Current Events

Re: I'd like to get opinions on this

Autolykos — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:41:50 GMT

Porco Rosso:
I think most of those examples, if not all, do involve exchange. It's only a different kind of exchange involving personal and social capital.

True, you could put it that way. But I don't think your brother would at this point. I'm trying to express our position in terms that he can understand. :P

Re: I'd like to get opinions on this

Porco Rosso — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 20:20:43 GMT

Autolykos:

This - at least in part - is why praxeology is a priori.

It seems that your own semantics for the words "cooperation", "economics", and "competition" (at the very least) are different from those of anarcho-capitalists who ascribe to the Austrian School of economics*. For example, they would say that market competition is a form of social cooperation. They'd also say that "economic behavior" covers more than trade/exchange.

Take your example of us having this dialogue on a free website, for instance. It's true that no one is charging anyone any goods (including money) or services to share opinions. Nevertheless, anarcho-capitalists who ascribe to the Austrian School of economics* would consider this activity to be "economic" in the sense of currently preferring to share opinions here over doing anything else. Furthermore, they'd say that we're engaging in this activity right now because we believe that, by doing so, we'll somehow be better off than beforehand.

On another note, the fact that you point out myriad activities (or actions) that don't involve trade/exchange, but are nevertheless done routinely by the vast majority of people, seems to be counter-evidence to the notion that "our society" puts "competition" above all else.

* If not most or even all anarcho-capitalists per se.

I think most of those examples, if not all, do involve exchange. It's only a different kind of exchange involving personal and social capital.

Re: I'd like to get opinions on this

Wheylous — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 20:15:59 GMT

A democratic, egalitarian, classless society would allow human creativity to flourish

You call yourself an anarchist and you still believe in the fable of democracy? Or do you mean in a non-statist way? I agree that in some cases a voluntary democracy will act as a system to shore-up certain situations, but it will hardly be the optimal system for everything.

The "market" is not some nebulous heirarchical order. It's the direct result of "human labor and creativity" interacting among individuals.

Bingo! The market is not an entity. It is an emergent system made of spontaneous order. It's not a person who decides where capital goes. It's the billions of daily free interactions of individuals.

The market creates an inherently collectivist environment where men must use their talents and strengths to satisfy the wants of others.

Headshot!

there aren't universally observable behaviors throughout history

You guys are forgetting that the law of demand is proven a priori.

Wage labor is exploitation: I'll pay you to do something, and then live off the profits.

Um, you can turn that around: I'll do a service for you and then live off of the profits. Now the workers exploit the employer. I still fail to see how wage labor is exploitative beyond the very basic meaning of exploit "to make use of." Perhaps you mean to argue what Birthday Pony has previously argued (the initial distribution of property like land makes it impossible for an employee to become a big employer), which is still false, as many claims are illegitimate (and indeed, there is still much land available that is unclaimed but simply restricted by the government).

the fact that you point out myriad activities (or actions) that don't involve trade/exchange, but are nevertheless done routinely by the vast majority of people, seems to be counter-evidence to the notion that "our society" puts "competition" above all else.

Yerp.

Re: I'd like to get opinions on this

Autolykos — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 19:47:04 GMT

occupy_octopi:
My other point was to argue against economic laws. It's not a science, as there aren't universally observable behaviors throughout history. I'll use David Graeber's quote from when he ripped into the guy who kind of reviewed his book on this website: 'What you seem to be doing is projecting certain types of behavior created by certain social institutions backwards as an explanation of the institution themselves, rather like saying that the game of chess was invented to fulfill people’s preexisting desire to checkmate their opponents’ king – and then justifying it by saying that well, people are competitive, they like to win games, therefore, the desire to checkmate must always have existed.'

This - at least in part - is why praxeology is a priori.

occupy_octopi:
I like Graeber's idea of a communist baseline, ie. a consistent current through society where cooperation is the norm. Basically, we act in all kinds of ways beyond economics. We're having this dialogue on a free website, and nobody is charging anyone to share opinions. You don't charge someone who stops you to ask the time. Those seem like trivial examples compared to all the ways we actually look out for one another in society. This is probably true for any society, as that's what determines the thing: a group of people acting as a community. Obviously, our society elevates competition to such a level as to distort this cooperative tendency. So, the task becomes one of negating the structures that put competition above all else.

It seems that your own semantics for the words "cooperation", "economics", and "competition" (at the very least) are different from those of anarcho-capitalists who ascribe to the Austrian School of economics*. For example, they would say that market competition is a form of social cooperation. They'd also say that "economic behavior" covers more than trade/exchange.

Take your example of us having this dialogue on a free website, for instance. It's true that no one is charging anyone any goods (including money) or services to share opinions. Nevertheless, anarcho-capitalists who ascribe to the Austrian School of economics* would consider this activity to be "economic" in the sense of currently preferring to share opinions here over doing anything else. Furthermore, they'd say that we're engaging in this activity right now because we believe that, by doing so, we'll somehow be better off than beforehand.

On another note, the fact that you point out myriad activities (or actions) that don't involve trade/exchange, but are nevertheless done routinely by the vast majority of people, seems to be counter-evidence to the notion that "our society" puts "competition" above all else.

* If not most or even all anarcho-capitalists per se.

Re: I'd like to get opinions on this

Neodoxy — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 17:41:09 GMT

@Mr.Schnaps

How do you feel about Austrian economics in general? I.E the conclusions that it produces.

@Occupy

There are economic laws if one applies reason correctly, however these laws are in and of themselves explaining human TENDANCIES because the very nature of man is variability in behavior, that is why Austrian economics limits many of its conclusions. This is the one school of economics that does not make this mistake. Austrian economics deals specifically in tendancy of individuals, which, when taken in conjunction with real human behavior and decision yields real results.

I would like to point out two things. The first is the fact that the fact that there are no laws of economics is the outcome of the fact that there are no laws of rational human action after a certain point, and this applies itself equally to communism and anti-capitalism as it does to capitalism itself. The second is that you have in no way disproven the overriding tendancies which have been shown to emerge and which are most likely to emerge. If I put 50 cards in a deck and 49 of them are diamonds and one is a club, and I say that I make assumptions upon what I am doing based off of pulling out a diamond, and you state quite rightly that there's no guarantee that it's a diamond then you have made a valuable contribution, but you have in no way told me why it is that I should labor under the assumption that my next draw will be a club when it's very unlikely that this will happen and assuming that the next draw is a diamond will see me right in 98% of cases

Re: I'd like to get opinions on this

MrSchnapps — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 08:56:43 GMT

Wage labor is exploitation: I'll pay you to do something, and then live off the profits.

Wage labor is mutually beneficial. This is not to say that all things that are mutually beneficial are justifiable, but you're trying to label wage labor as inherently and deontologically wrong, and there's just no basis for this at all, especially since the labor theory of value mixes positive and normative analysis.

The idea that other economic systems can remove scarcity and the disutility of labor is borderline lunacy. It just really is.

Re: I'd like to get opinions on this

Jargon — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 08:49:10 GMT

Occupy I read your post and to be honest I'm having trouble understanding you. How do you intend create a society which normalizes against hierarchy? For your second paragraph, do you think that there are no universally recognizable traits in humanity? Not even that say, humans tend to prefer things that are more preferable over things that are less preferable? To a non-austrian I would think that Mr. Schnapps' second example of forming economic law would be very rational as long as quantity and quality are both accounted for. That is, that economic history is not totally quanticized, as keynesians tend to attempt to do. This would be ignoring human motives, and to do so I believe is dangerously naive and generally an unsound method. By the second definition, economic laws aren't concrete but just extremely probable. As probable as say, a whale not falling on my head at this very moment. Not impossible, but not probable at all.

As for your third paragraph I can't make sense of it.

As for your fourth, my words were carelessly chosen. As long as there are state controlled economies, everyone's real wages will be artificially lowered. But how do you define exploitation? Doesn't the employee prefer his job to... not his job? If he did wouldn't he leave? Is the employer keeping him from leaving? I think an explicit definition of exploitation would be helpful here.

Thanks for sticking around to chat, I don't really expect marxists or socialists to stay long enough for a fleshed out discussion.

Re: I'd like to get opinions on this

Porco Rosso — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 08:40:22 GMT

occupy_octopi:

Damn. I had a big reply typed up and the computer lost it. Basically, I'm not offended. If you want to know more about Loren Goldner go to his website (read eg. The Historical Moment That Produced Us) and check out his Vimeo video on the periodization of capitalist crisis.

My other point was to argue against economic laws

occupy_octopi:
It's not a science, as there aren't universally observable behaviors throughout history.

Strawman. It's not that their are universally observable behaviors, but that there is something that drives those behaviors. For example, people eat because they need to in order to survive.

occupy_octopi:
I'll use David Graeber's quote from when he ripped into the guy who kind of reviewed his book on this website: 'What you seem to be doing is projecting certain types of behavior created by certain social institutions backwards as an explanation of the institution themselves, rather like saying that the game of chess was invented to fulfill people’s preexisting desire to checkmate their opponents’ king – and then justifying it by saying that well, people are competitive, they like to win games, therefore, the desire to checkmate must always have existed.'

This is entirely nonsensiical, but is to be expected from an empiricist/positivist. His analogy makes no sense whatsoever and is irrelevant.

occupy_octopi:
I like Graeber's idea of a communist baseline, ie. a consistent current through society where cooperation is the norm. Basically, we act in all kinds of ways beyond economics. We're having this dialogue on a free website, and nobody is charging anyone to share opinions. You don't charge someone who stops you to ask the time. Those seem like trivial examples compared to all the ways we actually look out for one another in society. This is probably true for any society, as that's what determines the thing: a group of people acting as a community. Obviously, our society elevates competition to such a level as to distort this cooperative tendency. So, the task becomes one of negating the structures that put competition above all else.

Another strawman. No one ever said that people don't cooperate. No one ever said that people don't help each other out, etc.

occupy_octopi:
As far as, "Workers in countries with high capital accumulation can hardly be said to be exploited", wage theft is rampant, the 'social wage' paid for by taxes is being decimated, etc. Wage labor is exploitation: I'll pay you to do something, and then live off the profits.

Nonsensical.

occupy_octopi:
As far as real, on-the-ground experiments in anti-authoritarian (read: anti-statist), anti-capitalist attempts to create a free society look at the solidarity network model (Seattle Solidarity, SeaSol being the foremost one). It's a form of direct action casework in which workers help one another fight abuses by bosses or landlords. Very successful. We're taking on our second fight this week in the Albuquerque Solidarity Network.

So, workers can't abuse bosses, or workers can't abuse other workers?

Re: I'd like to get opinions on this

MrSchnapps — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 08:25:59 GMT

My other point was to argue against economic laws. It's not a science, as there aren't universally observable behaviors throughout history.

I wouldn't compare economic laws to gravity. Like Marshall, I'd compare them to the law of tides.

This problem that you mention can be solved in three different ways. The first would be to claim that economic laws are not discovered by empirical methods, but rather through a priori reflection on action, and then deducing certain fundamental axioms which then comprise these economic laws.

The second would be to make an inductive generalization about the entirety of economic history that we have in our grasp. Surely some laws such as supply and demand will make themselves apparent. It isn't necessary to project backwards into the pass to even serve our purposes here. Nor is it necessary to claim that supply and demand--on this method--will hold for eternity in the future. But the burden of proof would be heavily on the 'economic reformers' to knock supply and demand off the pedestal that it currently enjoys. I doubt it could be met.

However, why couldn't we project back into the past? If we have a solid basis for supply and demand based on probability, then there isn't any real reason to think that it couldn't be applied backwards.

The third approach: Abstract the essence of man through Aristotelian induction, and once the essence is in the intellect, deduce certain fundamental truths.

The first approach seems nonsensical, although that tends to be the Austrian approach. I'll admit that my summary of it isn't totally complete, but it is sufficient. For me, the second and third are much more appealing. But I don't at all buy that there aren't any economic laws, weren't any economic laws, or that economic laws will cease to be.

Re: I'd like to get opinions on this

Porco Rosso — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 08:22:44 GMT

occupy-

Are you willing not to work for a wage? That is, are you willing to put in the time, energy, risk, and stress in producing something yourself?

Re: I'd like to get opinions on this

Porco Rosso — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 08:21:04 GMT

Graeber isn't an economist and there is a better reply that I believe I sent to you on the libertarian standard.

Re: I'd like to get opinions on this

occupy_octopi — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 08:13:40 GMT

That was mostly a reply to Jargon. As far as the swimming pool thing, my post awhile back addressed your point, ie. enslaving people to ensure my swimming pool gets built means we're no longer in a free society.

Re: I'd like to get opinions on this

occupy_octopi — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 08:01:21 GMT

Damn. I had a big reply typed up and the computer lost it. Basically, I'm not offended. If you want to know more about Loren Goldner go to his website (read eg. The Historical Moment That Produced Us) and check out his Vimeo video on the periodization of capitalist crisis.

My other point was to argue against economic laws. It's not a science, as there aren't universally observable behaviors throughout history. I'll use David Graeber's quote from when he ripped into the guy who kind of reviewed his book on this website: 'What you seem to be doing is projecting certain types of behavior created by certain social institutions backwards as an explanation of the institution themselves, rather like saying that the game of chess was invented to fulfill people’s preexisting desire to checkmate their opponents’ king – and then justifying it by saying that well, people are competitive, they like to win games, therefore, the desire to checkmate must always have existed.'

I like Graeber's idea of a communist baseline, ie. a consistent current through society where cooperation is the norm. Basically, we act in all kinds of ways beyond economics. We're having this dialogue on a free website, and nobody is charging anyone to share opinions. You don't charge someone who stops you to ask the time. Those seem like trivial examples compared to all the ways we actually look out for one another in society. This is probably true for any society, as that's what determines the thing: a group of people acting as a community. Obviously, our society elevates competition to such a level as to distort this cooperative tendency. So, the task becomes one of negating the structures that put competition above all else.

As far as, "Workers in countries with high capital accumulation can hardly be said to be exploited", wage theft is rampant, the 'social wage' paid for by taxes is being decimated, etc. Wage labor is exploitation: I'll pay you to do something, and then live off the profits.

As far as real, on-the-ground experiments in anti-authoritarian (read: anti-statist), anti-capitalist attempts to create a free society look at the solidarity network model (Seattle Solidarity, SeaSol being the foremost one). It's a form of direct action casework in which workers help one another fight abuses by bosses or landlords. Very successful. We're taking on our second fight this week in the Albuquerque Solidarity Network.

Re: I'd like to get opinions on this

Neodoxy — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 05:52:53 GMT

" I mean the whole rate of profit thing makes no sense whatsoever to me. I've heard of that before, but to me, now, it seems like a load of bullshit, a Marxist delusion perhaps."

It makes perfect sense if you're dealing in Marxist aggregates.

Re: I'd like to get opinions on this

Porco Rosso — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 04:06:39 GMT

Jargon:

red pig will your brother not respond to the questions? I'm curious to see what he says.

I think this is a good point for the left to meet the right. There are probably a lot of misunderstandings and such. I mean the whole rate of profit thing makes no sense whatsoever to me. I've heard of that before, but to me, now, it seems like a load of bullshit, a Marxist delusion perhaps.