Many people come together and put things they dont want or want to give in a box and leave the box on the street for poor people to use.
Is this the kind of mutual aid youre talking about?
I think the anarcho-communists have always been quite vague on the notion of whether or not their communes will be voluntary. Did Kropotkin believe in voluntary association with the communes?
“Many people come together and put things they don’t want or want to give in a box and leave the box on the street for poor people to use.”
While that is a rather crass and constrained way of putting it, there is some truth to that definition. I also like the link. The ideas in there were what first caused me to accept mutual aid.
I would define it as “actions in which the mutual benefit of both parties are sought, with an emphasis upon the provision of goods and services through gifts and donations, either monetary or direct”
EDIT
Yes. Voluntary and infinite secession is a very important part of anarcho-communist theory
It certainly wasn’t what was at the top of the list of values in Revolutionary Spain and Revolutionary Mexico. Did you read that Rothbard article on anarcho-communism? Because, in this sense, you sound like you could be what I call a voluntary an-comm.
Well I did write this. Strictly speaking the only applied difference between anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism is that one believes in non-use ownership of the means of production and the other one does. For this reason it’s hard to really separate the two beliefs in terms of voluntary X or involuntary Y. Something that I’ve never seen, but which is theoretically possible, is propertarian anarcho-communism. All it would take is an anarcho capitalist who has a different definition of property… That’s all.
I think that Rothbard mischaracterizes the attitude of anarcho-communism, at least amongst its major theorists. He’s right that their economics are shit though.
I think a good modern example of a socialist society coexisting beside a “capitalist” (just using that word for the hell of it) society would be the Kibbutzim in Israel. Point is, it’s voluntary socialism.
No doubt.
Labor theory of value?
Spooner advocated the labor theory of value. Please state why it’s bad, Neodox.
No, the whole thing. As I recall he might have actually rejected the LTV, I know he did in actually determining how much people should work/what their labor was worth… Ironic, an anarcho-communist biologist might have actually come close to stumbling upon the calculation problem.
The idea that capitalism is necessarily bad and leads to a lower standard of living is the biggest problem in his economics… But that itself is built on a total non-understanding of market mechanisms. The socialist viewpoint, from an economic perspective, traditionally comes about when you look at production first, before consumption. When you look at production away from a the consumption structure capitalism does look pretty evil.
@SM
Do you actually want me to go through a critique of the LTV? If so then the answer can be summed up as such: Labor as such has nothing to do with actual value or real price except for insofar as the marginal preferences of individuals, both in consumption and production enact themselves upon the price of labor. The source is desire which acts upon labor, rather than some mystical inversion of these two things.
Full-blown critique, please.
Labor does not give something value. Labor is traditionally needed for the production of goods. This, however, is not what gives it value. What gives a thing value is final product. This is evident by the fact that individuals do not ask how much labor went into producing a good, they only care about the good itself. Labor can be a source of value in the production of goods, both in terms of producing the actual good and in that some people do value labor, but this then means that it is their valuations which matter.
Furthermore labor cannot have any value without land (since it cannot exist), and can have very little value in the absence of capital. Therefore it would be just as correct to talk about a “land theory of value” and, practically speaking, just as true to talk about a “capital theory of value”. In the ERE, an economy devoid of change, ultimately all prices result themselves to the costs of production, but these costs in turn, for all the factors, not just labor, are determined by their oppurtunity costs elsewhere, which amount to what the individual is willing to pay for the final product. Therefore, although it is all very interconnected, labor, and all other factors, ultimately obtain value on the market from consumer expenditure. You could produce a beautiful and unparalleled work of art every five minutes, yet this would be meaningless, in terms of market pay, if no one wanted your works of art, unless someone valued your skill in and of itself, rather than the product.
Even Marx, it would appear, had an implicitly subjectivist theory of value, since he claims it is only the fact that utility was produced which even allows work to constitute as labor. See my post here. It’s also important to note that Marx’s idea of an average socially necessary homogeneous unit of labor which ultimately determines price is just… Messed up. There’s no way to even argue that this is the case, Marx simply asserts it and I’ve never heard a compelling defense. It’s such a vague concept that it’s hard to know why it would be correct. If I’m a business owner and I’m looking to make profit then I don’t give a damn about averages or socially necessary time, I only care about how much I can earn off of hiring a unit of a factor of production as opposed to how much it costs me to do so.
We see two definitions of value: physical value and market value, what actually creates a good and what it sells for on the market. In the physical sense labor does create value, but it’s not the only thing which creates value. Indeed labor by itself can make nothing. In the absence of capital it can physically make practically nothing, although it could produce services in a decent manner in some cases. Therefore labor cannot itself constitute as its own theory of value, we have to look at a “factor theory of value”, which is exactly what we do look at, that’s precisely why they’re called “factors of production”! In terms of market value all that matters are the valuations of buyer and seller. This would lead us to at least a subjectivists, and most likely a marginalist, theory of market value. This is because we can tell through praxeology that expended labor cannot cause people to do what their values don’t bring them to, only their values can change their action. Therefore individuals value physical goods, not expended labor. This valuation as opposed to money seeps into the price of labor itself, but the source is subjective valuation, not labor.
Does this answer your question?
Oh.
But anyways, yes, thank you.
What are your thoughts on a “gift economy?” And, do you believe that people could achieve a society completely devoid of money, that was still based on voluntary association?
[insert Jeapordy music here]
Huh? Why the DP?
I’m not sure. If it’s possible to overcome the calculation problem then that’s the way it would be solved. Otherwise post-scarcity would have to be effectively reached, however. Under modern or historical conditions it would probably be impossible, however.
I see mutual aid and communism/socialism working alongside the market economy, finally providing both a resolution to their century long ideological conflict, rather than mutual aid or socialism replacing capitalism, nor can I see capitalism in the free society totally wiping out mutual aid. Perhaps socialism, however.
Fortunately for me I don’t have to give a damn. If society were to get to this point then people would be able to choose and I wouldn’t have to make up a policy prescription for them.
If you remove money, then there will be no division of labor.
We would be thrown into the dark ages.
A bartering system would make it very hard to exchange goods.
“DP?” What is that?
But yes, if the communist/socialist society is so grand, I always ask those people that in a voluntaryist society, wouldn’t workers, upon seeing that those societies are much better, naturally go over there all by themselves, no coercion necessary?
Double post.
That’s the ultimate argument against non-government socialists of nearly all kinds. I talk about that in my thread on socialism.
