Private property need not be illegal on the basis that it automatically becomes under the legitimate ownership of those who produce and enhance it via labour.
Ya, I just got tired of repeating “absolute property rights (as required under a propertarian system).” It’s lengthy and boring.
Remind me to never hire you to mow my lawn, paint my house, or shear my sheep.
Z.
I see. Is that my private property that’s “stopping” you, or the private property of the ones that are unconvinced by your proposal?
It’s the nature of interest and the coop’s comptetition in the capitalist system. I have already said before, these co-ops exist, but far too much is distributed locally (by that I mean within the co-op) leaving out the possibility of as high a rate of return on investments. Since capital (or more specifically, access to capital) is distributed very centralized under a capitalist system, this leaves one “class” with nearly ultimate power over the decision making process.
LOl, my bagel shop would have failed even more if the 2 people I hired would demand that I share my profit.
Remind me to never hire you to mow my lawn, paint my house,
You confuse private property for personal property.
or shear my sheep
Except for here.
LOl, my bagel shop would have failed even more if the 2 people I hired would demand that I share my profit
If you operate a small business as part of a family unit where you have a friendly relationship, how likely is it they will act in such a way?
Filc I’m just going to skip the first few paragraphs since you don’t want to address the incorrectness of your semantics
Of coarse. Voluntary exchange cannot be completely removed. However this would even be true in a Socialist Society. It’s a praxeological concept. What you’ve done is created a false dellima, that any country that calls itself “Capitalistic” is somehow responsible for all of the non-capitalistic practices it performs. Then assigning those practices as a part of the Capitalistic framework.
If I took your argument, and pointed it back at you. I could say that Socialism has an inherent tendency at genocide, when looking at history. I could then say something like, your disconnected from reality if you deny this! Look at Nazi Germany!
This is where you thought this was a good argument because I should naturally want to run from such a charge… but I don’t. Experiments in socialism (tho far from what was envisioned in theory; a difference between socialism and capitalism mind you. Capitalism developed naturally and should be judged on what it is.) were genocidal. But no more genocidal than capitalism, or other poli-economic systems.
I make a distinction between voluntary exchange and capitalism, you don’t. As you said this is a semantical issue. But it is an important one. It makes your theory, which could be perfectly fine, get all convoluted and unrecognizable to somoene looking at history. To the point where one has to say “has capitalism ever existed.” And to say no, is just ludicrous.
So why should one think your conclusions will match reality when your premises don’t? Praxeology is a deux ex machina.
And it’s not a fallacy of composition to call a rose a rose.
Markets have shown that people are made millionaires by best serving the satisfaction of consumers, likewise those millionaires can lose their earned wealth, by poorly managing the satisfaction of consumers. You cannot ignore that. Businesss are at the mercy of consumers. This is what we call consumer sovereignty. There are plenty of business’s who fail every year.
Do you have any evidence that the most powerful businesses are the one’s with the highest consumer satisfaction? Or did you just make it up in theory? This is what I’m talking about.. it’s more than just a semantical argument. It’s the whole nature of the way you develop your theories.
A cursory look at the capitalist system will show that investor satisfaction comes first. Consumer satisfaction is only secondary. This means that we cold be talking about ANY consumer; i.e. consumers of warfare (states…).
.our attempt to assign all the historical examples of violence as being the fault of capitalism is simply wrong.
The existence of violence does not hinge apon the existence of Capitalism. Removing capitalism will not remove violence. I surely hope you do not continue to believe this. At least if you do, don’t try and argue in favor of that belief. It’s another one of those logical fallacies we keep talking about…
I would like for you to point out wherein I said any such thing. Or did you just think THAT up in theory as well?
Are you assuming everyone here is an expert on the topic? And knowing that they are not, your going to use their misguided information against others? Do you think thats an acurate, honest, way of refuting our concept of Capitalism, err excuse me, voluntary exchange?
Actually that sentence wasn’t a refutation of capitalism, nor voluntary exchange. It was a refutation of just making up theories that don’t correspond to reality… which is really the heart of the issue, isn’t it?
1. Human beings must occupy scarce resources over time in attempt to obtain satisfaction. Do you deny this?
no
2*. Who occupies the same single scarce resource, when multiple parties are interested in it? Two people cannot occupy the same scarce resource at the same time. How do you address this? And how is your system of addressing this not just another spin-off of property. ANd if it is found to be just a spin-off of property, then it’s further proof that your just getting hung up on semantics.*
As I said, it is capitalism’s need to establish absolute laws protecting property. There is nothing unethical, nor impractical about having a system where the things that are “yours” (property) are not yours and yours only to decide what to do with (aboslute property laws). In fact, for most of human existence, property was not established in such a manner.
When you describe capitalism of this type, consisting of Noble elites, aristocracy’s, and various beuracratic institutions. Your describing someone else’s capitalism which has no formal audience here on this forum.
I’m sorry, did you even read the sentence? We’re talking about property now, not capitalism… or are those the same thing too? Was not property legally protected by and for the noble elite’s prior to capitalism? This is why the “semantics” are so important. how can I, or anyone for that matter, argue with someone who fundamentally rejects reality?
No thats not correct. Again I’m not going to spell it out for you. State Capitalism is not recognized as an acceptable form of Capitalism here. In fact State Capitalism suffers from the exact same flaws(economically speaking) as Socialism. The problem being a negative effect on economic calculation.
I’m not talking about state capitalism (I’m glad you recognize that CAN exist). You misunderstood the sentence. I’m talking about the personal autocracy established over property in the capitalist system. Private property laws require an autocracy be established over the land and property itself by the owner. Are you denying that it is a fundamental tenet of capitalism that “your property is your alone to decide what to do with?”
But both would be wrong. The truth is people are people and some behave poorly, regardless of the economic system in place. History is written in bias, and read in bias.
Actually I thougth that was what I was saying to you… But you are right, how can we argue when I talk about capitalism, you know that thing america is or was, and you hear “voluntary exchange” that thing that has existed since the beginning of human history. We may be having a semantical debate, but it is not my fault. I’m just using terms to describe what they actually mena. But you have redefined the same terms to mean something different. You want me to get past my definitions, but by most accounts, mine are correct… so dik…
My comment on the movie Pirates of Silicon Valley was a side note, barely worth even mentioning, like a joke. Why you didn’t recognize that and then spent 3 paragraphs on it is beyond me..
Lets expand on this. First off Apple, and many other more intelligent firms, create only a limited supply of the original product. Depending on how fast that product moves originally will give them an indicator as to whether or not there is additional demand. Apple is usually pretty good at building a safe amount of units to match demand. I mean you don’t see Apple laptops and desktops laying around in excess in the streets. So I am not sure why you think there is mal-investment.
Actually, you do. Not on the street (that would be just giving things away lol). But they do sit around, for years until they are eventually sent back to the company and destroyed or donated to some charity or school. It is estimated that some 40% grocery store waste is products thrown away because they are cutting into profitability (perfectly good apples that started browning), regardless of how many people are starving right outside the door.
if everyone who wanted this produt submited a request prior to it’s manufacturing(Which would be an extremely costly thing to do) would they still not need to use some form of purchasing power? Or would Apple just spend all the time and energy into making these units only to give them out for free. Now if thats the case, whats to stop from everyone on earth from requesting a unit
What is to stop them? They basically are requesting it. And we probably have the resources to provide it, at least in some manner… and even without a net loss. But not at a high rate of profit…
But once again, that was just as an aside to the larger point in my post.. idk, it seems you always get hung up on the “perhaps this” and miss the “but this is what I’m talking about.”
So anyway… you live in this socialist society working at the local tire factory (maybe you’re a farmer, either way). House, health, education, provided by the wealth generated through the employments of the community. On top of that you get paid your salary from other excess revenues at your job.
Taking this into consideration it is not hard to see how the community could use its general fund, or you could petition the computer shops directly.
This is an important point I make. If you concede that violence would still exist, even absent capitalism, then you cannot associate historical examples of theft, pillaging, and robbery as being the fault of Capitalism.
Where have I? I “concede” that voluntary exchange exists absent capitalism too… but does that even make sense to you?
Still, I’d like to hear your alternative. What you’ve pointed out is a flaw of man kind, not a flaw of any economic system. Violence will happen regardless of the system. How will your system be economically superior, while addressing such occassions of violence more justly
You won’t be able to translate purchasing power into political/legal power. You take the money out of the courts and one cannot buy their violence as justified at the expense of those without said purchasing power.
So then it follows that all these historical examples of thievery and violence is not the fault of Capitalism. Before society’s had a medium of exchange, before purchasing power even existed, you had the conditions you warn about. THere is always wealth disparity, some will have the capital means to do things where others do not.
Yes, and absent wealth disparities one cannot institutionalize their power. Are you going to punch everyone in the village? No, you will be quickly overrun. But if you have excess wealth (in comparison) you can go to the next town over and hire people to punch them all for you.
If we start off with voluntary exchange, and logically build from there. At what point in time do things become tyrrannical? At what point in time do we need to “intervene” to prevent this alleged tyranny? If you endorse voluntary exchange, how will you prevent the realization of another medium of exchange?
As I have said, it is not the voluntary exchange I have a problem with. I even adcknowledge that VE is promoted by capitalism, but it is not a requirement of it (at least in how I see capitalism, as it exists), whether statist or non statist (i can steal someone’s money, invest it cuz no one else is going to care where I got the money from, and make a killing off of it). Therien lies the semantical problem.
The problem I have w capitalism is in the establishemnt of absolutes in property laws, and the system being weighted in favor of investors.
As to your last part, I basically can agree with that. I advocate libertarian socialism, but acknowledge that socialism can be statist. I even go so far to say capitalism and socialism are jsut labels, and the real difference is only in our views of property. Both camps have their statists and tyrants, as do all other systems.
The calculation problem rests on the argument that value cannot be assigned to products for comparison in the mode of production under a bureacratic Stalinistic regime, which, it can’t. However where the community is autonomous and self-regulatory (libsoc), the value is assigned according to the socially necessary labour time, absolute costs and other variables embodied in the commodity.
The USSR wasn’t autonomous?
Who defines socially necessary?
How are the absolute costs embodied in the commodity determined?
Errmm..not really, no.
I will refer you to an exchange I just had with another user:
What is meant by “socially necessary”? The least amount required for everyone to survive?
“The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.” - Marx, Capital, Vol.I, Chapter One, Section A
…
Who is making sure the vouchers are destroyed? This would rely totally on the good will of individuals.
The people that they are given to at the community bank in exchange for other goods destroy them or perhaps cross through numbers (for instance if you have, perhaps a certificate the says “The Community Bank Owes You X”, they would simply cross through the writing and hand it back to you; when you redistribute a product, they renew the value of the certificate with, perhaps a stamp or something). They do this in front of the labourers. If the labourers do not see them do this, they will likely report the matter given that they are likely to be engaged in some form of corruption. The system could work in any number of ways but corruption is not likely.
How hard is it to remove a photo or spoof any other form of identification the voucher might contain?
Fraud is possible under any economic system (including capitalism where it is possible to forge money, as an example).
Who forces the community to do these calculations?
The people getting involved in the community themselves. FYI, its called “Participatory Politics”.
How do we know they are all good at math?..Who is making enforcing these role rotations?
Certain positions in the community will require qualifications. Other positions might deal with more trivial engagements.
How will anyone get good at a job with such rotations?
Naturally, people will be helping each other out with the administrative tasks and I imagine the work involved in the rotation of roles wouldn’t be too different, otherwise we could limit the rotation for highly qualified jobs on the only basis of recall by petition.
How does the availability of all paperwork prevent corruption?
What I mean, is that anyone and everyone should be able to read the paperwork. Paperwork also gets shared.
Who gets to be on the council?
Anyone who volunteers.
How do we know they won’t fudge the numbers for their own gain? How hard is it for a council to collude to misinform the community? Are they fair game for the fooling?
What about those that can’t read?
Its voluntary participation, not obligatory. I imagine reading would be an mandatory requirement for certain positions but their would be other positions they could attain. Education would also be provided for free so they can learn to read if they want.
P.s. I am an anarcho-collectivist.
Errmm..not really, no.
Why not? The government acted independently from the rest of the world. Thats autonomy in a nutshell.
The community is supposed to be autonomous under social (socialist) anarchy.
The community is supposed to be autonomous under social (socialist) anarchy.
Are you dodging the USSR/Autonomous contention? Very well, define community. (Also, if they are already under social anarchy, isn’t autonomy already gone?)
Community is an abstraction. It can’t do anything. Only people can act.
You can just type out the quote brackets, or change False in the address bar to true. But that’s a pain in the ass so nobody does it. I think there is a thread in the About section that explains other methods.
Your anarchist society is imposed on everyone, as such it would be authoritarian. People can decide not to participate in the process, but a plurality would impose their will on them. The individual is no less coerced by a plurality than by a dictator. Even if it works perfectly, it would be an oligarchy. It would simply be central planning with very small states. It would be a battle of special interests, and for bureaucratic privileges. Do you not think people would start to impose their stupid crusades on each others, like recycling? It could be so much more totalitarian because there’d be so much more attention for each person on a small scale. And you do realize this is what they attempted in Rusia?
You mean some planner would calculate it on a spreadsheet? That is nowhere near as efficient as market pricing. You simply can’t rationally calculate values. It could mimic market pricing, but could never reach it’s efficiency. Organization is easier on a small scale, but that doesn’t eliminate the general problem. And there are huge opportunity costs to not cooperating on a large scale.
How would kids know whether society needs doctors or computer scientists? This system is all fair and fluffy, but it doesn’t get the job done. It wouldn’t be very productive, and there couldn’t be very high standards of living. Capitalism does all that with prices. That’s the economic calculation problem and it’s relevant even to a small hippie commune. People can be the most incentivized workers in the world, it just can’t compete with the efficiency of propertarian organization.
You just couldn’t properly figure out how to organize things. People have different ideas about how to do stuff. How could a community of 1000 people even agree on the design of a factory? Have you ever tried deciding anything with pure democracy? Usually some stupid idea gets implemented because it sounds good. It would be horrifically inefficient and wasteful. Trying to organize economic activity through pure democracy is even worse than central planning.
Your use of autonomous in this context is an authoritarian government that is allowed to do whatever it pleases. My use of autonomous is always in reference to self-managed groups. Autonomy is not gone in the respect that the community, simply a localised fixed geographical area possessing residents (as I mean it here), is self-regulated and owns the means of production which are worker managed enterprises. So autonomy is not gone. I went into more detail how this would function earlier in the thread.
Stalinism was state controlled despotism and desired to control economic activity from a central body rather than allow society to spontaneously reorganise in a socialistic fashion; the idea of people acting themselves which is essential to social anarchism.
Yeah, I know, I was just being lazy…
[QIPTE]Your anarchist society is imposed on everyone, as such it would be authoritarian. People can decide not to participate in the process, but a plurality would impose their will on them. The individual is no less coerced by a plurality than by a dictator. Even if it works perfectly, it would be an oligarchy. It would simply be central planning with very small states. It would be a battle of special interests, and for bureaucratic privileges. Do you not think people would start to impose their stupid crusades on each others, like recycling? It could be so much more totalitarian because there’d be so much more attention for each person on a small scale. And you do realize this is what they attempted in Rusia?
[/quote]
I have got into these types of “semantic” discussions before and I have to say, they don’t interest me. I’d rather stick to defending socialism as an efficient and rational economic system (the whole meaning of the word libertarian is used in a totally different way by “your side” and “my side” anyway).
Right, so administrative duties would be shared around volunteers participating in the commune and workman owned enterprises would, broadly speaking, be responsible for their own paperwork which could be submitted to said commune and checked over to avoid corruption. People don’t have to check it all, they can just check up on it occasionally from time to time.
The price mechanism itself is distorted by externalities. Also, I understand the economic calculation debate fine and, quite frankly it gets overused. There would be signals for certain types of labour based on supply (those wiling to do certain jobs) and demand (demand for labour); low supply and high demand means a given job is likely to be unpopular = more pay added on to the socially necessary labour time; high supply and low demand = less pay added.
Right, so syndicates would largely be in charge of their own management with control over investment funds provided by said commune who objectively calculates value of syndicates considering some of the variables I have mentioned above. There is a degree of pure democracy on one hand and individual decision making on the other.
Autonomy is not gone in the respect that the community, simply a localised fixed geographical area possessing residents (as I mean it here),
Fixed geographical area possessing residents?
Can people move there, away? Can I live within the geographical area without being a member of the community? What about people who live “near-by” are they also members of the community?
…is self-regulated and owns the means of production which are worker managed enterprises. So autonomy is not gone. I went into more detail how this would function earlier in the thread.
You are already putting impeding autonomy with “is self-regulated and owns the means of production which are worker managed enterprises.”
Fixed geographical area possessing residents?
Can people move there, away? Can I live within the geographical area without being a member of the community? What about people who live “near-by” are they also members of the community?
Yes people may move freely and easily. People living in the community would have control over the means of production. In actual fact, everyone in the world technically speaking has legitimate ownership over all property; but this does not equate to management unless working in a commune. Communes themselves are merely an association of syndicates (worker owned enterprises); so the syndicates basically cooperate with each other through the commune. I am tired so you will have to excuse me here if I say something inaccurate.
You are already putting impeding autonomy with “is self-regulated and owns the means of production which are worker managed enterprises.”
Right, so members in the community itself would be responsible for decision making in the commune free from state coercion. Basically, libertarian socialism is a stateless society of free associations of cooperatives free from state involvement. They are owned by the community but this is merely to ensure that the producers may legally claim use rights over property on the basis that it is produced, enhanced or maintained by their labour.
In actual fact, everyone in the world technically speaking has legitimate ownership over all property; but this does not equate to management unless working in a commune.
Damn it. More rules, even less autonomy.
Right, so members in the community itself would be responsible for decision making in the commune free from state coercion. Basically, libertarian socialism is a stateless society of free associations of cooperatives free from state involvement. They are owned by the community but this is merely to ensure that the producers may legally claim use rights over property on the basis that it is produced, enhanced or maintained by their labour.
So, definitely not autonomous.
What about the non-members of the community from above, are they free from community decision making?
Don’t worry, it’s not a semantic debate. It was actually a substantial critique of left-anarchism. I’m saying that rule by a plurality is just as authoritarian as a dictatorship and therefore immoral. That’s not an argument about economic efficiency, that comes later.
Ok, now the argument is economic efficiency.
Yes, economic calculation is overused by Austrians, but that does not dismiss it’s impact on your theory. I think you do understand economic calculation, you just think you can evade it, since you believe you can calculate your way out of it. But it can never reach the efficiency of market pricing. Even in todays semi-state capitalism the decisions of Indian miners might be driven by a decision on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. How could a socialist society possibly simulate those kinds of market signals without being overly authoritarian? It’s impossible to calculate it because nobody can rationally grasp it. What you are proposing is better central planning on a smaller and therefore more manageable scale, but that’s not as such a solution to the calculation problem, it just contains it in comparison to Stalinist economies. Maybe anarchist socialism would be 60% as efficient as capitalism, maybe 80%, or 30%, but it would be giving up standard of living.
Mostly in state socialism, not that much in anarcho-capitalism, where people have access to a privatized legal system.
That’s the problem. You can make objective calculations, but you can never calculate value, because value is subjective. Pricing is such a superior system precisely because it isn’t rational, it looks deeper into your soul and asks you what you really want. People say one thing when they are asked, but what they really want is only determined by what they are willing to pay for. That’s why pure democracy would wastes a lot of resources on projects that have a noble sound to them, and that people feel compelled to consent to in a townhall meeting, but which nobody really wants.
our anarchist society is imposed on everyone, as such it would be authoritarian. People can decide not to participate in the process, but a plurality would impose their will on them. The individual is no less coerced by a plurality than by a dictator. Even if it works perfectly, it would be an oligarchy… And you do realize this is what they attempted in Rusia?
It is not forced on you, if you want to try something different, try a different community. It does not include those who do not wish to participate.
As for the last sentence.. no. There was a time, early in the revolution when the soviets (worker councils) were permitting local autonomy, and participatory democracy. But this was quickly wiped out. From the onset the USSR became nothing more than an imperialist enterprise. There are many reasons for this, but that’s a different discussion.