Anarcho-capitalism and coercion

Economics Political Theory
181

Yes, nuclear is great. But the free market would deliver it if activists had not banned it. So your point about the profit motive being in the way of using efficient energy is not accurate.

I think you have a different understanding of “scarcity” as we do. We are referring to economic scarcity, simply meaning “not unlimited”. Even if we had replicators there would be scarcity, because we still have limited ability to bring goods to customers. You must be thinking of something like “exhaustibility” or “finiteness”.

182

You and I differ on this then.

What I mean to say is that I don’t think every human at a fundemental level has the right to eat a banana every day. If there are x number of bananas and there are x+100 humans, then I don’t think that would be so much of an issue in regards to freedom. But I would maintain that humans have the right to their subsistance, so I mean that their right to subsistance is one of their ‘fundemental’ freedoms. So that’s what I mean when I say that it depends on the resource concerned. But in the case of the bananas, if a group of people got together and decided to take all the bananas back to a secure base and prevent other people from having any, then I would say that is limiting our freedom - but I wouldn’t really work a sweat about it.

The standard of whether we have liberty and whether, at the very least, our basic needs are met: yes.

Well, that’s assuming it has a limiting scale. I’m not convinced that once we reach a certain size syndicalism would stop working.

183

Thank God! We agree on something :slight_smile:

Yeah, we must do. I was using ‘scarce’ as meaning, insufficient for the demand. Which explains the confusion.

184

Laissez-faire did not fail, it was abolished by reactionary statists, the Progressive movement. Laissez-faire might not be understood by people, and therefore not be appealing to to them, which means it is easy to rile a mob in it’s opposition. But that is not the same as having failed as a economic system. In fact, laissez-faire was more economically productive than ever before when it was stifled by corporatism and welfarism in the late 19th century. The results, as you surely know, were half a century of economic retrogression, totalitarianism and declining standards of living for billions.

185

It’s ludicrous on its’ face to assert that most people’s SoL went down, rather than up after the fall of laiisez faire.

Also: I have a post pending moderation. If a mod could PM me about that, I’d appreciate it. Tyvm

186

We agree on many things, in fact almost everything in terms of values and goals. The difference is that I am aware of economic necessity, while you think having to pay for stuff is in the way of a free lunch. As I said, i think the future will be a lot like what you desire, but we’re not going to get there if people ignore economics and keep attempting these free lunch schemes. It’s a disagreement about methodology, not goals. Check out the book I linked above.

Well, that is as such the economic definition. Just that you seem to be implying something else. You seemed to suggest that certain goods are abundant enough to be distributed freely. But that is never the case, because their productive factors always have alternative uses. There is never a point where we are rich enough to get rid of markets.

Oh, is it? The laissez-faire era provided the greatest increase in standards of living the world had ever seen. That’s a fact. The great collapse following ww1 did undo much of that progress and reduced standards of living in following world wars and depressions, a direct consequence of the end of laissez-faire. In fact, in many ways the world economy did not recover until today. Certainly humanity is a lot poorer than it could have been if the progress of the 1800s could have been continued undisturbed.

187

It is just as ludicrous on its face to assert that most people’s standard of living went up as much as it would have had laiisez faire not been abandoned. Yes, the standard of living for most rose. It just didn’t rise as much or as quickly.

188

And yet management is paid considerably more than labor, the chairman wields vast influence on how the corporation is run, Mondragon is for-profit and uses prices to calculate, they discriminate based on the ability or skill of the laborer (as does any business), consumes resources without first consulting other worker’s organizations, I could go on. I’m not saying this isn’t a workable structure for a firm, but I am saying this isn’t socialism, syndicalism, or the democratic ownership of the means of production.

I have a post pending moderation that shows you’re just talking out your behind here. If you would have cared to read about Mondragon you would know it is not a for profit corporation. Wage rates are determined by democratic vote, and the discrepancy in wages is no more than 5:1 from the min wage to the max. In reality it is even smaller than that becuase only new member-owners, in certain positions, even make the min wage. They do have ‘discriminatory’ practices, but not to the extent that you’re trying to imply. And they are a member of the CICOPA, which, tho they don’t consult other coops for every little decision, it is written into the by-laws to express solidarity with other coops, including financial.

You’re really just trying to dig yourself out of a hole, but instead of digging a ramp, you’re just waving the shovel around in a digging motion and telling everyone you’re making progress.

189

Sort of like a CEO, or any executive at any company in existence?

That’s a bold-faced lie.

And yet, like a capitalist firm, there is a worker and pay hierarchy, profits are reinvested in the firm, and stockholders are payed dividends for investing

You’re just making stuff up! In all reality a mod should just delete this trash. Stockholders?

It is nominally democratic (the workers have leeway in choosing representatives)

Nice cop-out.

they do not consult other worker’s organizations, they do not produce purely for the benefit of their workers and society

Yes they do. And yes they do.

they do engage in capitalist business activities

That’s to be expected if you’re going to revolutionize the system from within.

and they are not subject to the will of other workers whose lives will be effected by the production of this firms goods and services

Actually, at least for their retail dept, they are…But I don’t even know what your point was with that one

This isn’t syndicalism

Actually:

Workers’ cooperatives are also central to ideas of Autonomism, Distributism, Mutualism, Syndicalism****, Participatory economics, Guild socialism, Libertarian socialism as well as others.

190

Oh, is it? The laissez-faire era provided the greatest increase in standards of living the world had ever seen. That’s a fact

It is a fact. But it was not a fact for 95%+ of the population.

191

Are you seriously suggesting that there was no progress in the standard of living of common people in the 1800s? That’s so wrong it’s funny. The laissez-faire era did not just benefit bosses, it lifted the majority of people out of poverty.

192

It is not a syndicalist institution nor is it operating in a syndicalist environment. I’ve listed the aspects of Mondragon that disqualify it from being syndicalist before, I’m not listing them again.

In the syndicalist meaning it isn’t, and the syndicalist meaning is the one we’ve been debating for the past five pages of posts. Voting is a valid decision-making mechanism in a firm.

I could list dozens of other corporations that operate under the traditional corporate management style that are magnitudes larger than Mondragon.

Right.

193

It’s a lie that a CEO can be voted out of his or her office?

All the workers at Mondragon own a part of the company and participate in the decision-making process, just like stockholders.

Much like post hoc, you dont’ know what that phrase means and are clearly using it incorrectly.

The fact that they operate on a for-profit basis and use prices to calculate, among a variety of other aspects of Mondragon that I’ve listed before, disqualifies it from being syndicalist. I don’t care if that’s what they call themselves. I can call a duck a laptop computer, it does not make it so.

The point is that democratic ownership of the means of production would require approval from the majority of workers, as the operations of Mondragon pull resources out of other lines of production, affecting their well-being and what society can make as a whole. Mondragon operates for the benefit only of those who are under its employment, and moreover, it does so to make money and pays it workers a wage, essentially making it a participator in capitalism and what you call labor exploitation.

194

The Gilded Age was the largest period of peace time economic growth and the raising of the standard of living/

195

Most of the world might not have seen progress. But Europe and the US was more than 5% of the world populatin at the time.

Actually I was only taking about europe and the US. Notice I didn’t say “the world,” but “the people.” 95% of the population lived in abject poverty, with only an arguable rise in their standard of living than they would have had under mercantilism/late feudalism..

196

It’s a lie that a CEO can be voted out of his or her office?

By the workers? Yes.

All the workers at Mondragon own a part of the company and participate in the decision-making process, just like stockholders

Stock holders own parts of their companies through the virtue of their monetary investment. It’s not like stockholders at all.

The fact that they operate on a for-profit basis

You’re making that up

and use prices to calculate, among a variety of other aspects of Mondragon that I’ve listed before

Well, like I said, that is to be expected, and is quite necessary, if you’re going to revolutionize the system from within.

disqualifies it from being syndicalist. I don’t care if that’s what they call themselves. I can call a duck a laptop computer, it does not make it so.

Except it is an expressed part of syndacalist platform. With every post you show how unfamiliar you are with syndacalism and socialism.

he point is that democratic ownership of the means of production would require approval from the majority of workers, as the operations of Mondragon pull resources out of other lines of production, affecting their well-being and what society can make as a whole. Mondragon operates for the benefit only of those who are under its employment, and moreover, it does so to make money and pays it workers a wage, essentially making it a participator in capitalism

Again, you just show how little you know about syndacalism.

making it a participator in capitalism and what you call labor exploitation.

No. It’s workers are paid the full value of their wages, and they have democratically decided it as so. Again, you just don’t know what you’re talking about, so you’re making stuff up.

197

You really should check your facts. Their website says they are for profit. They even post their balance sheets. I’ll believe them, not you. Also, 5:1 is the average, not the max; 9:1 is the highest currently.

198

The fact is, even in a capitalist society, companies can and do work on democratic principles; and I thought that was all we were talking about.

199

Well, you’re not making yourself very clear. I edited the post after you hit reponse: Are you seriously suggesting that there was no progress in the standard of living of common people in the 1800s? That’s so wrong it’s funny. The laissez-faire era did not just benefit bosses, it lifted the majority of people out of poverty.

95% of people did not live in abject poverty in the 1800s. They did in the 1700s, the laissez-faire era ended those conditions and brought the greatest rise in standards of living for the common people in history. In fact, it created the modern world. And how could it be different? Wages and profits are proportional, both are a function of technology.

200

You really should check your facts. Their website says they are for profit. They even post their balance sheets. I’ll believe them, not you. Also, 5:1 is the average, not the max; 9:1 is the highest currentl

Maybe you can provide a link… because all I can see is that they post profits, which are reinvested into the company, its members, or the local community, typical of a not-for-profit (as opposed to a non-profit) organization. Again, this is to be expected in a model trying to revolutionize the system from within.

profits represent a means to another ends, that is the continuation of socially acceptable employment, rather than the primary motive of profit as an end to itself

And even were they for-profit, it doesn’t change the fact that they practice workplace and worker democracy, and cooperative solidarity, typical of a syndacalist platform. Members can be a member of a union, but there is no company wide union, as the need for such is largely irrelevant in a cooperative environment. And they have recently been working with AFL-CIO to begin establishing cooperatives in the US.

The pay ratio between the highest and the lowest paid is generally 3:1 to 5:1 before taxes, and the minimum pay is generally higher than the local equivalent for similar work. For instance, the CEO of the entire Mondragon Corporation earns only 9 times as much as the lowest paid worker in the entire complex. This is to promote economic democracy and worker empowerment, which is in contrast, for example, with the average ratio of 600:1 in CEO to lowest-paid worker pay in the United States

You’re right that it is 9:1 from the top to the bottom, and I apologize for misreading the data. But 9 pales in comparison to 600, period. And this discrepancy is voted on a 1person 1 vote basis, which destroys any semblance of “labor exploitation.”

What also has to be pointed out is that this 7-9:1 discrapancy was created after the Spanish government’s implementation of a progressive income tax.