If I tell them all then people will lose interest in my tales. Showmenship Conza [:P]
Too late.
I, for one, was very polite and straightforward with you.
Did you read the essay I posted?
I would hardly call it an invasion since the Opposing Ideaologies sub-forum was specifically made for the purpose of other people who do not agree with the primary purpose of the forum to debate within, with members of RevLeft patronizing the so called “invasion” with reciprocal debate.
I appreciate that you & others from RevLeft are keeping an eye on our forums, though 
I’m not sure what the nature of the RevLeft forum setup has to do with whether the actions of the Mises visitors constitute an invasion. Anyway, I wasn’t using the word invasion with any negative connotation; just observing the fact that people over on RevLeft are commenting about the flood of Mises.org posters. Let’s put it this way: an invasion has been subjectively perceived, and that’s what kaju wanted to prevent.
I like the Greg Gaffin avatar.
I really didn’t make an account in order to be the sole representative of Marxism on Mises.org. I made it to post what I’ve already posted. However, if I stick around, and we get into a discussion on social philosophies rather than internet fora gossip, recommend this to me again.
If you have a written version of that I might read it right now, but I pretty much despise listening to spoken stuff.
I’m sorry, I haven’t had much time recently to get around to posting on all the forums I usually post on. The real reason I opened up a revleft account was because I had nothing to do for a whole day, and as a result, I was bored to death. I will get back to revleft and your critiques when another day like that rolls by.
No problem, the essay was just for your own benefit. It nicely pinpoints the fundamental difference between market and socialist approaches to economic issues.
How would a society decide what to produce under socialism?
From the times I’ve debated with people of pro-marxist, pro-socialist, or pro-communist (all related, but noticeable different) views, a common response was along the lines of current technologies (such as The Internet) providing a way to streamline the deciding required by majority consent in what to produce under socialism, vis-a-vis electronic voting, etc.
This is generalized from memory, though, so I’m sure there is more nuance to the argument.
However, I didn’t agree at all that somehow this would circumvent the economical calculation problem, though.
Let me say, firstly, that you seem to be posing your questions “at” me, rather than to me. (After all, this is a thread about netdrama, and you continually pose shortish challenges to me rather than, say, inviting me to participate in a thread designated for such discussions). So I will give a brief answer, but I would ask you to ratchet down the aggressiveness/arrogance, assuming I am reading your tone right (it is always hard to tell over the internet).
Pouncing on leftists when they rear their ugly heads in your backyard does not, of course, do anything to change anyone’s social outlook. You won’t actually have achieved anything for your ideas by having played whack-a-mole with leftists brave enough to show up on your turf, who at best will sulk away with their egos damaged, but their opinions intact. You won’t have learned a thing about what makes them tick. So now let us continue.
I consider myself, broadly, a Marxist (I’m not a Trotskyist, despite my sig). Marxism is, above all else, a way of viewing history. It is not a set of prescriptions for ‘the future society’; in fact, Marx is notorious (even with me-especially with me) for giving few details about how a socialist society would look. He overwhelmingly concerned himself with one thing: the historical movement of the working class whereby it comes to claim more of the value that it creates.
It is true that I have no respect for private property as such. If it serves a social function, fine, it can be preserved/tolerated. When it doesn’t serve such a function, then there is no reason for the state to give it legal recognition and physical protection.
If you disagree with this, then it is somewhat unlikely we will be able to have a truly productive discussion on the social benefits or functions of private property in present society. I will be looking for ways to make private interests give way to public ones, but admitting here and there that sometimes the two types of interests may coincide (in the short term at least). You, already convinced on a normative/“natural rights” basis that private property and private interests should not ever be impinged upon (except of course by other private interests), will be motivated to show that such interests always serve the public interest.
And indeed you seem to be already implicitly doing so in the question you pose above. One of the benefits of private property, you presumably believe, is that it coordinates production and distribution in a decentralized and “efficient” way. This is a social benefit of private property. But, what happened to natural rights?
I will give a very broad type of answer to how I think production might be planned “under socialism”: it would be coordinated using, at the minimum, all of the same methods that General Motors has at its disposal to plan production internally. Corporations don’t have an internal market; they don’t have internal prices. Corporations are giant islands of planning in a sea of markets, of cooperation in a sea of competition. Also, central “planning” is of course not the only option available to a democratic society for directing the productivity of whatever wealth it controls. I’m sure you are familiar with Lange’s ideas, and it’s unclear that “planning” which follows market inputs as he proposes is really engaging in “planning” at all.
Finally, I think we should take this to another thread. If you have a suggestion of one, give me the link, and I’ll read everything that’s been written in it so far.
I have questions, this coming from a “worker” mind you…
- Exactly how does your beliefs justify stealing from me to benefit others?
- How does your beliefs contrast with the claim that justice can only be found in voluntary exchange, and not with state mandate or social coercion?
“I think we should take this to another thread. If you have a suggestion of one, give me the link, and I’ll read everything that’s been written in it so far.”
Agreed, I appreciate your patience with the thread title alone & being a good sport about it all.
I think a new thread in the Political Theory sub-forum might be appropriate. There is also the possibility of permanently creating a group (at the mises forums, via the group link in the navigation bar) specifically for debates between those of this forum & any of those from RevLeft (or elsewhere related ideological forums) to meet up for debate and / or questions.
I think there might be a “Fight Club” group, but it’s a bit old & was more so meant for forum members here specifically. I would think something along the lines of (admittedly, tongue in cheek, but well intentioned) a group titled “Ask a Non-Libertarian” or “Ask a Socialist / Marxist / Communist” might be a good idea.
Of course, I don’t want to pick an inherently ad-hominem title, either. “Ask a Non-Libertarian” would seem general enough so that no specific ideology is targeted. “LvMi Forums vs. RevLeft Forums”, or “Forum vs. Forum” might also be a more specific title, as well
What are your thoughts on this, Jazz?
I was just pointing out that the sub-forums for opposing ideaologies seemed like an implied invite for others not of RevLeft to come & join in an the debate & usual forum stuff.
As for an invasion being subjectively perceived already & that you used with without negative connotation, I agree.
It would be unavoidable for either forum community to perceive other members from other forums coming along as some sort of an invasion, & I am encouraged by the continuing debates in this thread & at the alotted threads w/ mises forum members posting, as well as the lack of any sort of abuse of modding over said debates.
Indeed, I may not agree to every political view he or the band has, but I wouldn’t be here without his lyrics. It’s always nice to meet a fellow BR fan
Indeed, I think (I hope, at least) most will try & keep their heads about this if and when we all get involved in discussion [Y]
Hi Jimmy, this is not a link to another thread, but a link to Matteusz Machaj’s recent paper on the Calculation Debate. It is by no means the authoritative stance of the entire Austrian school on the calculation debate, yet I think it is one of the first to address the Market Socialism model offered by Oscar Lange properly, and not as an equilibrium construction(as he notes, Mises could be forgiven for this slip, as even Lange was unlcear about it in his writings). He offers a clarification in exactly how a free market can operate with an “intellectual division of labour”, maintaing private property control. Also, with your point about coordination of large corporations like GM; These firms are no different to anything else, they must coordinate themselves via the profit motive, whose conduct is guided by the use of economic calculation making use of the prices achieved in market exchange in the first place! Even state owned firms, or at least the successful ones like the ones in Singapore operate this way without governmental interference; much like private firms. Anyway, here’s a link to the paper:
Hello Jimmy,
I don’t mean to take away from previous posters comment but I did actually start a new thread. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it at your leisure. Thanks.
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/question-for-marxists-socialists-ect/6485
Thanks for asking. As you can see from how long it’s taken me to make another appearance here, I don’t have quite that much time to spend here. And the time I do spend I’d rather spend talking about the Austrian perspective. If people want to see leftism challenged and defended, they should probably head over to revleft.
So an “Ask a non-libertarian” forum I would not participate in, but an “ask a libertarian” forum I almost definitely would from time to time.
No, I can’t imagine you would agree with him on everything. Though, to be fair, I don’t know of too many BR lyrics that express an overtly and exclusively leftist stance; mostly it’s just hints of such a perspective, like when he talks about “America’s working core” as a special victim of war in “Let Them Eat War.” The anti-war sentiment itself is of course compatible with right-libertarianism. Even the songs that on their face seem to be the most anti-capitalist, like “The Handshake”, when you actually listen to the lyrics, decry patronage–which of course can plague a post-capitalist society as easily as a capitalist one.
Of course, songs like “Kyoto Now” aren’t exactly praising the free market.
The Clash are the same way for me; Strummer’s lyrics had a big influence on me early on, and I still love them.
Thanks.
I’m writing a reply right now.
Does a distinction between capitalism and communism boil down to property rights? Kwisatz Haderach’s keeps bringing his arguments back to the “mix your labor”, homestead principal:
Why does owned (labor, at least) + unowned (natural resources, at least) = owned?
I suppose this comes down to something like a religious conviction (upon which all other arguments are based), but Kwisatz Haderach’s arguments still resort to ownership. He argues that a person can have the right to use a thing without the right to own the thing. Who is giving the person this right? It must be the thing’s owner. It does not matter if the owner is a person or a group of people. In his example, a man may stay in a house which was built by the commune. If that man were to leave, another man may be given permission to live there. Just because the members of the community have entered into a social contract to share ownership of the house does not mean that this situation refutes “owned + unowned = owned”. He is advocating ownership one degree removed from the individual. If another commune claimed that same house for one of its members, how can the original builders of the house claim it without “owned + unowned = owned”?
Am I missing something? Can someone explain another distinction between the anarchic-communists and anarchic-capitalists (and by some mathematical-proof-trickery, “anarchic” removed, communism and capitalism)? Also, is there any argument (other than “why/why not”) against the “owned + unowned = owned” homestead principal?
It almost seems to me, right now, that all of political theory can be distilled down to this issue of property and ownership, and I wonder if it can be argued one way or the other at all.
(first post!)
Welcome! Well, I agree with that definition. Everything boils down to a property problem. I was a supporter of the “natural rights approach” to libertarianism, and find Rothbard’s justification quite good. But I still defend private property on personal values and the consequences it has on society (it’s not even possible to imagine a world-wide communism).
"Essentially yes. Whenever some dumb Socialist says ‘Communism has never existed’ you go right ahead and say at Crude Communism has and point him/her in the direction of “Private Property and Communism” in Marx’s Economic Manuscripts" - Andrew Cain
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm
That it? Any good section / quotes that outline it?