on the following main
objectives:
Helping job-seekers
find jobs
Assisting employers in recruitment and restructuring efforts
Preventing and alleviating the harmful effects of unemployment
Find job-seekers for vacant positions and vacant positions for
job-seekers
Provide information about vacant positions, occupations and
education
Provide information about job-seekers and vacant positions
Adapt job-seekers' skills and qualifications to requirements of
the market
Assist employees who have difficulties finding or keeping jobs (rehabilitation)
for social or health-related reasons
Administrate national insurance benefits (unemployment benefits,
grants for training, rehabilitation benefits)
All in all this may increase mobility and make the labor
market more efficient broadly defined.
Symbols in English/American: A export; B import; C consumption, i.e. public + private; I net real investment, i.e. public + private; (C+I+A-B) total demand, i.e. nominally; R = total supply R , net national product, i.e. nominally (R = C+I+A-B); p price level for x, x net national product volume principally measured by output (i.e. not input) in private and public sector, (R = px); a averagely workers productivity; N employment, i.e. factual supply equal to factual demand of labor, x = aN; N(u) unemployment, N(full) full employment, i.e. total work force, potential labor supply, not factual, it is however an aim for society to use the whole potential, N = N(full);
The basic ecocirc equations in this case are:
R = C+I+A-B = px = paN <=> (C + I + A - B)/pa = [(C+I+A-B)/p]/a = N and N(u) = N(full) - N
A more efficient labor market administration, more mobility etc, as a part of the industrial policy, will usually increase a, the labor productivity. Thus, if not and (C+I+A-B)/p is increased in equal amount, N will be reduced via [(C+I+A-B)/p]/a = N, and N(u), the unemployment will be hiked, for given N(full). Say, if a is increased 1% due to more efficient labor market administration, and the demand corrected for inflation (C+I+A-B)/p is not hiked also with 1%, but is hiked less, the employment will be reduced.
This case, i.e. IIFOR's labor market paradox, may very well be the case in practice, dependent on consumption vs saving behavior etc. This may happen if the marginal propensity to consume is relatively low for the relevant housholds, say, in a time of depression in the economy. In this case some unemployed may be employed by the more efficient labor market administration, but then even more new unemployed from other firms will appear, and all in all the employment, N, will be less.
Thus a more efficient labor market administration must be combined with a more expansive demand and relevant price policy, i.e. a sufficient increase in (C+I+A-B)/p, to work well according to the aim, to get unemployed a job that pays well and increase employment. A more efficient labor market, increased mobility etc, say, in times depression of the economy, may often increase unemployment, seemingly a paradox, but thus in reality quite logical.
II. ON THE LOGIC OF COLLECTIVE ACTION
A. Preliminary research on anarchism vs "free riders"
"Getting something for nothing" is a problematic case in anarchism, as there is in general "no such thing as a free lunch". Sorry to say, one of the basic human motives is probably the desire "to get something for nothing". Theft for example, is a way to "get something for nothing," and is the paradigm case of an illegitimate act from the anarchist perspective. However, there are other possible scenarios in which depictions of this phrase are probably not incompatible with anarchism. To condemn any attempt to get something for nothing is thus to overgeneralize.
Solidarity is one case in point. The recipient of voluntary welfare does nothing improper, whatsoever. A person may be down on his luck, or simply forgot his wallet, or was the victim of a mugging. He asks a passerby for a buck for carfare, or for a cup of coffee, or for some change with which to make a phone call, and receives it. He thereby got "something for nothing," but probably offends no anarchist law which should remain on the books.
Even the victim of a crime gets "something": e.g., the satisfaction that the robber took no more than he did, or refrained from murdering him. Or take another case: I am holding a $100 bill in my hand, and the wind takes it off, to who knows where. Surely, I gain nothing from this occurrence; but if it floats into someone else's possession, he gains something for nothing, but it need not be according to a base human motivation, or be seen as similar to theft.
The critics of obtaining something for nothing also overlook the concept of consumer and producer surplus. Say, the grocer has hundreds of oranges on hand. If he does not sell them soon, they will rot, and then it would cost him money (in addition to the purchase price) to dispose of them. So the grocer sells a few of them to me. He may get something for nothing, i.e. if they else would rotten. Although I pay a few pennies, I would perhaps have been willing to pay a dollar for these oranges had I been asked to do so. The difference to me between what I would have been willing to pay (the greater value) and what I actually did pay (the lesser value) is my consumer surplus. No one else can probably know this amount exactly, but for me it is in effect found money. Or, in other words, I just got something for nothing in terms of consumer surplus as did the grocer in terms of producer or seller surplus.
A concept often seen by mainstream economists in a derogative way is that of the "free rider" (meaning "gratispassasjer" in Norwegian). Anyone who gets a value for which he does not pay (another version of "getting something for nothing") is in general seen as evidence of economic inefficiency, a so called "market failure" or "environmental externality." This may also be unfair.
The typical example of this is when a person benefits from the fact that his neighbor washes his car, or trims his lawn, or keeps his house in good repair. These actions tend to maintain or upgrade the real estate values of the first homeowner's property, and presumably increase his enjoyment of his holdings because the view improves.
Why is this so bad? Perhaps for one of two reasons. We can become enraged at the free rider because he is getting something for nothing. Alternatively, the good neighbor is not doing enough to beautify his own premises, and is thus "cheating" the free rider out of even greater benefits.
Whether blaming the recipient of the positive externality for being an ingrate, or the donor for not doing enough for the former, one thing is clear: Public or collective decision should probably step in, for without this the neighborhood will not be welfareoptimal, i.e. maximal benefit minus costs.
In this, and similar, cases, collective decision and action is probably a good thing, if the regulations and regulatory means are working in a libertarian way. However any argument proclaiming the right and goodness of, say, three neighbors, who yearn to form a string quartet, forcing a forth neighbor at bayonet point to learn and play the viola, is hardly deserving of sober comment. This, and similar cases, are clearly authoritarian, and not efficent and fair, i.e. anarchist
If people are nice to one another, if they smile at each other, well and good. If we appreciate what Einstein, Mozart and Kropotkin have given us, if we are "free riders" on them, again well and good. We are all the beneficiaries of those who came before us. This is part and parcel of civilized living, and is no cause for alarm. However squatting is something else. This may very often be seen as similar to having a free lunch and let others pay the bill, i.e. slave for the squatter one way or the other. Squatting and the squatter movement are typically 1. communism with kleptarchy, or 2. communist kleptarchy (both 1. and 2. significant ochlarchy), i.e. in both cases 1. and 2. significant authoritarian, and thus not anarchy, anarchist and anarchism. And pacifism - this is perhaps a luxury that an anarchist society probably should accept if very few are pacifists, but if this authoritarian tendency is increasing too much, it is quite certain not acceptable. [NB! Minor updates adopted with general consent by the International Anarchist Congress, the 11th Anarchist Biennial in 2010.]