It is not forced on you, if you want to try something different, try a different community. It does not include those who do not wish to participate.
Then what are we arguing about? If you don't want to impose it,our systems are not mutually exclusive. I argue that your system doesn't work, but that doesn't concern me as long as you're not trying to force me to be in it. Earlier you appeared to suggest that you want "the community" to impose it.
As for the last sentence.. no. There was a time, early in the revolution when the soviets (worker councils) were permitting local autonomy, and participatory democracy. But this was quickly wiped out. From the onset the USSR became nothing more than an imperialist enterprise. There are many reasons for this, but that's a different discussion.
Exactly my point. Somebody takes power, it's human nature.
EvilSocialistFellow:You confuse private property for personal property.
What's the difference and who decides?
or shear my sheep Except for here.
Except for here.
How dare you disrespect my sheep! Why/how are they an exception?
What if I hired you to wash my car... the one I use for my sheep sales business? Becomes yours, or not?
This discussion is either a great spoof or, if serious, you must at least have had the thought that you may be completely mad.
Z.
Lot of rhetoric when talking with socialists. They can`t seem to grasp the idea of minding they`re own bussiness.
Angurse:...
If you think the hierarchical firm is an example of autonomy, then god help us all.
quote user="z1235"]
Z.[/quote]
If its your home, personal belongings (transportable goods - including your car) it doesn't count as private property. If it can be used for a profit, i.e. land or capital then it is private (unless it is community owned in which case it is collectivised). Sheep were the exception here because that signifies a farm (hence land that can be derived for a profit). I also happen happen to think the idea of privatising the commons is quite mad.
EmperorNero:It is not forced on you, if you want to try something different, try a different community. It does not include those who do not wish to participate. Then what are we arguing about? If you don't want to impose it,our systems are not mutually exclusive. I argue that your system doesn't work, but that doesn't concern me as long as you're not trying to force me to be in it. Earlier you appeared to suggest that you want "the community" to impose it.
The difference between us is you want to keep in tact the state structures protecting private property; we do not.
Epiricus Said: As for the last sentence.. no. There was a time, early in the revolution when the soviets (worker councils) were permitting local autonomy, and participatory democracy. But this was quickly wiped out. From the onset the USSR became nothing more than an imperialist enterprise. There are many reasons for this, but that's a different discussion. You Said: Exactly my point. Somebody takes power, it's human nature.
You Said: Exactly my point. Somebody takes power, it's human nature.
This was the fault of the Mensheviks who persuaded the workers against anarchist means and reeled them into the state bureacracy.
EmperorNero: [quote]Don't worry, it's not a semantic debate. It was actually a substantial critique of left-anarchism. I'm saying that rule by a plurality is just as authoritarian as a dictatorship and therefore immoral. That's not an argument about economic efficiency, that comes later.
[quote]Don't worry, it's not a semantic debate. It was actually a substantial critique of left-anarchism. I'm saying that rule by a plurality is just as authoritarian as a dictatorship and therefore immoral. That's not an argument about economic efficiency, that comes later.
I don't think I've mentioned a plurality anywhere; rather I've tried to explain the system in terms of participatory politics, rotating roles in the community and autonomosy for worker owned enterprises (syndicates). They might take it "to the vote" on some issues but certainly not every issue.
Ok, now the argument is economic efficiency. Yes, economic calculation is overused by Austrians, but that does not dismiss it's impact on your theory. I think you do understand economic calculation, you just think you can evade it, since you believe you can calculate your way out of it. But it can never reach the efficiency of market pricing. Even in todays semi-state capitalism the decisions of Indian miners might be driven by a decision on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. How could a socialist society possibly simulate those kinds of market signals without being overly authoritarian? It's impossible to calculate it because nobody can rationally grasp it. What you are proposing is better central planning on a smaller and therefore more manageable scale, but that's not as such a solution to the calculation problem, it just contains it in comparison to Stalinist economies. Maybe anarchist socialism would be 60% as efficient as capitalism, maybe 80%, or 30%, but it would be giving up standard of living.
Yes, economic calculation is overused by Austrians, but that does not dismiss it's impact on your theory. I think you do understand economic calculation, you just think you can evade it, since you believe you can calculate your way out of it. But it can never reach the efficiency of market pricing. Even in todays semi-state capitalism the decisions of Indian miners might be driven by a decision on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. How could a socialist society possibly simulate those kinds of market signals without being overly authoritarian? It's impossible to calculate it because nobody can rationally grasp it. What you are proposing is better central planning on a smaller and therefore more manageable scale, but that's not as such a solution to the calculation problem, it just contains it in comparison to Stalinist economies. Maybe anarchist socialism would be 60% as efficient as capitalism, maybe 80%, or 30%, but it would be giving up standard of living.
If it is central planning on a smaller and therefore more manageable scale, it is decentralised planning (lol). Capitalism still has planning systems in the hierarchical firm. You talk about "market signals" but there wouldn't be market interaction as such under a gift economy; most signals for labour would be obtained by requests for given goods or services in the community (demand) topped off by the supply of given goods and services by producers operating. That way, delegates and other people working for the community know whether or not to adjust the value of given goods or services in comparison of the relative signals for said goods or services; . Again, syndicates would mostly be handling their own affairs so this saves some form of bureacratic planning board. If, for instance, they present business plans to participants taking an active role in the community they can decide on a supply of investment funds (in terms of labour vouchers) which they could coordinate the spending of themselves. If they crash its their problem. We could enhance the system either by having the producers submit their paperwork for the public eye or perhaps by sending inspectors around at random; this prevents them fixing accounts and so forth. I don't deny there would be a calculation problem but when you think about it there is a calculation problem under any system.
Mostly in state socialism, not that much in anarcho-capitalism, where people have access to a privatized legal system.
I have to admit I haven't read much into the theme of a privatised legal system but who do you think it would work for? Bodies with capital or bodies without capital? I have read somewhere that Rothbard advocated a "libertarian law code" that was not made by law courts but found "objectively" according to the reasonings and customs of society but this quite ironic and incosistent with the theme of individualism since it assumes that man is one consistent body and has an objectively found ethical code. In other words we have different customs and reasonings that are likely to clash. Its quite obvious where private judicial services would obtain their funding from so who do you think they are most likely to biased towards?
Also, I made a blog about the impact of property on environmentalism (and therefore potential externalities) along with a condensed summary at the beginning so you don't need to read it all; http://syndicalistlibertarianism.blogspot.com/
That's the problem. You can make objective calculations, but you can never calculate value, because value is subjective. Pricing is such a superior system precisely because it isn't rational, it looks deeper into your soul and asks you what you really want. People say one thing when they are asked, but what they really want is only determined by what they are willing to pay for. That's why pure democracy would wastes a lot of resources on projects that have a noble sound to them, and that people feel compelled to consent to in a townhall meeting, but which nobody really wants.
You see, this is another ironic thing because Mises consistently argues that value is subjective and not objective in "Economic Calculation in The Socialist Commonwealth" but he simultaneously argues for a price mechanism objectively determined by market transactions. Marx made a distinction between a commodity's use value or physical properties and useful labour embodied in the commodity on the one hand and its value or relative form when compared with other commodities through market transactions and its abstract labour embodied in the commodity on the other. We realise there is a subjective evaluation to be considered. We can calculate this as a quality, which I've explained before, the producer is not paid by the community bank unless is product is consumed (which must be purchased by labour vouchers, by the way). So, when syndicates spend their investment funds, they must consider this important scenario; whether somebody would be willing to to pay for it. So the expansion of projects would not be decided for in townhall meetings.
The only problem here is that I am only decribing my own particular brand of anarchism (collectivism). If you ask other people they will say different things. However, I think the best thing about anarchy is that it encourages initiative and spontaneity; passionate debate and discussion. People will consider the most libertarian forms of socialism (since the most libertarian forms will likely be the most efficient and the most morally ethical) and the best systems will catch fire, not just around the community but around the country. Social anarchism is all about the masses; it is an admiration of their spontaneious activity and rapid free flow of information that can be achieved when they are not suppressed by structural forms of hierarchy; God, the State or otherwise.
EvilSocialistFellow:If its your home, personal belongings (transportable goods - including your car) it doesn't count as private property. If it can be used for a profit, i.e. land or capital then it is private (unless it is community owned in which case it is collectivised). Sheep were the exception here because that signifies a farm (hence land that can be derived for a profit).
How do you know why I have my sheep and what I am doing with them? And how is it any of your (and who else's,btw) business? What if I (or anyone else ) disagreed with your separation of my property into two or more classes?
I also happen happen to think the idea of privatising the commons is quite mad.
No, I think it's quite mad to be oblivious to the concepts of:
1. Not-Mine (or None-Of-My-Business) Property ...be it private, personal, recreational, industrial, communal, co-op, corporate, etc.
2. Minding my own f-ing business.
What is the "commons" (The whole universe minus everyone else's toothbrushes?) and why should you have any say in what does and doesn't get done to it?
z1235:How do you know why I have my sheep and what I am doing with them? And how is it any of your (and who else's,btw) business? What if I (or anyone else ) disagreed with your separation of my property into two or more classes?
Right, without getting overly antagonistic, here, we don't need to know what you do with your sheep; if you need to make transactions with the bank of the people then these transactions will be registered and then we will know. In the majority of farming cases, the land is managed by a small, friendly family unit. Under these circumstances, there need not be any issues over management. However, when it starts to become more of a business and we have issues of surplus value, any labourers you employ legitimately have the right to claim management on the provisio that property that is enhanced, produced, blah blah blah.
1. Not-Mine (or None-Of-My-Business) Property ...be it private, personal, recreational, industrial, communal, co-op, corporate, etc. 2. Minding my own f-ing business. What is the "commons" (The whole universe minus everyone else's toothbrushes?) and why should you have any say in what does and doesn't get done to it?
The commons in the context I was referring to was land that already exists that is not owned. Land and capital have long since existed before property rights and pieces of paper.
My only points are that the lib-right defend private property on the grounds of:
* natural rights; but natural rights are universal.
* occupancy; but the vast bulk of capital and land is not occupied by its own users.
* labour; but the outcome of labour by non-propertied bodies is owned by the propertied.
EvilSocialistFellow:Right, without getting overly antagonistic, here, we don't need to know what you do with your sheep; if you need to make transactions with the bank of the people then these transactions will be registered and then we will know.
Nice. I love it when non-antagonistic people start getting interested in what I do with my sheep. What if I exclusively made transactions with a bank (or entity) other than "the bank of the people"?
EvilSocialistFellow:However, when it starts to become more of a business and we have issues of surplus value, any labourers you employ legitimately have the right to claim management on the provisio that property that is enhanced, produced, blah blah blah.
"Blah blah blah" exactly. What if no "surplus value" was actually created? What if I employed 100 laborers to paint 100 perfectly good red Ferrari's neon pink and now no one wants them? Was anything "enhanced"? Was anything "produced"? Are my "laborers" also responsible for the losses that ensued? What if my "laborers" voluntarily agreed to just do whatever I told them in return for receiving a paycheck?
And related to all of the above (which you conveniently skipped), what's your view on the concepts of:
z1235: 1. Not-Mine (or None-Of-My-Business) Property ...be it private, personal, recreational, industrial, communal, co-op, corporate, etc. 2. Minding my own f-ing business.
EvilSocialistFellow:Land and capital have long since existed before property rights and pieces of paper.
Capital, too? IBM's and Apple's capital existed before the concept of private property emerged among humans? Do tell more.
z1235:Nice. I love it when non-antagonistic people start getting interested in what I do with my sheep. What if I exclusively made transactions with a bank (or entity) other than "the bank of the people"?
I was referring to our exchanges here when I mentioned the word "antagonistic" - not whether members of society would be antagonistic.
I skipped those points because I had/have no clue what you mean. Also I explained the justification of communal property in terms of labour, occupancy and natural rights.
Capital simply "consists of raw materials, instruments of labour, and means of subsistence of all kinds, which are employed in producing new raw materials, new instruments, and new means of subsistence" - Marx, Wage Labour And Capital. Modern industry (IBM and APPLE) is merely a modern form of capital.
(I will note that my quoting of Marx is a little facetious here because he goes on to explain that the above definition is that of "bourgeois economists" and that "social relations between the producers, and the conditions under which they exchange their activities and share in the total act of production, will naturally vary according to the character of the means of production" and that "Capital consists not only of means of subsistence, instruments of labour, and raw materials, not only as material products; it consists just as much of exchange values. All products of which it consists are commodities. Capital, consequently, is not only a sum of material products, it is a sum of commodities, of exchange values, of social magnitudes. Capital remains the same whether we put cotton in the place of wool, rice in the place of wheat, steamships in the place of railroads, provided only that the cotton, the rice, the steamships – the body of capital – have the same exchange value, the same price, as the wool, the wheat, the railroads, in which it was previously embodied. The bodily form of capital may transform itself continually, while capital does not suffer the least alteration." In other words, the commodity as an exchange value is what makes it capital. However, I have to say that I agree with the "bourgeois economists" on this one; I would term Marx's definition as private capital. However even by this definition, yes capital in its general form still existed before property rights and pieces of paper.)
Z1235: What if I exclusively made transactions with a bank (or entity) other than "the bank of the people"?
Sorry I sort of effed up the quote above and forgot to address this point (argh, I hate the quote system on this forum!). Right, this is the question of whether capitalist activity would arise since you are essentially asking about making transactions with a non-socialistic banking system (I hate using the term "bank" by the way). You'd be able to if you wanted but consider that since private property is not protected by a statist structure a non-socialistic bank is (and producers therefore have a legal claim to property), technically speaking impossible. Also it would take a huge level of capitalist activity to overthrow the socialist model; just like it will take a huge level of socialist activity in the present day society to overthrow the capitalist model. The question is whether people will want to change the system and this depends on living standards and so forth.
Z1235: "Blah blah blah" exactly. What if no "surplus value" was actually created? What if I employed 100 laborers to paint 100 perfectly good red Ferrari's neon pink and now no one wants them? Was anything "enhanced"? Was anything "produced"? Are my "laborers" also responsible for the losses that ensued? What if my "laborers" voluntarily agreed to just do whatever I told them in return for receiving a paycheck?
You are still attempting to make some sort of profit out of your land which you are trying to make into a business. However it would be likely that you wouldn't be producing 100 cars in the first place since the bank funds the syndicate (investment funds in labour vouchers) according to supply and demand for given goods and services. You'd probably have to present them with a decent business plan; you and the other labourers that you work with would have to show in some way that you'd put in the research for the relevant trends in consumer transactions as well as other variables. As for responsibility, it depends how you mean "responsibility". If no one wants your goods you aren't paid by the community bank and you and everyone else who invested their time and energy loses out. I must emphasise here that labour vouchers are not currency given their non-circulatory nature.
EvilSocialistFellow:I was referring to our exchanges here when I mentioned the word "antagonistic" - not whether members of society would be antagonistic.
You don't think anyone would get antagonistic toward people oblivious to the concepts #1 and #2? Here they are again for convenience:
1. Not-My Property
2. None-Of-My Business
EvilSocialistFellow:I skipped those points because I had/have no clue what you mean.
In other words, oblivious.
Listen, can we agree to disagree? Can't you implement whatever scheme you fancy on your property or on the co-op, communal, or whatever co-mingled property of like minds, and leave everyone else alone? Would you agree to leave me and all my voluntary interactions with others alone, if I agree to leave you and all of your voluntary interactions alone? What more could you possibly want, especially if you're particular about minimization of antagonism?
EvilSocialistFellow:Modern industry (IBM and APPLE) is merely a modern form of capital.
EvilSocialistFellow:However even by this definition, yes capital in its general form still existed before property rights and pieces of paper.)
Care to clarify the obvious contradiction? Where exactly did IBM's and APPLE's capital exist before property rights emerged?
z1235:You don't think anyone would get antagonistic toward people oblivious to the concepts #1 and #2? Here they are again for convenience: 1. Not-My Property 2. None-Of-My Business
Again, no clue what you are talking about.
Cooperative projects can't grow without investment in capital:
"A worker-managed firm lacks an expansionary dynamic. When a capitalist enterprise is successful, the owner can increase her profits by reproducing her organisation on a larger scale. She lacks neither the means nor the motivation to expand. Not so with a worker-managed firm. Even if the workers have the means, they lack the incentive, because enterprise growth would bring in new workers with whom the increased proceeds would have to be shared. Co-operatives, even when prosperous, do not spontaneously grow. But if this is so, then each new co-operative venture (in a capitalist society) requires a new wealthy radical or a new group of affluent radical workers willing to experiment. Because such people doubtless are in short supply, it follows that the absence of a large and growing co-operative movement proves nothing about the viability of worker self-management, nor about the preferences of workers." David Schweickart, Against Capitalism, p. 239
Before you say "oh well that means they can't work", no. It means they can't obtain growth under capitalism.
You seem to misunderstand me. I am saying that capital (in general) has existed ever since people figured out they could use the earth's resources. IBM's and APPLE's capital only grew when IBM and APPLE started up *rolls eyes*. Arguably though, their capital was transformed from raw materials that have existed since the start of the earth. So to clarify my position, land and capital as a concept (you are confusing concept for noun) has existed since before property rights and pieces of paper.
EvilSocialistFellow:Again, no clue what you are talking about.
I'll advise you to get a clue. Capitalism or not, you won't last long around humans without having any clue as to what is or is not your business.
z1235:Listen, can we agree to disagree? Can't you implement whatever scheme you fancy on your property or on the co-op, communal, or whatever co-mingled property of like minds, and leave everyone else alone? Would you agree to leave me and all my voluntary interactions with others alone, if I agree to leave you and all of your voluntary interactions alone? What more could you possibly want, especially if you're particular about minimization of antagonism?
Shall I imply your "no" answer to the above?
EvilSocialistFellow:Cooperative projects can't grow without investment in capital:
So what? If you want your project to grow then I advise you and your comrades to do whatever you think would make it grow. If you prefer not to grow it, then don't. Are you telling me that the only possible way for you to implement your project is if you put a gun to my head and made me join in, as well? And you want me to not become antagonistic about it to boot?
In your world, is anyone left with no alternative but to submit to the will and "plan" of any barking lunatic that comes their way? And you want to live in that world? So disturbing.
Libertarian socialism is, at best, an oxymoron. More often it is a confused dissimulation. On rare occasions it is simply pleonastic.
A person who acknowledges the justice of private property and free exchange, whatever particular organization he prefers, is a market anarchist, anarcho-capitalist or whatever you want to call it. There is no more need for the term 'libertarian socialist' in this case than there is a need for 'libertarian monkist' for those who choose a monastic life.
A person who does not acknowledge the right of individual property and free exchange is not a libertarian.
A person, such as Benjamin Tucker, who uses 'socialism' to mean a society in which people use social (i.e. non-violent) means of organization solely is simply pointlessly duplicating meanings.
z1235:Shall I imply your "no" answer to the above?
Ok, let me phrase it another way. Here's a question for you; "Can't you and me just agree to get along and remove the coercive state structures enforcing the private accumulation of capital whose existance has ony come about by coercive expropriation, theft, slavery and plundering of wealth and gold from colonised nations which was the historic basis for forcing formerly self-employed artisans and peasants into poverty and wage labour?"
All I'm saying is that to build a libertarian society, we need to remove all coercive state activity, including the enforcement of contract theory. Due to this state enforcement of wage labour and private capital accumulation, we can't possibly grow or develop a socialist economy. Its quite simple really: we can "work together" as long as your prepared to remove those state structures indirectly preventing socialist growth as I have explained above in terms of capital investment.
EvilSocialistFellow:So what? If you want your project to grow then I advise you and your comrades to do whatever you think would make it grow. If you prefer not to grow it, then don't. Are you telling me that the only possible way for you to implement your project is if you put a gun to my head and made me join in, as well? And you want me to not become antagonistic about it to boot? In your world, is anyone left with no alternative but to submit to the will and "plan" of any barking lunatic that comes their way? And you want to live in that world? So disturbing.
I don't want to force people to build cooperative projects. Hopefully they themselves would act spontaneously to develop an adequate new system of production in the absence of property rights.
This brings me back to my original point that use rights would be acquisitioned on the basis of labour enhancing the property. So it is perfectly legitimate for labourers to claim right to land which is legally there's under such a system; we don't need "gun lunatics" to establish a perfectly reasonably justified system of use rights in place of property rights. In fact it is a group of gun lunatics (the state) that protect property rights in the present day so I'm not overly impressed that you think anarchists are a bunch of thugs when it is the state who have the most guns and all too eagerly defend the capitalist economic order through brutality.
So what this all boils down to is this; are property rights more justified or are use rights more justified? Well, I can justify use rights in terms of natural rights, because natural rights are universal, occupancy, because the propertied classes do not occupy the bulk of their capital or land and labour, the outcome of which is owned by the propertied classes not the labourer himself. Property rights are far harder to justify; investment, risks, profit, natural rights, occupancy, labour, etc.; none of those things legitimately justify private property.
z1235:...
In essence, your argument is "I have a gun so get off my lawn" but mine is, "What makes it your lawn and not the people who grow crops and harvest them on "your" lawn?"
EvilSocialistFellow: "Can't you and me just agree to get along and remove the coercive state structures enforcing the private accumulation of capital whose existance has ony come about by coercive expropriation, theft, slavery and plundering of wealth and gold from colonised nations which was the historic basis for forcing formerly self-employed artisans and peasants into poverty and wage labour?"
No. I don't wan't to agree and get along with you. I am asking if we could simply agree to disagree. In "my" world, we definitely can. In "yours", not so much. Smell a difference?
EvilSocialistFellow:All I'm saying is that to build a libertarian society, we need to remove all coercive state activity, including the enforcement of contract theory.
There's no "we" in my world. Live and let live. Simple really.
EvilSocialistFellow:I don't want to force people to build cooperative projects. Hopefully they themselves would act spontaneously to develop an adequate new system of production in the absence of property rights.
And who, pray tell, would ensure the "absence of property rights" and how? What are you going to do with the people who "spontaneously" develop "systems of production" different from your master plan, including "systems" that perhaps involve private property?
EvilSocialistFellow:In fact it is a group of gun lunatics (the state) that protect property rights in the present day...
Try coming onto my property and see whose gun is protecting it.
EvilSocialistFellow:are property rights more justified or are use rights more justified?
What are "use rights"? Everyone has the "right" to use whatever they're using? Why "rights", and not simply "free-for-all"? State or no state, humanity has repeatedly preferred (and, hence, flourished in) private property over free-for-all schemes.
Since you can not commit to an agreement to disagree, I'm done with you.
There seems to be an obsession with many left-lib types in playing the crystal ball game. It is very frustrasting. That said "libertarian socialist" isn't really an oxymoron, so far as I am concerned the word "libertarian" is socialist in origin. I think in Europe the word "libertarian" still referes mostly to socialists, where the word "liberal" may have a somewhat more market oriented bend.
I would be fine with abolishing the state tomorrow. Our disagreement is about property rights, not the state. As I mentioned, our ideas are not mutually exclusive, one city can be propertarian an the next be socialist. I think your system can't work, but that's not my concern if it's not forced on anyone. What I fear is that your type of anarchist simply wants to impose his system on everyone, since you seemed to suggest that.
Ok, it was someones fault. Every anarchist commune that failed had someone who's fault it is. That's the point. Humans mess it up. They are not angels who can get along and share. That's why all anarchist communes failed. The religious ones lasted the longest. That's why, in my opinion, socialists have largely given up on the voluntary path and simply try to impose it through the government.
A pure democracy would be ruled by a plurality. The individual is just as coerced by the decisions of a plurality as by a single ruler. It would be no less authoritarian than "factory fascism", where people are told what to do by a boss. So socialism would at the outset not be more voluntary than a propertarian system. Just that you like that kind of organization and don't perceive it to be authoritarian.
It is beautiful if people can get along and come up with stuff like rotating roles. But you just can't get the decisions done. People bicker over minor details and the decisions that get made are bad decisions. People have stupid ideas, you know. It wouldn't be lean and efficient like a propertarian system. The only way to introduce any efficiency into socialism is to centralize the decision-making and become authoritarian. As such socialism is a trade-off between poverty and authoritarianism. It would either be a mess of bickering or leaders emerge and it would be authoritarian.
If it is central planning on a smaller and therefore more manageable scale, it is decentralised planning (lol).
It is centralized planning in the sense that decisions are made by a planning board and not by systemic market forces throughout the economy. Call it local planning. Economically it would be like Russia just with smaller states, and less evil.
Capitalism still has planning systems in the hierarchical firm.
Yes, but at least that gets the job done. Also capitalism isn't actually hierarchical in the sense socialists are talking about. Capitalists have no power over workers.
You talk about "market signals" but there wouldn't be market interaction as such under a gift economy; most signals for labour would be obtained by requests for given goods or services in the community (demand) topped off by the supply of given goods and services by producers operating. That way, delegates and other people working for the community know whether or not to adjust the value of given goods or services in comparison of the relative signals for said goods or services; .
If the signal for demand is sent through requests, people don't ration themselves efficiently. They would simply ask for whatever they can get. Some planning board would have to decide who gets how much of what they requested. That's precisely how the Soviet economy worked... after 1924. Requests aren't objective markets signals, they don't communicate scarcity.
Again, syndicates would mostly be handling their own affairs so this saves some form of bureacratic planning board. If, for instance, they present business plans to participants taking an active role in the community they can decide on a supply of investment funds (in terms of labour vouchers) which they could coordinate the spending of themselves. If they crash its their problem. We could enhance the system either by having the producers submit their paperwork for the public eye or perhaps by sending inspectors around at random; this prevents them fixing accounts and so forth.
So it would be central planning on the level of factories. All the stuff I said above applies. Also there would only be economic cooperation on a very local scale. In in capitalism a factory in Britain might be closed because one in China is more efficient, there's no way to for workers councils to make that kind of determination. You can resort to capitalism to some degree, but the less you do the less efficient it is.
I don't deny there would be a calculation problem but when you think about it there is a calculation problem under any system.
Not really. There's only a calculation problem if humans try to rationally calculate economic activity.
To be honest, those arbitration agencies are a crazy anarchist theory too, so I'm leaving the realm of tested realities now. But the idea is that we each have a protection agency, and if you step on my foot my protection agency and your protection agency figure out what you owe me. If they can't agree, it just goes one level up to a higher arbitration agency. There are various objections, but the literature deals with that.
What Rothbard means is not that man has one objective ethical code. But actually the opposite, that each dispute would create it's own ethical code. As a whole the decisions would result in sort of a virtual ethical code that would be created by precedent, so you know what crimes you can't get away with. But it wouldn't be one code that doesn't change or would be the same everywhere.
I think you are wrong to assume that arbitration agencies would be biased towards the rich. They have an incentive to be trustworthy and fair. And there wouldn't a financial elite in the way there is in state capitalism. Socialists always think there is this inherent bias towards the rich in a propertarian system. And while that might be plausible it just doesn't hold true. Markets equalize standards of living.
I'll read it, and maybe comment on it. So far I can say that I think you got it exactly backwards. History has shown that propertarianism is the only environmentalism that has ever worked. Free markets always lead to an improvement in the environment. Pollution is a socialist problem.
You know, you can come up with all sorts of plausible schemes. But in the end what you're trying to do is to centrally plan the economy. Since it is precisely the unfair allocation of resources through pricing you want to avoid, you can't avoid the economic calculation problem. Actually you want to avoid economic calculation by design, that's the point of socialism, by necessity you can't avoid the problem. You can come up with theories on how to fix the problem, but theories don't always work. Of course if you were to say it's better to live in socialism to have lots of stuff, that argument can be made. I just don't want any part of it. And I thin it would be selfish, because your productivity would be lost to society.
What people? You, me, that guy? There's no collective us. Somebody has to have control over a resource or nothing gets done. What you are saying is with private property rights other people control the resources, so you can't.
This somehow went unnoticed so had to address it before I let you go...
EvilSocialistFellow:In essence, your argument is "I have a gun so get off my lawn" but mine is, "What makes it your lawn and not the people who grow crops and harvest them on "your" lawn?"
No, my argument is: Get off my lawn because I own it and you don't.
As for what makes it mine and "not the people who grow crops and harvest them" on it? Perhaps the fact that it was I who bought it, and not them. They voluntarily agreed to work on my property in return for a paycheck, and I voluntarily agreed to pay them for their work -- pay that they can use to buy a property of their own and work on it themselves or voluntarily hire others who also voluntarily would work there in return for a paycheck so they can buy a lawn of their own...
Most importantly, how are any of these voluntary human interactions any of your business since presumably you had neither bought my lawn nor done any work on it? Remember the two concepts about which you were completely clueless (Not-My Property and None-Of-My Business)?
If EvilSocialist can't agree to disagree and let our ideas coexist without government, then he's a statist pure and simple.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
EvilSocialistFellow:In essence, your argument is "I have a gun so get off my lawn" but mine is, "What makes it your lawn and not the people who grow crops and harvest them on "your" lawn?
It's mine because I have to bear the cost of not recieving the comfort of a regularly scheduled salary, unlike the workers who have voluntarily chosen to join me in contract and tend to my land. Those whom I agree to pay on a weekly schedule.
If my employers on the other hand choose to withold their regularly scheduled wages. I might be convinced, as a capitalist, to share in some of the interest(profit) once whatever investments we produce has matured. In that case the employer doesn't become owner, but he becomes a capitalist, and shares in all of the benefits of capital ownership. The employer would stop recieving a regularly scheduled wage, and he would have to wait untill the investment has matured to get paid, which could take months to a year.
Exploitation theory was exploded in the larte 19th century. It's a telling story that syndicalists, marxists, and various follows of socialism are not aware of by whom, and are not aware of how to even attempt a proper rebuttal.
EmperorNero:I would be fine with abolishing the state tomorrow. Our disagreement is about property rights, not the state. As I mentioned, our ideas are not mutually exclusive, one city can be propertarian an the next be socialist. I think your system can't work, but that's not my concern if it's not forced on anyone. What I fear is that your type of anarchist simply wants to impose his system on everyone, since you seemed to suggest that.
Actually, I think the proper measures need to be in place before the state gets abolished; syndicalism is a means by which the producers (or "those groups of individual producers") can educate themselves. Again though, our disagreement may be about property rights but what about those state-like structures protecting property rights called private protection agencies?
But I never described it as a democracy or plurality; participatory politics was the term. I imagine that (individual) citizens would voluntarily participate in councils and co-operate with the (individual) producers operating the syndicates to ensure everyone gets what they need.
This is true, to be fair; but I don't think it alone would cause the system to collapse - every system has its imperfections.
I think "state" is a funny word to use here.
I won't deal with the "capitalism" is a hierarchy because we both probably know how roundabout these discussions can become but what I mean is that the hierarchical structure of the capitalist firm along side market structures is what causes the externalities and subsequent distortion of the price mechanism (which you say you will deal with in my blog post) and distorts. I mean by hierarchy its normative sense that capitalists and entrepeneurs have positions of authority and that authority is power concentrated into the hands by the consent of the governed. This can lead to further discussion, of course but again, semantics.
By requests, I mean specific levels of consumption which can be objectively calculated by syndicates who include that in part of a "business plan" (don't like that word when dealing with communism) when they request investment funds (or that word) from the community bank (or that word); but the community bank can actually quite easily provide this information to syndicates simply by displaying the number of transactions made for specific goods and services, perhaps openly displaying the information on a web page or so forth. In fact, under current society it is not always easy for businesses to get hold of these statistics.
To the bold - I don't see why; with individual units like syndicates managing their own affairs but effectively coordinated through a bank of the exchange and a system of labour vouchers, it would be far easier for them to calculate their goods and services. As far as international coordination goes, I will have to put my hands up and say I don't know, for now ;).
To be honest, those arbitration agencies are a crazy anarchist theory too, so I'm leaving the realm of tested realities now.
So, umm, do you not necessarily believe in the idea then?
But the idea is that we each have a protection agency, and if you step on my foot my protection agency and your protection agency figure out what you owe me. If they can't agree, it just goes one level up to a higher arbitration agency. There are various objections, but the literature deals with that. What Rothbard means is not that man has one objective ethical code. But actually the opposite, that each dispute would create it's own ethical code. As a whole the decisions would result in sort of a virtual ethical code that would be created by precedent, so you know what crimes you can't get away with. But it wouldn't be one code that doesn't change or would be the same everywhere. I think you are wrong to assume that arbitration agencies would be biased towards the rich. They have an incentive to be trustworthy and fair. And there wouldn't a financial elite in the way there is in state capitalism. Socialists always think there is this inherent bias towards the rich in a propertarian system. And while that might be plausible it just doesn't hold true. Markets equalize standards of living.
I will need to look more into the specific details of private law courts before I comment further but I still find it hard to believe that they can remain objective in the face of supply and demand, that is the customers with the largest wallet plus the issues of more money = better lawyers = better representation, even assuming courts can stay neutral in the face of customers with more money.
Cool, let me know.
What people? You, me, that guy? There's no collective us. Somebody has to have control over a resource or nothing gets done.
Epicurus our conversation is getting drawn out and far too long. I've pointed out that your entire argument rests on a series of logical fallacies. Primarily, appeals to tradition, fallacy of composition, and a series of rather disjointed non-sequiturs. Even after pointing them out you pretend that I ahve not, and just continue repeating yourself. So it's not realy worth my time and energy continuing a discussion with you. I won't entertain the idea that an argument built on fallacy is one that needs refutation. If pointing out that it's a fallacy is not enough, nothing else ever will. It becomes a nonesensical and/or a dishonest debate.
Your second post to me was just a regurgitation of the first. There is no need for you to repeat yourself. Especially when your posts are getting upwards to 300-500 words long. It becomes extremely tedious to respond.
I've already pointed out the flaws in your reasoning so here is my TLDR response.
Can you create a reasonable argument against Voluntary Exchange(Since you've agreed to that term) that:
1. Does not appeal to Tradition
2. Is not a fallacy of composition
3. Is deduced correctly, IE things follow accordingly(No non-sequiturs)
4. Does not commit any logical fallacy whatsoever.
Secondly How do you differentiate between
State Capitalism(Fascism)
And simply Capitalism
Perhaps you don't. But be honest with people here about you not making a distinction. I also do not differentiate between State
Finally did you read that link I sent you from Human Action? History does NOT tell you any more about today's reality then anything else. You keep asserting that we must use history to get a realistic idea of reality, but thats a fallacy. History does not tell us about reality, instead history tells us about a specific historic event, that is all. It cannot suggest the same state of affairs will repeat into the future.
Finally I will end with this. Earlier you were critiquing everyone acusing them of using a "Loaded Question". It was rather clear that you didn't know what one was. SO I am going to give you an example.
Epicurus:Do you have any evidence that the most powerful businesses are the one's with the highest consumer satisfaction? Or did you just make it up in theory? This is what I'm talking about.. it's more than just a semantical argument. It's the whole nature of the way you develop your theories.
THis question assumes that the most powerful business's are capitalistic entities, and not fascistic ones. Consider the following
None of these institutions meet the criteria of being called capitalistic, as far as our understanding on this website is concerned.
Your asking for evidecne how a business gains purchasing power. I asked you on 3 seperate occasions. Who gives business's(Outside of crooked fascistic companies) purchasing power. Who gave STeve Jobs his purchasing power? Who gave Apple it's purchasing power? Could apple have recieved that purchasing power if it sold hunks of garbage medal instead?
So far you've succesfully ignored these questions, among others.
One other point, since you repeated it several times.
A few more points
Epicurus:The problem I have w capitalism is in the establishemnt of absolutes in property laws, and the system being weighted in favor of investors.
You've said this several times now. I have said this before. I do not understand what you mean by "Absolute Property Laws". I have also already answered you once that such laws will be established dynamically on the market.
Furthermore I feel as if I am being strawmanned, as you haven't explained to any of us here what you mean by "Absolute Property Rights". At a glace it doesn't sound like it would pass as acceptance here any ways.
Honestly Epicurus it really does feel like your arguing to us over concepts that many of us don't agree with any ways. If you could just get past the semantics of it all, you might find that you agree with a vast majority of people here.
Epicurus:Actually, you do. Not on the street (that would be just giving things away lol). But they do sit around, for years until they are eventually sent back to the company and destroyed or donated to some charity or school. It is estimated that some 40% grocery store waste is products thrown away because they are cutting into profitability (perfectly good apples that started browning), regardless of how many people are starving right outside the door.
Your critiqueing consumer preference, as a flaw of Capitalism now? People don't want brown apples. This isn't a sign of waste, but a sign of a level of abundance. It cannot be called wasted if people did not want to employ those apples in the first place. It's no more waste then discarded rocks on the ground at this point. IT's only wasteful if those apples would have been consumed by individuals in the market.
Stores don't discard a vendible good. Grocer's cannot sell brown apples. Consumers know that they can just go to the store across the street, and at the same price, get fresh apples.
So to call it wasted, who were the apples wasted for? Or did you have in mind that we should force consumers to consume these brown apples?
Epicurus:I'm not talking about state capitalism (I'm glad you recognize that CAN exist).
This is an odd statement, that leads me to beieve your confused. State capitalism Does exist. Right now. We're living in it. Where on earth did you get the idea that we pretend it doesn't exist?
Again, I would not be hostile to someone starting up a capitalist commune under socialism; I just don't personally think it would survive very long in isolation.
The key difference here between libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism is that libsocs want to remove all structures defending property; ancaps don't.
Based on that, its up to you whether you want to call me a statist or not but again, we'd be playing the semantics game.
EvilSocialistFellow: Again, simplicity, am I supposed to talk about specific individuals every time I mention more than one person in the plural sense? Lol.
yes. It's called methodological individualism. veering away from this is to hypothesize over a state of affairs thats not based on reality.
EvilSocialistFellow: syndicalism is a means by which the producers
Syndaclism entirely revolves around "Exploitation theorry". Which was exploded in the late 19th century. It fails not just because it doesn't comprehend economic calculation, it fails because the very concept of labor exploitation was wrong to begin with.
The only way you can solve economic calculation, is by making a note of every individuals personal desires, at every second, of every day, at all times. You have to be in this sense, omniscient. Since thats impossible, we observe these individual preferences when participation occurs in the market.
All you've stated here EvilSocialist, is a system that attempts to mimic money. Just like all socialists of the past who admited that EConomic Calculation was a problem, all they ever did was try to mimic a system of money. And thats exactly what your doing. ;p
EvilSocialist:Again, I would not be hostile to someone starting up a capitalist commune under socialism; I just don't personally think it would survive very long in isolation.
To deny that capitalism could not survive very long, is to deny that a farmer could not tend his land and feed himself for very long. IT's not something you can deny.
If you accept that a farmer is likely capable of caring for himself in isolation, then it's reasonable to assume that he might have a neighbor. It's also reasonable that those two individuals might decide to exchange with each other. If thats the case, capitalism is born.
Worse, for you, is when other people, who are attracted by this state of affairs, builds their farms next to these farmers. Further expanding the division of labor, fostering a more complex environment of exchange. Perhaps people of other trade will also come to trade with the farmers, like blacksmiths, tailorers, ect.....
Capitalism is deduced logically from a single man. Pretending that it couldn't last is to deny it's creation in the first place.
Are you familiar with Praxeology EvilSocialist?
EvilSocialistFellow:The key difference here between libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism is that libsocs want to remove all structures defending property; ancaps don't.
OK so you've eliminated the state, but there's still this guy with a gun who claims his house is his property. But you want to use his house. So you fight it out, or what? See this is kind of ridiculous. Without a state, customary law prevails. If local customs support property, you probably won't win the fight. If local customs reject property, you probably will win the fight. The question then becomes which localities will be successful, and which will result in mass starvation. That is where a debate - about crystal balls - can start (though a look at history seems to end that debate pretty quickly).
Why anarchy fails
Epicurus: Do you have any evidence that the most powerful businesses are the one's with the highest consumer satisfaction? Or did you just make it up in theory? This is what I'm talking about.. it's more than just a semantical argument. It's the whole nature of the way you develop your theories.
Epicurus: The problem I have w capitalism is in the establishemnt of absolutes in property laws, and the system being weighted in favor of investors.
Epicurus: Actually, you do. Not on the street (that would be just giving things away lol). But they do sit around, for years until they are eventually sent back to the company and destroyed or donated to some charity or school. It is estimated that some 40% grocery store waste is products thrown away because they are cutting into profitability (perfectly good apples that started browning), regardless of how many people are starving right outside the door.
Epicurus: I'm not talking about state capitalism (I'm glad you recognize that CAN exist).
You'r wasting your breath, the best thing to do is argue with mr1001nights youtube user lol.
filc:yes. It's called methodological individualism. veering away from this is to hypothesize over a state of affairs thats not based on reality.
What I mean is that I only refer to collectives for the sake of simplicity but I will look more into this methodological individualism to see if there is something I'm missing here.
Syndicalism is only a form of trade unionism which is why I described it as I method for workers to educate themselves.
The only way you can solve economic calculation, is by making a note of every individuals personal desires, at every second, of every day, at all times. You have to be in this sense, omniscient. Since thats impossible, we observe these individual preferences when participation occurs in the market. All you've stated here EvilSocialist, is a system that attempts to mimic money. Just like all socialists of the past who admited that EConomic Calculation was a problem, all they ever did was try to mimic a system of money. And thats exactly what your doing. ;p
I've said enough on calculation so I'm going to wrap it up here but points raised on this thread were interesting.
OK so you've eliminated the state, but there's still this guy with a gun who claims his house is his property. But you want to use his house. So you fight it out, or what? See this is kind of ridiculous.
But his house counts as personal property; again individual producers don't have a claim to property without it being enhanced in some way by their labour.
Without a state, customary law prevails. If local customs support property, you probably won't win the fight. If local customs reject property, you probably will win the fight. The question then becomes which localities will be successful, and which will result in mass starvation. That is where a debate - about crystal balls - can start (though a look at history seems to end that debate pretty quickly).
I don't disagree with any of this but the point of anarchism is to change the way individuals view property.
The point of anarchism is statelessness. It's in the damn word.
I'm going to start here to point out the ridiculous of your use of "capitalism." The way you define capitalism "state capitalism" would be a contriction in terms. How can something be both coercion and voluntary exchange? To define capitalism AS voluntary exchange not only do you take it out of its historical context, this also leads to it's not being used in any recognizable sense, while staying consistent.
This is the heart of the issue. The question is loaded. You are saying; "What is your problem with capitalism (and by that I mean voluntary exchange)." So, you come up with your own, unrecognizable nor useable definition of capitlaism, and then try to trap me in a corner by being against nature.... loaded question.
I am asking you to recognize that voluntary exchange is a poor definition of capitalism, as their are more structures at work that differentiate capitalism from other economic and political systems.
Which means that, no. I may be able to, but I would not want to. What would my argument be? "Even if someone offers you something for free you should beat them up and take it!" Once again, you have loaded your question with a false assumption that voluntary exchange is equal to capitalism.
Your asking for evidecne how a business gains purchasing power. I asked you on 3 seperate occasions. Who gives business's(Outside of crooked fascistic companies) purchasing power. Who gave STeve Jobs his purchasing power? Who gave Apple it's purchasing power? Could apple have recieved that purchasing power if it sold hunks of garbage medal instead? So far you've succesfully ignored these questions, among others.
Actually no. I have answered it every time. I have even pointed out that i answered it and you failed to notice it. Yet you failed to notice it again...
Investors and consumers (but investors first. If the consumers dont come the business goes under. But it is investors first. The market is only guided by the consumer second) give Apple its purchasing power.
Actually, no, Once again, you failed to notice that I did indeed point out that it in fact WAS a loaded question, and the point was conceded to me (by a mod, no less ). I implore you to relinquish your selection bias.
Actually, no. You have failed to notice that I indeed did define "absolute property laws as required under the capitalist system" multiple times. Generally as "this is mine, and not yours." But more specifically as the establishment as the homesteader as the ultimate decision maker regarding said "property." Do you deny this is a central tenet of capitalism? I have asked this many times, you have not yet answered it.
Your critiqueing consumer preference, as a flaw of Capitalism now? People don't want brown apples.
Not exactly. I'm critiqueing consumer preference under capitalism. The correct thing to say, in the capitalist system, would be "people with the money to pay don't want brown apples." Businesses aren't exactly placating consumer preference. They are placating the consumer preference of the monied interests.
(May I just point out a side note, because I think it is important and fits here, that most intellectual socialists aren't out to get specific rich people, and aspire to be well-off themselves [I'll say nothing for the riff raff of socialists tho, many of them don't like richies at all lol]. We are against the power structures that create such conditions. I actually have watched Bill Gates give many speeches on technology, but also on capitlaism and he is a good and respectable fellow.)
This isn't a sign of waste, but a sign of a level of abundance. It cannot be called wasted if people did not want to employ those apples in the first place. It's no more waste then discarded rocks on the ground at this point. IT's only wasteful if those apples would have been consumed by individuals in the market.
I actually agree with this. It is only wasteful if those apples would have been consumed by individuals.... And there were individuals who wanted those apples. But once again, the business had to placate the interests of it's investors, which means it responds to the consumer demands of the monied interests.
I agree. The bolded parts are the most important.
Finally did you read that link I sent you from Human Action? History does NOT tell you any more about today's reality then anything else. You keep asserting that we must use history to get a realistic idea of reality, but thats a fallacy. History does not tell us about reality, instead history tells us about a specific historic event, that is all. It cannot suggest the same state of affairs will repeat into the future
I think the advocates of praxeology have pointed out some good things not noticed. But I also feel it is based on some pretty meta-physical assumptions and I hold it as suspect. I especially hold it suspect when i see (and have seen this many times) people say "even if the evidence contradicts it, it cannot disprove praxeology."
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
EvilSocialist:Syndicalism is only a form of trade unionism which is why I described it as I method for workers to educate themselves.
What do you mean by trade unionism?
How do you trade absent any concept of practicing possessive control(some varient of property).
Trade Unionism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union
Syndicalism: revolutionary form of trade unionism that functions like a workers' enterprise.
@Epicurus
All your arguments are simply a play with words. You never offer any concrete answers. You dodge a lot of questions and answer those you wish to answer in a very vague manner.
You're probably going to screem "ad hominem" again, since that's the way you answer most of the time.
All you do is make conversation on your terms and then like a hypocrite you accuse others of doing the same. At some point you even made a racist remark, when I asked you what it meant you yet again offered a vague answer.
Most of your arguments are rooted in your interpretation of history and you fail to even grasp what capitalism is. You yet again, define capitalism on your own terms and choose to continue arguing with wonderfull rhetoric.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&q=define:capitalism&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/93927/capitalism?source=googleSL
They are pretty well known definitions of capitalism. Semantics CAN be important, you know.
There you go again. Not sure whether you are dishonest or jsut plain delusional.
Remember the two concepts about which you were completely clueless (Not-My Property and None-Of-My Business)?
Just to address this point; I didn't (and still don't) know what you were going on because it makes no grammatical sense, not because I don't know not to keep my effing nose out of other people's affairs. Having said that, it would be down to people to seize property themselves; I don't care if they *want* to be wage labourers. I'm just stating that it would be a legitimate act to claim property they work on. All I can guess is that you are referring to some book I haven't read so "Not-My Property" and "None-Of-My Business" whatever the hell that means. The statements would make more sense if you took out the hyphens but I am otherwise lead to believe they mean something else more specific.
filc:To deny that capitalism could not survive very long, is to deny that a farmer could not tend his land and feed himself for very long. IT's not something you can deny. If you accept that a farmer is likely capable of caring for himself in isolation, then it's reasonable to assume that he might have a neighbor. It's also reasonable that those two individuals might decide to exchange with each other. If thats the case, capitalism is born. Worse, for you, is when other people, who are attracted by this state of affairs, builds their farms next to these farmers. Further expanding the division of labor, fostering a more complex environment of exchange. Perhaps people of other trade will also come to trade with the farmers, like blacksmiths, tailorers, ect..... Capitalism is deduced logically from a single man. Pretending that it couldn't last is to deny it's creation in the first place.
You are essentially arguing that capitalism is a system of voluntaryism and free exchange rather than a market based economic system based on private property where private entities are largely responsible for important economic decisions based upon market signals and so forth; the latter definition explains why it is possible to have a fairly despotic system of state capitalism. I don't think that the act of the farmer combining his labour with land equates to capitalism or any other economic system, though economists do like to bring up the Robinson Crusoe scenario quite a lot, it means no specific economic system.
Not very, admittedly.