Political Theory

Re: A fishy situation for left anarchists?

skylien — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 20:30:49 GMT

@ 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.. :)

Re: A fishy situation for left anarchists?

JonnyD — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 03:36:55 GMT

*ahem* :P

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: A fishy situation for left anarchists?

Brutus — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:34:25 GMT

Left anarchist? I didn't know there could be such a thing.

Re: A fishy situation for left anarchists?

Prime Cut — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:15:24 GMT

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.

Re: A fishy situation for left anarchists?

skylien — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 20:46:24 GMT

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.

Re: A fishy situation for left anarchists?

Chris_Bacon — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 20:08:35 GMT

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.

Re: A fishy situation for left anarchists?

skylien — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:09:44 GMT

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.

Re: A fishy situation for left anarchists?

skylien — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:51:41 GMT

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?

Re: A fishy situation for left anarchists?

Andris Birkmanis — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:52:14 GMT

So what is the left-anarchist-correct and realistic way to solve this situation?

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...

Re: A fishy situation for left anarchists?

Autolykos — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:56:40 GMT

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.

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.

Re: A fishy situation for left anarchists?

skylien — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:21:14 GMT

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.

Re: A fishy situation for left anarchists?

Chris_Bacon — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:14:01 GMT

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.

Re: A fishy situation for left anarchists?

Giant_Joe — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:33:08 GMT

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 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.

Re: A fishy situation for left anarchists?

Autolykos — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:30:21 GMT

Спасибо, товарищ Сталин!

Re: A fishy situation for left anarchists?

liberty student — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 07:08:27 GMT

I have done all the calculations. Comrade, tonight we eat fish.