Political Theory

Re: Libertarian socialists explain yourself.

EvilSocialistFellow — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 18:31:06 GMT

I wasn't trying to deride as anarchist or call you a statist, I was just pointing it out to figure out your position. It's chill.

Errm, I never said anything to you...

Also, I see my self as an anarchist (a socialist one but I can see you think that's an oxymoron by your sig, that's cool I guess).

Edit - ah yes so we did have an exchange. I'm not bothered being called a statist so long as you realise I'm different in some way from other kinds of state socialists in that I advocate a form of decentralised planning and cooperative labour based on participatory politics otherwise we have no quarms since petty semantics don't interest me.

Re: Libertarian socialists explain yourself.

Libertyandlife — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 05:54:48 GMT

@EvilSocialistFellow

I wasn't trying to deride as anarchist or call you a statist, I was just pointing it out to figure out your position. It's chill.

Re: Libertarian socialists explain yourself.

Ricky James Moore II — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 03:21:11 GMT

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.

This is not really true. It dates as far back with propertarian and economically neutral anarchists as it does with the socialists. That being the case it has been irrefutably demonstrated, IMO, that the concept of libertarianism or anarchism without private property is absurd.

Re: Libertarian socialists explain yourself.

Esuric — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 01:21:08 GMT

Are you saying the reduced population from the plague did not give labor a higher bargaining power, and therefore compensation? This is about distribution of existing resource, not creation of future wealth.

This is a misnomer. It's true that they, the laborers, had additional bargaining power, but the question is why were they able to capitalize (for lack of a better word) on this additional bargaining power, and elevate real wages across the board, without simultaneously destroying profit?

They were able to do so because the plague only destroyed human lives; it did not destroy the capital equipment which elevates the productivity of labor at the margin. In other words, the marginal productivity of each laborer rose as the supply of labor dramatically diminished, and as the supply and the sophistication of capital remained fairly constant. If the plague somehow managed to destroy a third of the capital equipment, then wages would not have risen across the board in real terms (it would have remained the same).

Re: Libertarian socialists explain yourself.

filc — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 00:44:55 GMT

Drew Brando:
You make it sound like such a big deal, an individual("worker") chooses to work for a wage granted by another individual("boss") who payed him to do a job. Nothing more.

The argument is that the boss, or "Capitalist", is taking an unjust portion of the laborers productive output for his own personal profit. The exploitative theory of interest, in other words.

See Von Bohm-Bawerk

117 years later, the best critique the Marxist school can offer is a bias interpretation of historical events and a logically fallacious abuse of history to promote a political agenda. Aside from that, theres never been a real attempt at refuting Bohm-Bawerks arguments, nothing to address the actual logic applied.

Re: Libertarian socialists explain yourself.

Drew — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 00:01:28 GMT

I'd just like to address this point; I was not referring to authority as a critique of a system as such, rather a factual analysis; authority is, in fact power voluntarily granted by a governed body to a governing body. In the case of the capitalist firm, the workers have granted their boss power.

You make it sound like such a big deal, an individual("worker") chooses to work for a wage granted by another individual("boss") who payed him to do a job. Nothing more.

Re: Libertarian socialists explain yourself.

EvilSocialistFellow — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 23:56:35 GMT

EmperorNero:
Bosses are in a position of authority, by definition. You can't have a economy without authority because decisions have to be made. The only way to not have positions of authority is to not have any economic activity. (Which seems to be the solution of some socialists.) Propertarianism is the least authoritarian system, because you can choose to opt out. You can work at a firm and will be told what to do, but you can always quit. You can also choose to not participate in the capitalist system at all, and grow your own food, but your standards of living would of course be pre-capitalist.

filc:
The first 3 sections of Human Action, Parts 1 through 3, is a good starter.

Ok, I will read this when I can.

Re: Libertarian socialists explain yourself.

filc — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 23:40:18 GMT

EmperorNero:
Ok, nice chat. I have to say, you are the most economically literate socialist I ever ran into

I disagree, he's a very nice person indeed. But it has yet to be shown that he is economically literate. I would request that, to be called that, someone understands the foundational premise of Praxeology, and how catallactics is deduced from that.

Re: Libertarian socialists explain yourself.

EmperorNero — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 23:33:23 GMT

I have to be honest; I'm going to have to wrap it up here because I've exhausted my knowledge as far as economic calculation goes.

Ok, nice chat. I have to say, you are the most economically literate socialist I ever ran into. I think you didn't address the problems with anarcho-socialism I brought up though. They are 1. Organizational processes like syndicalism or pure democracy are more authoritarian than propertarianism. Coercion isn't voluntary because you had a vote. (And in practice leaders and a hierarchy will emerge.) 2. It would be a rudderless ship, there would be no unity about decisions like where to build roads. To make practical decisions you would either have to resort to authoritarian socialism (leaders impose decisions) or capitalism (e.g. labor vouchers, use rights). 3. The economic calculation problem even applies to small scale communes. You make it more managable, but in the end it's central planning. Modern economic activity simply can't be calculated by rational design.

All these also apply within syndicates, every time more than one person controls a resource. Feel free to respond, otherwise consider the debate wrapped up. Below some responses to your last post.

but what about those state-like structures protecting property rights called private protection agencies?

They are not state-like. They have no monopoly powers, but have to compete. They might resort to force, but merely to enforce contracts that people voluntarily agreed upon. In a society that rejects any way of resorting to force the weak would be at the mercy of the strong. Protection agencies protect individuals from harm by others.

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.
I think "state" is a funny word to use here.

There would be a bureaucracy with a monopoly over the administration of a territory, and it would use violence to enforce it's rules. It would be a miniature state. For example, if I wanted to take some stone and build a well in my backyard, there would somebody to stop me and say, "that's not what we want to do with those resources". It wouldn't really be collective ownership, but state ownership with small enough states for people to influence economic decisions directly.

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.

Bosses are in a position of authority, by definition. You can't have a economy without authority because decisions have to be made. The only way to not have positions of authority is to not have any economic activity. (Which seems to be the solution of some socialists.) Propertarianism is the least authoritarian system, because you can choose to opt out. You can work at a firm and will be told what to do, but you can always quit. You can also choose to not participate in the capitalist system at all, and grow your own food, but your standards of living would of course be pre-capitalist.

What socialists usually mean when they talk about hierarchy in capitalism is that capitalists have an unfair advantage over workers because they own the means of production. As such there would be a natural hierarchy and "wage slavery" in a propertarian system. That's what I disagree with, but I don't suggest we get into that here.

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?

I think they will work, but I can't refer to any empiric evidence to defend that belief. It's theory. We have evidence to confirm all the other stuff, that communes don't work or that you can't calculate economic activity, but a private legal systems wasn't attempted on a noteworthy scale.

Again, simplicity, am I supposed to talk about specific individuals every time I mention more than one person in the plural sense? Lol.

I meant it as a practical concern. Who would control the resources, if there are no owners? Usually socialists solve that dilemma by referring to a collective instead of individuals. But you seem to not fall into the trap of collective terms.

Re: Libertarian socialists explain yourself.

filc — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 23:04:43 GMT

EvilSocialist:
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

Correct.

EvilSocialist:
private entities are largely responsible for important economic decisions based upon market signals and so forth;

This statement can be abused. The signals come about from those voluntary exchanges. No one party makes economic decisions, beyond the concerted collective decisions of individuals across society as a whole.

Consumers are the sovereign party in stateless capitalism.

EvilSocialist:
the latter definition explains why it is possible to have a fairly despotic system of state capitalism.

I don't see how one logically follows from the other. This is the leap you and Epicurus make. If the state steals "property" and treats it as it's own. It kind of undermines the whole concept of "private property" in the first place. So there is some circularity there. If your saying that state capitalism functions off of property, then we must agree that the property's owner of all goods and services, is the state. Regardless of how liberal the state allows things to be. A single owner of property, is not economic system advocated by capitalists here.

So this is the point I raised to Epicurus. Your arguing against a definition of Capitalism that most parties here would reject. As such begin "arguing past" each other.

EvilSocialist:
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.

There is a lot drawn from it. I didn't just bring it up randomly. The economic concept of capitalism is built apon Praxeology, the study of human action.

It shows one thing leads to another, logically. Crusoe Economics is an example of it's application, as is the farmer example I provided above.

EvilSocialist:
Not very, admittedly.

Whether you agree to PRaxeology or not, it would clear up alot of misunderstandings we might have here in spending some time to understand it. Trying to argue against Capitalism here is entirely incoherent, without first tackling, and at least acknowledging, the points the Praxeology raises. Primarily because the version of Capitalism your critquing, is equally acknowledged here as inherently flawed.

The first 3 sections of Human Action, Parts 1 through 3, is a good starter.

Re: Libertarian socialists explain yourself.

Drew — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 22:59:22 GMT

What is a market based economic system if not voluntay exchange?

Re: Libertarian socialists explain yourself.

Angurse — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 22:55:31 GMT

I'm just stating that it would be a legitimate act to claim property they work on.

And I say it wouldn't be legitimate, thats about as far "legitimate" can take us.

Re: Libertarian socialists explain yourself.

EvilSocialistFellow — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 22:51:34 GMT

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.

Are you familiar with Praxeology EvilSocialist?

Not very, admittedly.

Re: Libertarian socialists explain yourself.

EvilSocialistFellow — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 22:26:28 GMT

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.

Re: Libertarian socialists explain yourself.

Drew — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 21:25:39 GMT

There you go again. Not sure whether you are dishonest or jsut plain delusional.