Capitalist pig is more like it. By owning that paintbrush, you have enslaved the proletariat!
No, I never expected that, and I still can’t understand it. I cannot understand how socialism can uphold competition and private property. Please explain how this can be so. I don’t care what you call your system–call it capitalism if you like, or just call it ‘blip’–but please explain it and how it would uphold private property and competition. I am interested, though doubtful.
This should answer what you should expect from him.
An exploitation of semantics, the cornerstone of his argument. Logic is not admitted.
Time does not stand still in the socialist common wealth, future goods will necessarily ripen into current goods, and surplus value will exist. Socialist planners, without a functional price system and without an interest rate directing inter-temporal production methods, will therefore not place a premium on current goods, leading them inevitably to focus on more remote and fruitful production methods (it is the premium placed on current goods which prevent over-extension of the production process). How will people save and express their time preference? Will they store grain and corn under their beds, and then relay their saving behaviors back to the planners? The difference in value between present and future goods is an entirely independent phenomenon. Here’s Bohm-Bawerk:
“How is it conceivable that, under Socialism, a young oak sapling which will be an oak tree, with the value of an oak tree, in two hundred years, can be made equal in value to an oak full-grown now? The central authority directing the national production must base its entire arrangements and dispositions on a calculation of present and future goods having different values, if its dispositions are not to be quite inept and monstrous. If it does not put less value on future goods it must find that a process which promises a greater number of products in the far future is more remunerative than a process which yields a small number in the present or near future, and it must, accordingly, always turn its productive powers to remote productive ends, however remote they are, as being, technically the most fruitful. The natural consequence would be very much as we have pictured it–misery and want in the present.” -Positive Theory of Capital, pp. 386, Interest under socialism.
You have no capital theory and don’t understand the significance of time. Consumption goods can be produced in a myriad of ways and can employ different degrees of intermediary goods, labor, and can be directed towards closer or remoter production methods. The extent to which depends on the preferences of society which is in continuous flux. The distribution of the finished goods is the easy part, but figuring out how to produce them is the truly dramatic task.
Capital is not some aggregate self-replenishing blob called “K” used in meaningless production functions. A capital good can be employed for a variety of uses, but is chosen for its “best” possible use, that is, the use which will yield the greatest net return for the businessman. But this “best” use is dynamic, and changes from time to time. Unexpected changes will create new “better” uses for those capital goods. Capital goods, for the most part, must be used together; there is a very high degree of complementarity. But the combination of capital goods is not completely arbitrary; there are certain shapes or a “structure of capital” which is more or less productive than others. The economy aims for the most productive combination of capital goods. But due to the dynamic nature and heterogeneity of capital, the structure is constantly changing; one shift may be good for some capital goods, but not for all. So again, the capital stock is not to be considered a homogeneous aggregate but as a structural pattern. If we take the capital stock as a given homogeneous aggregate, where each capital good is perfectly substitutable with every other capital good, then we completely ignore real changes in the capital structure. We ignore new techniques which replace old techniques as “first best” production options. No equation which explains previous activity/patterns can be considered useful for predicting future conditions and directing production.
Without prices you can’t measure opportunity costs, you don’t know what kind of capital goods to produce, nor how to produce them. You don’t even understand your own argument. The market socialists were using Walrasian general equilibrium theory, that is, an omnipotent auctioneer setting real prices before the fact, and directing the entire economy. But real prices emerge, over time, through a continuous process of trial and error in markets. Profit will exist in your socialist utopia, it just wont be expressed and turned into a useful (vital) information signal.
The rest of your posts are merely appeals to emotion and to your own spurious notion of freedom. Do you have anything meaningful to say, or are you bent on re-defining terms until your arguments make sense?
And yet they always seem to be breaking the prime directive. Imperialist scum.
addressing points
1a) That is the original meaning and use of the word
b) “natural evolution” is once again a somewhat meaningless phrase (“natural” could mean anything). I am getting the feeling the argument you presented seems to be concerned more with aesthetics than anything else, if not please elaborate.
That being said, while the term may have been directly lifted by propertarians from anti-propertarians, I don’t think it was in a malicious attempt to undermine the previous strains of libertarian thought. In fact, I think the term may have been used because they saw a kindred type of philosophy with the anti-propertarians (I’m too lazy and short on time to double check anything I just stated). But, the more “left” oriented libertarians had already lifted it from anti-determinists anyway.
I promote the use of language that I believe will facilitate the clearest and most nuanced understandings of words’ subjects in the long run, even if it requires brief explanation in the short run, as simply using popular definitions will cause long-term problems inasmuch as they’re often based on shallow understandings
That’s fine I guess. I even sympathize with your desire to have dialogue as clear and accurate as possible and have long term goals preserving words correctly. But, once again it would be counterproductive on most other arguments you would wish to present. I think this line of thinking would imply that this is your number #1 objective (at least on this site), all other objectives will have to be subservient to this language issue.
It would also imply that any topic you entered in which the issue of THE TRUE libertarian language is tertiary at best, it will take more effort than most people are willing to put into a debate to start at the point of defining words like “libertarian”, “freedom”, “peace”, etc. Once again, I think this is somewhat of a destructive position to most topics.
Perhaps most importantly, I doubt you will convert/convince enough people to accepting your definitions, and I think you know this. I would bet a nickel it is a futile effort on this site (or most political sites), and I think we can empirically prove that, particularly when the definitions are tertiary to the topic on hand.
In the end there are probably much more effective ways to promote more long term tactics (even when dealing with websites hostile to your views).For example, I will not simply accede to popular misconception that an “anarchist” is merely an ill-informed youth who advocates chaos and disorder because of his hatred of rules because that will and has already bred long-term ignorance of anarchist political theory.
I don’t think this example holds, as this is a possible stereotype of an anarchist rather than any official definition of the word. I think this is akin to saying “all post modern art is meaningless scribbles.” In no way is that a definition of “postmodern art”, though it may be a stereotype it carries with a significant amount of people.
On a semi trivial note to equate anarchy with chaos is kind of the original idea when applied to the ancient Greek word/ mindset. It may be that the term “anarchy” is a word that was almost a deliberate ("artificial) attempt to take a word with an existing negative connotation and give it a positive spin*.*
Out of curiosity, would it be appropriate for me to go over to England and demand they call “biscuts” “cookies” as a true biscut is the thing I get at KFC?
Well I think what he means to say is that there is voluntary exchange which seems capitalistic but that only leads to a mixed economy. I think that was said before?
Public ownership still means that all equally own the property, so I say again, how can you exchange that which is already owned by everyone else?
Strange, you have already forgotten our discussion on early Chinese anarchist theorists.
You can migrate outside of capitalist economies, just go onto subsistence farming. I don’t think anyone would stop you.
How so? If you think that people having the ability to dictate how their property is used is something that is wrong, then on the basis of consistency you believe the worker has no right to his body just like the property owner has no right to his property.
Adam Smith was working under the principle of LTV hence his belief that property owners get the better deal because they allow their property to work for them while laborers don’t.
So you aren’t really mad that people have the ability to dictate to others usually against their will. You are mad that a majority isn’t doing it?
I find that definition lacking specificity. It says nothing of government regulation, its relation to public ownership, nothing of subsidization, tariffs. You honestly cannot be so ambiguous concerning a controversial subject, unless you wish to be ambiguous to create a strawman.
Well that sounds a great deal like mercantilism. Are you familiar with that economic theory?
Again, doesn’t make sense. Concentration of production in the market cannot at the same time happen as competition intensives.
Please, do explain.
Public ownership can either mean state ownership or a commons. Common means of production have never existed, now worker owned and managed firms can and have existed, but they still exhibited the same authoritarian functions as any hierarchical firm. Its all still private property - its all capitalism.
Leviathan:
Let’s take an imaginary scenario, that of a small fishing community on an isolated lake . The community was founded by children who fled there after their parents were killed by Vikings. By the time they had grown to adulthood, every family had attained to different levels of prosperity, some had larger houses, more land, nicer fishing boats, more fish, etc.
The socialist would argue that such an unequal distribution of wealth is unfair, unjust. They would argue that each person was entitled to an equal share of the lake and its fish. At first glance, it might even seem that this is true. But let’s take a deeper look.
How did this inequity in wealth come about? If the rich fishermen stole or defrauded their neighbors, then the courts should correct the injustice. But suppose those fisherman had fished longer hours, or were simply better fisherman. Suppose that those with less had taken more vacations, or taken naps in the afternoon, or worked 35 hour weeks. Ought the “lazy” villagers have economic equality with the diligent?
Maybe the rich fisherman were shrewd businessmen, and their greater wisdom enabled them to work more efficiently and waste less. Maybe they produced other goods that their neighbors desired and so gained wealth through trade. Maybe they even sold fish to their lazy neighbors, and so acquired greater wealth. Is this unjust (assuming they did not commit fraud)?
And from the greater wealth might come greater opportunity. The successful fishermen may be able to buy better boats that can bring in bigger nets or explore further reaches of the lake. All of these things may further enhance his wealth and the disparity between he and his neighbors. But is this unjust and unfair? Does the rich person now have an “unfair” advantage?
You see, if we think of the lake as a bowl of cherries given to siblings by their mother, then perhaps we would say that each should get an equal share. But not only is there no mother in the case of the fishermen, but the lake is not a bowl of cherries. The fish are extracted only through labor, skill, wisdom, and diligence. Would justice require equity of fish for people who employed less labor, skill, wisdom, and diligence? On what basis? What ethic, rule of morality, or line of reasoning would require such a thing?
In fact, even in the case of the bowl of cherries the child must place his hand in the dish and lift a cherry to his mouth. Should a child who is too lazy to lift his hand to his mouth receive an equal poriton of the cherries, even though they rot in the dish? Is it not just and fair that he gets what he produces by his own skill and labor, and no more?
Now perhaps some of the less successful fishermen will accuse the rich of acquiring their wealth by exploitation and fraud. Again, if they deceived or stole from their neighbors, then the courts should require remediation, but what if there is no evidence of deceit or foul play? Is it foul play simply to out-work your neighbors? Is it foul play to catch more fish by superior skill?
But what if the rich are fishing out the lake, and taking all of the fish, even though the others struggle to catch enough to fill their bellies? Now surely we have a case in which some equity must be enforced. But do we? How has this situation arisen? Are less successful fisherman simply reaping what their laziness has sown?
I admit that it is possible that the less successful fishermen have worked hard and for lack of skill have simply fallen behind their rich neighbors. Or perhaps they have been the victims of natural disaster or disease. Even in such cases, it is not clear that the actions of these rich are “unjust”, and yet it would seem reasonable for the poor to demand a share of the fish in the lake. And perhaps some socialists might take this approach. They may claim that the rich in our society have left too little goods or too little opportunity for the poor who have been struggling, working hard, to simply subsist.
But this is by no means evident. Our economy is not a lake of fish that can be fished out. Although there may be some things, such as land or gold, that may be completely “called for”, there is no limit to what the individual can produce from his own diligence and ingenuity.
But what if the government has given the rich an unfair advantage? I admit that this is likely. Such things should be corrected. But let’s not forget to turn the question around and ask if the poor have been given an unfair advantage.
A just society is one where no one is given (by the law) and unfair advantage, and where each person gets “what he produces”.
How would your system work differently?
An anarcho-communist who rejected the basis of marxist theory and state coercion.
Did you just advocate violence and coercion? amazing for a so called anarchist.
“If a man says socialism, or planning, he always has in view his own brand of socialism, his own plan. Thus planning does not in fact mean preparedness to cooperate peacefully. It means conflict.” -LvM
I’m shocked that in 3 pages of replies no one has mentioned Oskar Lange (according to my ctrl-F search, haven’t read the whole thing yet)! His 1936 book On The Economic Theory of Socialism was pretty much the “bible” for socialist economies. To sum his argument, I copied this from his Wiki page:
In the history of economics, he is probably best known for his work On the Economic Theory of Socialism published in 1936, where he famously put Marxian and Neoclassical economics together.
In this book, Lange advocated the use of market tools (especially the neoclassical pricing theory) in economic planning of socialism and Marxism. He proposed that central planning boards set prices through “trial and error”, making adjustments as shortages and surpluses occurred rather than relying on a free price mechanism. If there were shortages, prices would be raised; if there were surpluses, prices would be lowered. Raising the prices would encourage businesses to increase production, driven by their desire to increase their profits, and in doing so eliminate the shortage. Lowering the prices would encourage businesses to curtail production in order to prevent losses, which would eliminate the surplus. Therefore, it would be a simulation of the market mechanism, which Lange thought would be capable of effectively managing supply and demand. Proponents of this idea argue that it combines the advantages of a market economy with those of socialist economics.
By this idea, Lange also argued that a state-run economy could at least be as efficient as -— if not more efficient than —- a capitalist or private market economy. He argued that this was possible if the government planners used the price system as if in a market economy and instructed state industry managers to respond parametrically to the state-determined prices (minimize cost, etc.). Lange’s argument was one of the pivots of the Socialist Calculation Debate with the Austrian School.
His works provided the earliest model of market socialism.[1]
Proof?
Proof?
Who can a) work elsewhere b) form a cooperative c) start their own venture. Try again.
Translation: I define capitalism as whatever I feel like, in this case corporatism/state capitalism, and thus create some inherent “paradox” in the system.
I guess publicy traded firms are “public” then. Oops. Or perhaps this is an arbitrary, irrelevant distinction.
Assertion. It isn’t. We do not believe in that “perfect markets” twaddle. And yes, a system based on laissez-faire will optimally satiate consumer needs relative to any planned economy.
So, there are no free markets, but market concentration proves that free markets (or capitalism) lead to … impediments to competition. Please, try be consistent.
Unless you mean legal barriers such as IP, they’re not “unjust”.
What is a “socially” created difference? The fact that I perceive someone as more attractive than someone else causes an “inequality”. What of it? Whence the notion that “inequalities” must be “equalised”? To be frank I don’t give a shit about “unequal” access to productive resources. Why should access to them be “equal”?
No scare quotes needed.
Fixed.
So play markets. Cool.
- Monarchies are states where appropriation was inconsistent with propertarian norms. 2) Work for another firm, set up your own, set up a cooperative, migrate to a commune… please do tell, where is the analogy? Oh yes, it is fabricated.
No, we needn’t. Not my problem how owners of firms dispose of their property provided they’re doing nothing illegal…
No, they won’t. They will if it personally interests them to, i.e. emotionally affects them one way or other. That is all.
Fixed.
LOL Yeah, sure, government interventions to “correct” market “failure” (or as someone with a clue will tell you, create them…) Wrong. The world is dominated by severely mixed economies with some free ones on the fringes. One not being the USA. Because of course the state is not a monopoly in the service it provides (legal one, no less), and is not subject to the economic laws influencing economic agents, and thus will wisely ‘regulate’ the mess it creates. Fills me with joy.
So far it is only your understanding of things that seems to be crude, in this case of economics.
I hate to tell you that there is no argument for socialism. It is made up of this rotten fail sauce that is really gross.
It isn’t.
Yes socialized campfire spooning ftw?!
For such an absurd example, I found an equally absurd counter point on this thing called the interweb:
“Imagine that you, Dick, Mark, and I go camping. While climbing a
mountain to the campsite, you, Dick, and I decide to build a lean-to,
so that we have a sheltered spot to rest in on the way down.
“Come help us, Mark,” we shout to him.
“No thanks, I’ll go on ahead and set up the camp site,” he replies.
“No you won’t, Mark.”
“What do you mean, no I won’t?” he asks us.
“What we mean is, you are obliged to help us. We’re the majority.
We’ve voted, and we’ve decided that everyone must contribute to our
chosen project. And, you see, we’re prepared to kill you if you don’t
acquiesce.”
“Kill me?”
“Yes, kill you, if we have to. Please understand, it’s not that we
want to kill you. At first, if you resist, we’ll just rough you up a
bit. But if you continue to be obstinate, eventually we will have to
kill you. You’d be defying the will of the people.”
“Now,” I asked my friend, “how is this essentially different from the
Social Democratic State, supposedly the epitome of just and fair
governance?”
He pondered my story for a minute. Then he said, “Yeah, it really
isn’t different, is it?
What in the name of Captain Pugwash is “socialized campfire spooning”? Some kind of eating hall for the Young Pioneers where they only feed you tinned Siberian offal and you have to use a rusty spoon to fish it out?
You know I think G.A. Cohen wrote a small little book explaining how socialism is like a camping trip and society should model itself on such an example. Rather odd.