I want to see if the "hype" is true.
Leviathan:equitable distribution of firm ownership
Translation = robbery, correct?
You remind me of someone from another forum who refused to identify as socialist or communist and called themself "crazy left of left".
So, what is it you actually advocate? Voluntarism allows people to form collectives all they want. It doesn't allow forced income redistribution and murdering scab workers. What is your objection to allowing people to form businesses or be a non-owner employee if they want?
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
E. R. Olovetto:So, what is it you actually advocate? Voluntarism allows people to form collectives all they want. It doesn't allow forced income redistribution and murdering scab workers. What is your objection to allowing people to form businesses or be a non-owner employee if they want?
Excellent questions.
Z.
That's quite correct. It's also the case that small businesses (proprietorships, partnerships, smaller corporations) control a far lower market share than established large corporations, which proves my point quite effectively. Never heard of the Herfindahl Index? Or the Statistical Abstract of the United States?
In which case a) either these firms are more capable at providing mass markets with goods or b) they're legally empowered. Or maybe both. If the latter, they're efficient, no reason to care, in the latter they should not enjoy those protections. See?
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
E. R. Olovetto:Translation = robbery, correct?
An antidote to robbery, actually, since currently existing property distribution is based in theft. Since effectively all property in industrialized society was acquired by force, coercion, or fraud or created through the utilization of productive resources that were acquired through force, coercion, or fraud, why do you have any interest in defending the present distribution of wealth and resources, stepchild of a phase of primitive accumulation that it is?
E. R. Olovetto:Voluntarism allows people to form collectives all they want. It doesn't allow forced income redistribution and murdering scab workers. What is your objection to allowing people to form businesses or be a non-owner employee if they want?
There aren't any. I simply share the common libertarian/anarchist belief that firm organization will not be inclined toward hierarchy due to the inefficiency and authoritarianism of that arrangement.
Jon Irenicus:In which case a) either these firms are more capable at providing mass markets with goods or b) they're legally empowered. Or maybe both. If the latter, they're efficient, no reason to care, in the latter they should not enjoy those protections. See?
Hmmm. Returning to reality, control of larger market shares often does not necessarily reflect efficiency or this greater capability so much as previously existing concentration. Market power skews affairs so that those with the greatest amount of resources to draw on remain established firms, with this constituting a barrier to entry for small firms regardless of their efficiency. Market competition is generally regarded as producing allocative efficiency. See?
The workmen desire to get as much, the master to give as little as possible...It is not difficult to foresee which of the two parties must force the other into a compliance with their terms. -Adam Smith
In an anarcho-communist society, how would efficiency, as you define it, fit into society getting what it wants?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Leviathan:If you're referring to information about the labor cooperative being a more efficient/productive form of organization than the orthodox hierarchical capitalist firm, consistent with the fact that some degree of horizontal management is necessary to yield Pareto optimality
How cute, today's socialists are worried about Pareto optimality.
Leviathan:the centralized firm is subject to the same distributed and tacit knowledge problems that Hayek identified, the empirical literature on the topic virtually provides a consensus...just start typing into Google Scholar, honestly.
Indeed, Hayek's argument shows that long-run monopolies cannot emerge in free economic systems. But what's your point?
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Daniel Muffinburg:In an anarcho-communist society, how would efficiency, as you define it, fit into society getting what it wants?
Anarchism of any variety has a basis in the same foundation as the individual labor cooperative; horizontal organization is preferable to hierarchical organization and is in fact more consistent with Hayekian principles (as the likes of Prychitko has realized, for example), than capitalism (the existent variant) is due to the distributed and tacit knowledge forgone by the orthodox capitalist firm, the structure of which is hierarchical and authoritarian in nature. Anarchist communism specifically seeks the maximization of Pareto optimality through decentralized planning (for the aforementioned knowledge benefits) and the communication of production and consumption signals through workers' and consumers' assemblies, respectively. It is true that many anarcho-communists have rather poorly defined conceptions of the function of communism specifically, compared to say, market socialists, and fall into the trap of proposing abstract and vague "general meetings," which would probably simply be reversions to central planning.
Leviathan: Perhaps you and he haven't considered the fact that more equitable distribution of firm ownership provides similarly equitable incentives for ensuring firm success, since it's employees' own financial investment that is at stake? Perhaps you and he haven't considered the fact that the horizontal nature of the labor cooperative eliminates the distributed and tacit knowledge problems created by the hierarchy of the orthodox capitalist firm? Perhaps you and he haven't considered the fact that the combination of ownership and management in the hands of workers eliminates principal-agent problems, since the interests of "owners" and "managers" are one and the same?
Perhaps you and he haven't considered the fact that more equitable distribution of firm ownership provides similarly equitable incentives for ensuring firm success, since it's employees' own financial investment that is at stake? Perhaps you and he haven't considered the fact that the horizontal nature of the labor cooperative eliminates the distributed and tacit knowledge problems created by the hierarchy of the orthodox capitalist firm? Perhaps you and he haven't considered the fact that the combination of ownership and management in the hands of workers eliminates principal-agent problems, since the interests of "owners" and "managers" are one and the same?
This is more-or-less agreeable, although it should be clarified that not all workers at cooperatives are owners. It is, by all extents and purposes, a firm with multiple owners, but not all workers are owners. Most cooperatives in Spain, for example, have many non-shareholding/owner low-wage workers (mostly, to work the machinery).
Esuric:How cute, today's socialists are worried about Pareto optimality.
Never been through logic class, Emil? Try advancing an argument next time. ;)
Esuric:Indeed, Hayek's argument shows that long-run monopolies cannot emerge in free economic systems. But what's your point?
Capitalism is currently characterized by "central private sector planning" of sorts (consult the likes of Munkirs's The Transformation of American Capitalism, for example), as well as centralized planning in the individual corporate firm, which means that distributed and tacit knowledge is lost. Hayek identified this loss as a deficiency of central planning. As Theodore Burczak illustrated, it's ultimately socialism that is able to eliminate this centralized structure through utilization of decentralized workers' ownership and management, and it is therefore more consistent with Hayekian principles.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:This is more-or-less agreeable, although it should be clarified that not all workers at cooperatives are owners. It is, by all extents and purposes, a firm with multiple owners, but not all workers are owners. Most cooperatives in Spain, for example, have many non-shareholding/owner low-wage workers (mostly, to work the machinery).
A worthy observation, I'd say. I've come across many overly enthusiastic socialists who believe that the ESOP is akin to the labor cooperative. While those of us who are libertarians must inevitably look to Spain because of the anarchist social revolution, it should also be noted that currently existing "cooperative" movements in Spain are not far different than other utilizations of various ownership schemes that fail to incorporate democratic management and ultimately ape the status quo. Mondragon is an example; it's not a socialist-minded federation by any means,
Leviathan: Capitalism is currently characterized by "central private sector planning" of sorts (consult the likes of Munkirs's The Transformation of American Capitalism, for example), as well as centralized planning in the individual corporate firm, which means that distributed and tacit knowledge is lost. Hayek identified this loss as a deficiency of central planning.
Capitalism is currently characterized by "central private sector planning" of sorts (consult the likes of Munkirs's The Transformation of American Capitalism, for example), as well as centralized planning in the individual corporate firm, which means that distributed and tacit knowledge is lost. Hayek identified this loss as a deficiency of central planning.
I don't think it's fair to say that "capitalism is currently characterized...", as if a square is turned into a triangle you wouldn't say, "the square is currently characterized...". Not a perfect analogy, but one that still stands. Capitalism, in the purest theoretical sense, has probably never existed (well, within the range of written history, at least), but it is not fair to say that mercantilism is today's capitalism. That would be akin, I think in your perspective, to us calling the Soviet Union that era's socialism.
Concerning Hayek, the difference between central planning on the level of the firm and the level of the State, is that while the former is subject to profit and loss, the latter is not. It is far to say that in a capitalistic society, a firm that is less efficient than another due to having too large a bureaucracy, or too much centralization, would be subject to loss that would either force it to change organization, or would close it down. I'm not sure what your own ideal of socialism is, but it seems as if our vision of capitalism and your vision of socialism converge on very similar paths (and, furthermore, it seems that the difference is largely in the terminology; one or the other is afraid of dropping the wrong word).
Leviathan: Daniel Muffinburg:In an anarcho-communist society, how would efficiency, as you define it, fit into society getting what it wants? Anarchism of any variety has a basis in the same foundation as the individual labor cooperative; horizontal organization is preferable to hierarchical organization and is in fact more consistent with Hayekian principles (as the likes of Prychitko has realized, for example), than capitalism (the existent variant) is due to the distributed and tacit knowledge forgone by the orthodox capitalist firm, the structure of which is hierarchical and authoritarian in nature. Anarchist communism specifically seeks the maximization of Pareto optimality through decentralized planning (for the aforementioned knowledge benefits) and the communication of production and consumption signals through workers' and consumers' assemblies, respectively. It is true that many anarcho-communists have rather poorly defined conceptions of the function of communism specifically, compared to say, market socialists, and fall into the trap of proposing abstract and vague "general meetings," which would probably simply be reversions to central planning.
So, society won't always get what it wants because of efficiency, and efficiency won't always be maximized because society has to get what it wants?
Leviathan: Esuric:How cute, today's socialists are worried about Pareto optimality. Never been through logic class, Emil? Try advancing an argument next time. ;)
The real socialists considered Pareto optimality as "perfectly disgusting by any ethical standards". Nevermind the fact that it's purely a theoretical construct used for Walrasian general equilibrium welfare analysis (presupposes cardinal utility).
Leviathan:Capitalism is currently characterized by "central private sector planning" of sorts (consult the likes of Munkirs's The Transformation of American Capitalism, for example),
Your own spurious definition of "capitalism" can mean whatever you want it to mean. Lucid language allows for meaningful debates, while obfuscation takes us nowhere--which is your goal.
Leviathan:as well as centralized planning in the individual corporate firm, which means that distributed and tacit knowledge is lost.
One would have to be entirely ignorant of Hayek's argument in order to reach this nonsensical conclusion. Decentralization, markets, accurate prices, and capital allocation/structuring doesn't eliminate failures, it just eliminates structural and systemic failures. It turns individual failures into information signals, which other actors, the competitors, must absorb and take into account. Furthermore, individual failures free up scarce resources to those who are more capable at economic calculation and at servicing the needs of consumers.
Leviathan:Hayek identified this loss as a deficiency of central planning. As Theodore Burczak illustrated, it's ultimately socialism that is able to eliminate this centralized structure through utilization of decentralized workers' ownership and management, and it is therefore more consistent with Hayekian principles.
It's hard to respond to this since I don't know what you mean when you say "socialism." Co-ops competing with other co-ops and corporations cannot, in anyway, be considered socialism. Banning corporations and replacing it with "democracy," does not lead to an equalization of remunerations; it would merely assure the efficiency of congress for every single firm.
It's extremely satisfying to see that Mises and Hayek's arguments from the late 20s has forced pseudo-socialists into this very curious position. There is no economic doctrine supporting your claims, and you're forced to retreat from Marx, Sraffa et al. It's wonderful really.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Capitalism, in the purest theoretical sense, has probably never existed (well, within the range of written history, at least), but it is not fair to say that mercantilism is today's capitalism.
Capitalism is the only system which has ever existed. Capital was, and always will be, the source of wealth. The accumulation of capital requires sound money, free markets, decentralization, and therefore a functional price mechanism. There has been, however, varying degrees of interventionism, but interventionism is non-economic in nature, and requires some sort of markets to leech upon. Pure government ownership is the destruction of an economic system--not an alternative. When private ownership is unknown there can be no operative form of societal organization.
What I said wasn't directed to you, or really had anything to do with what you said.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:What I said wasn't directed to you, or really had anything to do with what you said.
When someone is wrong they should be corrected. You were clearly wrong.