This is my honest question to all left anarchists crossing mises.org. I hope you find the time to read and help me in my search for answers.
There is a society with people only fishing with bare hands. Everyone on his own. They need the whole day to catch enough (3 fish) to live. One man, Hank, has an idea of a net, but to be able to produce his net, he needs to restrict his consumption or work longer (sleep less) to be able to save up, to get enough free time for developing the idea, and test the idea. Lets make it short. He manages it after tough long and hungry time. The net three folds his catch and lasts a month before it’s worn out. Now with 2/3 of the day free he has enough time to take care about other needs and some leisure time. Now another man, Joe, sees this and tells him he wants a better life too. Hank tells Joe, he needs 2 full days for a net, during which he could catch 18 fish, and with the net Joe can catch 180 more fish than with bare hands over the whole month the net lasts. So what are their possibilities, if physical force is clearly excluded: 1: Since Joe will need to go hungry as well while he is saving up, he tells Hank he is not willing to save more than 2 months a fish a day, which makes 60 fish. Hank laughs and tells him he needed half a year until his first net was ready and worked, but he agrees. After Joe had to go hungry to purchase the net, he can use the newly purchased net to save up easily enough for the next net without going hungry again. Hank receives a nice surplus. -> Both are clearly better off after the trade. -> Although I guess this is the most acceptable option for left anarchists, there is still a problem. Hank makes a huge profit. He has no cost for the material of the net, only working time. And his two days working time only would yield him 18 fish, but now he gets 60! for 2 days work. According to the anarchist FAQ, every real (left) anarchist opposes profit! Hence not an option for real anarchists
2: Joe studies how he could avoid to go hungry for months, and has an idea! He asks Hank if Hank wants to employ him. Joe could catch fish the whole day with Hanks net, while he gives 5 to Hank and takes 4 as wage. Hank thinks it’s great, now he doesn't need to fish and can enjoy life. He only needs to build two nets the next 2 months. Joe can save up for two months a fish day without having to go hungry, and can pay Hank the 60 fish for a net. -> Both are even better off compared to scenario #1. Joe doesn't need to go hungry for saving for his first net, and Hank has no fishing to do for 2 months. -> Now Hank doesn't only make a profit, he even employs/exploits Joe (Please note that it doesn't matter who gets this idea, since both profit!) with wage labor and a profit. Clearly not acceptable for real anarchists.
3: Joe has a different idea, for not having to go hungry for two months upfront. He asks Hank if he could borrow him the net. This way he could save up much faster, and pay him earlier the 60 fish. Hank doesn’t like the idea, and wants an instant quit pro quo. Joe therefore offers to pay a fish extra per day as interest as long as the loan isn’t paid back fully. The loan stretched over a month Hank would receive 90 fish, still leaving 180 for Joe. Hank agrees. -> Both are again very well off. Joe has not to go hungry a single day and even has some extra fish, and Hank receives even more fish for the same net. -> Again an absolute No-No for the left anarchist. Profit and interest on a means of production->pure exploitation.
So what is the left-anarchist-correct and realistic way to solve this situation?
What about the "Calculation Problem"? There is no mechanism of collective decision making that can accurately set prices.
skylien: There is a society with people only fishing with bare hands. Everyone on his own. They need the whole day to catch enough (3 fish) to live. One man, Hank, has an idea of a net, but to be able to produce his net, he needs to restrict his consumption or work longer (sleep less) to be able to save up, to get enough free time for developing the idea, and test the idea. Lets make it short. He manages it after tough long and hungry time. The net three folds his catch and lasts a month before it’s worn out. Now with 2/3 of the day free he has enough time to take care about other needs and some leisure time. Now another man, Joe, sees this and tells him he wants a better life too. Hank tells Joe, he needs 2 full days for a net, during which he could catch 18 fish, and with the net Joe can catch 180 more fish than with bare hands over the whole month the net lasts. So what are their possibilities, if physical force is clearly excluded: So what is the left-anarchist-correct and realistic way to solve this situation?
There is a society with people only fishing with bare hands. Everyone on his own. They need the whole day to catch enough (3 fish) to live. One man, Hank, has an idea of a net, but to be able to produce his net, he needs to restrict his consumption or work longer (sleep less) to be able to save up, to get enough free time for developing the idea, and test the idea. Lets make it short. He manages it after tough long and hungry time. The net three folds his catch and lasts a month before it’s worn out. Now with 2/3 of the day free he has enough time to take care about other needs and some leisure time. Now another man, Joe, sees this and tells him he wants a better life too. Hank tells Joe, he needs 2 full days for a net, during which he could catch 18 fish, and with the net Joe can catch 180 more fish than with bare hands over the whole month the net lasts. So what are their possibilities, if physical force is clearly excluded:
So one net, with the capability of catching 9 fish a day, can sustain three people. That means that one guy can go use the net, and Hank can make another net whilst teaching the third guy as well - learning through experience. This means at the end of the procedure, they were no worse of for fish, and now have two net makers and another net. You see where this is going? If this trend carries on, then as the rate of people who know how to make the net increases, so does the number of nets made. This would then lead to exponential growth of the number of fish caught. Problem Solved. There is no need to make it more complicated through contracts and wages.
And no prices means there is no way to calculate profitable means of creating or providing something. Any process would be arbitrary and might cause capital consumption.
Chris_Bacon:So one net, with the capability of catching 9 fish a day, can sustain three people. That means that one guy can go use the net, and Hank can make another net whilst teaching the third guy as well - learning through experience. This means at the end of the procedure, they were no worse of for fish, and now have two net makers and another net. You see where this is going? If this trend carries on, then as the rate of people who know how to make the net increases, so does the number of nets made. This would then lead to exponential growth of the number of fish caught. Problem Solved. There is no need to make it more complicated through contracts and wages.
I daresay you're thinking about this situation from an inaccurate point of view, namely you're thinking about it in terms of "how to maximize the number of fish caught". Why would anyone in the situation be thinking about that? What's in it for them?
To that end, what's in it for Hank to do any/all of those three things: give his net to someone else to use, make another net, and teach a third guy how to use the net (how can he do that if he doesn't have a net)?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Chris_Bacon:So one net, with the capability of catching 9 fish a day, can sustain three people. That means that one guy can go use the net, and Hank can make another net whilst teaching the third guy as well - learning through experience. This means at the end of the procedure, they were no worse of for fish, and now have two net makers and another net. You see where this is going?
I said realistic way. You are assuming that Hank is some kind of angel, not a human. He and also all the others act as they want to act as human beings not as you think they should act. By the way if he really would be like that, then he would work his whole life building nets, teaching people, but never had even one additional fish a day (Its a big society of course), because every additional fish would be used to sustain people on the minimum level to increase the capital stock (nets). EDIT: He would not be better off compared to the situation before he invented the net.
giant Joe:What about the "Calculation Problem"? There is no mechanism of collective decision making that can accurately set prices. And no prices means there is no way to calculate profitable means of creating or providing something. Any process would be arbitrary and might cause capital consumption.
I think the calculation problem is one of the more complex ones to discuss. Why deal with complex problems first if there are more obvious, fundamental and easier to nail down problems to discuss?
I have done all the calculations. Comrade, tonight we eat fish.
I think that in this simple situation, the response is what would happen. Sure, the guy isn't an angel, but he'd probably be better off if the other people knew how to get fish. I know I would do it.
The situation isn't black and white to me.
So I just extend it to include more people and more goods and bring up the calculation problem. We can come up with solutions for simple scenarios, but complex ones involve too many unknowns. At that point, simple solutions are impossible.
skylien:I said realistic way. You are assuming that Hank is some kind of angel, not a human. He and also all the others act as they want to act as human beings not as you think they should act. By the way if he really would be like that, then he would work his whole life building nets, teaching people, but never had even one additional fish a day (Its a big society of course), because every additional fish would be used to sustain people on the minimum level to increase the capital stock (nets). EDIT: He would not be better off compared to the situation before he invented the net.
And as a human he would have an interest in the survival and well-being of those around him - I'm assuming this is a pre-capitalistic society. If we look at societies that function in a similiar way, take an amazonian tribe, or the native Indian's before the europian colonisation of America became, then we see that they were run in a similiar way to what I am suggesting the best course would be for Hank to take.
If you are living in the conditions you are proposing for Hank, then one of the last things on your mind will be how you can maximise personal profit. And the idea that he has to teach net making his whole life is simply nonsense. If he has taught other people, then surely they can take over and teach more people.
@Autolykos
'I daresay you're thinking about this situation from an inaccurate point of view, namely you're thinking about it in terms of "how to maximize the number of fish caught". Why would anyone in the situation be thinking about that? What's in it for them?'
You need to stop applying what you see now, to what you think would occur in the state of nature. The preservation of Hanks community would be top of his concerns, and with that he would teach other people. Without fish (food), you die - that is why Hank would be interested in trying to increase the number of fish caught. Even in a capitalist society, people aren't completely concerned with themselves - although capitalists often give that impression. I'm sure your parents didn't ask what profit they can make from having you.
And there is everything in it for Hank to teach other people, because if he dies, he takes his secret with him; if that happens, his children will be back to using their hands. Also, if he teaches others then the whole community will honour him, he will become somewhat of a celebrity. And another thing, if he teaches other people, then they can take over from him.
Giant_Joe:I think that in this simple situation, the response is what would happen. Sure, the guy isn't an angel, but he'd probably be better off if the other people knew how to get fish. I know I would do it. The situation isn't black and white to me. So I just extend it to include more people and more goods and bring up the calculation problem. We can come up with solutions for simple scenarios, but complex ones involve too many unknowns. At that point, simple solutions are impossible.
I never said it is only about 2 or 3 people. There can be millions or more. It is also not restricted to a one good economy. Fish merely satisfies the most important need to survive til the next day. Hank has other needs to satisfy than working full time only teaching thousands how to build a net, and still only has 3 fish to eat per day.
You are right it is not black and white. Maybe Hank had already build some nets for free for some friends, because he liked them, and also likes a bit to be "The Giver". But Joe came along with a bunch of other people asking for a better life too. At a certain point you can bet Hanks altruism he might have had is sucked dry. But since this doesn't affect the underlying problem for left anarchists, I thought I better keep it short and focused.
My point is that left anarchism has no problem with a calculation problem, because they would never get that far to notice that, if they truly stay anarchistists. Nobody would produce means of production for others in the first place if you are not "allowed" to ask for a price you want. And means of production are a precondition to be able to enjoy the extravagance of a calculation problem.
Chris_Bacon:@Autolykos 'I daresay you're thinking about this situation from an inaccurate point of view, namely you're thinking about it in terms of "how to maximize the number of fish caught". Why would anyone in the situation be thinking about that? What's in it for them?' You need to stop applying what you see now, to what you think would occur in the state of nature. The preservation of Hanks community would be top of his concerns, and with that he would teach other people. Without fish (food), you die - that is why Hank would be interested in trying to increase the number of fish caught.
You need to stop applying what you see now, to what you think would occur in the state of nature. The preservation of Hanks community would be top of his concerns, and with that he would teach other people. Without fish (food), you die - that is why Hank would be interested in trying to increase the number of fish caught.
See, the funny thing is, I think I am thinking about what would occur in the state of nature. What makes you think that "the preservation of Hank's 'community'" would top his concerns?
Chris_Bacon:Even in a capitalist society, people aren't completely concerned with themselves - although capitalists often give that impression. I'm sure your parents didn't ask what profit they can make from having you.
Oh but people are completely concerned with themselves at all times - even when they're concerned with others. Defining "profit" as "attaining a more desirable state of affairs" (that is, taking away the narrow finance-only view of "profit"), my parents certainly did consider what profit they could "make" from having me!
Chris_Bacon:And there is everything in it for Hank to teach other people, because if he dies, he takes his secret with him; if that happens, his children will be back to using their hands. Also, if he teaches others then the whole community will honour him, he will become somewhat of a celebrity. And another thing, if he teaches other people, then they can take over from him.
Strictly speaking, his children would only be back to using their hands once the net falls apart. (Note: this is a basic example of capital consumption.) However, your answers to the question "What's in it for Hank?" are perfectly legitimate and could well apply. In other words, my asking "What's in it for Hank?" wasn't rhetorical - I really wanted to know how you thought he could benefit from doing what you described.
On the other hand, there's no guarantee that Hank will value the psychic benefits of helping his children or being honored by "the whole community" over the material benefits of people renting his net, paying him to make them nets, or selling their labor to him to use his net while he builds more.
If you disallow initiation of force against Hank, or threat of it, as not correct;
and peaceful trade as not "left";
then I suspect the next realistic candidate is using ostracism/boycotte.
On the other hand, boycotte can be seen as just a threat of not extending social services (such as greating/chatting) towards Hank if he refuses to provide his services in exchange - basically, this is again a normal peaceful trade, so not "left". Hmm...
Chris_Bacon:And as a human he would have an interest in the survival and well-being of those around him - I'm assuming this is a pre-capitalistic society. If we look at societies that function in a similiar way, take an amazonian tribe, or the native Indian's before the europian colonisation of America became, then we see that they were run in a similiar way to what I am suggesting the best course would be for Hank to take.
See the bold sentence? This is your problem; you are suggesting/telling Hank what he should do! I am only asking what Hank can do! You need to realize that you are not able to suggest/tell what people should do. They do what they do, basta. Especially since you are an anarchist who asks for freedom from authority, you should know better, shouldn't you? And we only can analyze which effects Hanks and Joes actions have. Hank or Joe could be murderers, but I excluded this because we both agree that's bad and for sure does not lead to a wealthier society.
The reason I (have to) take a pre-capitalistic society is, that only then we can guaranty there is no historical negative impact of private ownership of means of productions. The net was only invented as first means of production ever, and we can investigate how it affects society.
Chris_Bacon:If you are living in the conditions you are proposing for Hank, then one of the last things on your mind will be how you can maximise personal profit. And the idea that he has to teach net making his whole life is simply nonsense. If he has taught other people, then surely they can take over and teach more people.
That’s wrong. I have clearly written everyone is on his own! Not in a tribe! In the conditions I have proposed it would be nonsense to belief, that after Hank made his invention he would run through the woods shouting:“HELLO! SOMEONES OUT THERE AND WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW TO BUILD A NET FOR FREE ?? PLEASE LET ME SHOW YOU!”.
But I have no problem to alter the situation for you and I elaborate a bit further. Say people are not on their own, and everyone is within his tribe (without a chief of course). So Hank is within a tribe which has a strong togetherness. (like a family, a camping trip of friends who share food and beer, or room mates etc.. And that's absolutely nothing I am objecting). It is realistic to say that since they share everything, Hank would also share his new invention with everyone, exactly as you suggested, within his tribe. So the living standard of the tribe made an incredible rise. Now Joe comes along. He is from a different tribe. Unfortunately those tribes don’t like each other. He sees their wealth and asks Hank for a net. Hank and the rest of the tribe are not interested in passing their invention for free, which is a realistic assumption. What do you do now? Wouldn’t the 3 examples above be perfect to arrange a mutual beneficial relationship? Which in the long run might even result in friendship among the tribes?
As I said above I am only analyzing what people can do. We both agree force and violence are clearly wrong. Contrary to me you are also thinking my 3 examples are wrong too. Can you show me and explain me how they affect Joe negatively (After every arrangement he is better off than before!)? And why left anarchists think, in an environment without government nobody would act that way?
Andris Birkmanis:If you disallow initiation of force against Hank, or threat of it, as not correct; and peaceful trade as not "left"; then I suspect the next realistic candidate is using ostracism/boycotte. On the other hand, boycotte can be seen as just a threat of not extending social services (such as greating/chatting) towards Hank if he refuses to provide his services in exchange - basically, this is again a normal peaceful trade, so not "left". Hmm...
Peaceful trade which involves profit, interest or wage, are not "left" because the Left says so: "All anarchists view profit, interest and rent as usury (i.e. as exploitation) and so oppose them and the conditions that create them just as much as they oppose government and the State."
"This perspective can best be found in the work of Proudhon's (who inspired both Tucker and Bakunin) where he argues that anarchism would see "[c]apitalistic and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere [and] the wage system abolished..."
If everyone is on his own boycotte/ostracism doesn't really hurt anyone.
skylien: See the bold sentence? This is your problem; you are suggesting/telling Hank what he should do! I am only asking what Hank can do! You need to realize that you are not able to suggest/tell what people should do. They do what they do, basta. Especially since you are an anarchist who asks for freedom from authority, you should know better, shouldn't you? And we only can analyze which effects Hanks and Joes actions have. Hank or Joe could be murderers, but I excluded this because we both agree that's bad and for sure does not lead to a wealthier society.
There is a difference between suggesting and commanding.
skylien:That’s wrong. I have clearly written everyone is on his own! Not in a tribe! In the conditions I have proposed it would be nonsense to belief, that after Hank made his invention he would run through the woods shouting:“HELLO! SOMEONES OUT THERE AND WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW TO BUILD A NET FOR FREE ?? PLEASE LET ME SHOW YOU!”.
Sorry, I assumed everyone would be living together, to increase the chances of survival. And when you wrote that, 'everyone was on his own', I thought you meant that everyone was economically on their own.
skylien:But I have no problem to alter the situation for you and I elaborate a bit further. Say people are not on their own, and everyone is within his tribe (without a chief of course). So Hank is within a tribe which has a strong togetherness. (like a family, a camping trip of friends who share food and beer, or room mates etc.. And that's absolutely nothing I am objecting). It is realistic to say that since they share everything, Hank would also share his new invention with everyone, exactly as you suggested, within his tribe. So the living standard of the tribe made an incredible rise. Now Joe comes along. He is from a different tribe. Unfortunately those tribes don’t like each other. He sees their wealth and asks Hank for a net. Hank and the rest of the tribe are not interested in passing their invention for free, which is a realistic assumption. What do you do now? Wouldn’t the 3 examples above be perfect to arrange a mutual beneficial relationship? Which in the long run might even result in friendship among the tribes?
I think the most beneficial thing, in this case, for both societies to do, would be to employ a form of mutualism. If both societies were genuinely interested in bettering themselves, and somehow they could get past their mistrust and dislike of each other, then the best thing would be to work together. The central theme of anarcho-syndicalism is the bettering of humanity, not just some tribes or some individuals. Obviously, whether in a pre-industrial society this would work, is another matter. But i'm not arguing for that. I'm arguing that in today's world anarcho-syndicalism would be the better choice.
skylien:As I said above I am only analyzing what people can do. We both agree force and violence are clearly wrong. Contrary to me you are also thinking my 3 examples are wrong too. Can you show me and explain me how they affect Joe negatively (After every arrangement he is better off than before!)? And why left anarchists think, in an environment without government nobody would act that way?
They may not necessarily be negative for Joe, but capitalism isn't bad for everyone - that's why there are a few who still like it.
Chris_Bacon:There is a difference between suggesting and commanding.
Yes of course, but you have an urge to getting people on the "right" track, because you think you know better than the people their self. This is the essence that leads your critiques to expressing their fear that in left anarchism are the seeds for totalitarianism, which might break lose if people don't do what is "suggested", because left anarchists need to self-defend from exploitation and know better any way.
Chris_Bacon:Sorry, I assumed everyone would be living together, to increase the chances of survival. And when you wrote that, 'everyone was on his own', I thought you meant that everyone was economically on their own.
No worries. Not unusual to have misunderstandings among debaters of opposing ideas
Chris_Bacon:I think the most beneficial thing, in this case, for both societies to do, would be to employ a form of mutualism. If both societies were genuinely interested in bettering themselves, and somehow they could get past their mistrust and dislike of each other, then the best thing would be to work together. The central theme of anarcho-syndicalism is the bettering of humanity, not just some tribes or some individuals. Obviously, whether in a pre-industrial society this would work, is another matter. But I’m not arguing for that. I'm arguing that in today's world anarcho-syndicalism would be the better choice.
The nice thing about the other solutions is, that they can do first business, and through business they learn to overcome mistrust again.. Free Trade connects. What is the proof that in modern age syndicalism is good, while when industrialization starts it is not good? How do you proof it for the modern age? Doesn't it annoy you that you cannot make a clear case for this primitive scenario?
Chris_Bacon:They may not necessarily be negative for Joe, but capitalism isn't bad for everyone - that's why there are a few who still like it.
The only effect was on Joe. He was clearly exploited according to your own theories by profit, interest and wage! But if you clearly see that he was not exploited in this scenario then the dogmatic rejection of profit, interest and wage is wrong from left anarchist theory. This would demand further inquiries. You would need to answer at which point they become harmful for whom and how exactly. Can you answer that?
And you also didn't answer how you want to change people’s behavior? You have no idea. You only can hope that someday people will magically be like you.
I think a key determinant here is just how far altruism extends from an individual. We can assume that an individual will freely expend their time and effort for the benefit of their friends and family, but how certain are we that this will be enough of a motivator to see the new technology become universal. I find the idea of praising Hank interesting. In the ideal pure collectivist anarchy, would your tribe not continously reward you if you had dramatically increased the well being of everyone? I can only postulate that if my friend had revolutionized the catch-fishing process, I would gladly take over the net for him in the future in addition to giving him the recognition he deserves. You may seperate these gestures from "capitalist exploitation", but to me it is all the same. The only difference in the matter is the mutual and simultaneous contract instead of a consequential one. It would be no different than expecting someone to give me one of their excess posessions and deciding their payment afterward. To summarize, I view left-anarchists as replacing concrete currency with alternate non-monetary forms of payment. And, just in case, in the unlikely event that someone argues that Hank shouldn't recieve any, even non-monetary, payment for his brilliancy, I would counter by asking who is really against the exploitation of labor? Not to mention the absence of motivation to develop any innovation in such a system.. PS. I am really liking the discussions in this forum.
Left anarchist? I didn't know there could be such a thing.
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" -Patrick Henry
*ahem* :P
@ JonnyD
Yep, the fish and net stuff is borrowed from Schiffs "How an economy grows and why it crashes". Before I read that, I always used the wood and axe story. But fish and net makes more sense because it is more important..
But since you mentioned it, wasn't one of the main characters in it also called Hank? ;)
EDIT: Oh, now that I clicked on it. This is Irwin Schiffs Version.. not Peter Schiffs... lol.. :)