My biggest complaint with the whole communist concept isn’t the proposed end result, but rather the foundation for it all of it in concept; polylogism and historical materialism. As such, these ideas have both been toppled many times in history. First, the very concept that different classes have some magically different epistemologies doesn’t hold up under scientific inquiry (the neurons in my head being from a working class family is no different than those from a family of scientists or businesspersons, and so on). Second, history has been shown time and time again not to be a science with different views being taken on the particulars of history (see the current revisionism of separating Stalinism from Communism, or even Leninism from Communism). Also, the very idea that some how history simply happens to its participants is idiotic (which is one the consequences of historical materialism), even in terms of the natural sciences (atoms don’t simply have things happen to them, they react in kind).
So, all in all, the very basis of communism can’t stand up to even a light scrutiny, so how in the hell is the rest of it suppose to survive?
The incidence of losses will fall on who exactly? Or perhaps this question is irrelevant to you since you want to do away with profit & loss. If you do away with profit & loss, there is no way to adjust the production structure to changing demand of consumers. Or perhaps in your world the consumer is a static peace of meat that consumes the same thing everyday? ###############
The critical error (among just a few that I can spot) is that you are completely disregarding the role of the entrepreneur and Capitalist in the market economy not realizing that there is no other way to have a viable economic system. ##################
You are ignoring the fact that Capital is scarce. You are ignoring the universal truth of scarcity in general. ################
Workers are the original factor owners of production. The labor of the worker belongs to the worker! You forget that the worker SELLS his labor to his employer. This is just a regular exchange between any two free individuals. The value of that labor is determined according to the worker’s marginal productivity, which is just another way of saying that his labor output is valued in the market according to the laws of supply & demand. ###########
How about you check out Profit & loss By Mises. It’s a wonderful introl. Essay to Mises and free market economics. ###########sorry, I don’t know why my paragraphs are combined into a single long paragraph.
I would be careful making absolute statements like that. I’ve debated with people about communism who were perfectly fine with a dictatorship of the proletariat because it would be based upon the will and right of the proletariat.
Well as I said, it’s not a one-to-one, it’s closer to call Plato’s utopia socialistic than communistic. In any case, communism makes no sense, it’s an unattainable utopia, because if nobody has neither ownership or control over the means of production… then no incentives exist. Socialism is problematic for many reasons, one of which is the replacement of consumer demands with political desires, but communism would eliminate all forms of incentives, and it would also be the absolute manifestation of the tragedy of the commons.
I’m a market-anarchist, so I’m not saying a guardian class would inevitably be the state. I’m just saying that what Plato conceptualized as the guardian class are today very similar to the role of state bureaucrats and soldiers.
The part about directly was a mistake, I do mean that it isn’t an exact relationship, but there is an interesting link. I’m surprised that my post is on google this quickly lol. I do provide a link to the book in my post, but you can find it on google books for free, although I have only seen it in French. I haven’t looked in detail for an English version though. I suppose if the Mises institute is looking for a book to translate, the first history of communism surely deserves that place
Maybe if my French gets that good, I will be able to not only read but also translate parts of it… give it a few years. I’ve ordered a book by Bastiat and Rousseau in French, so that should help.
Yeah yeah yeah. Proletariat, right. Bourgeois swine, got it. Yawn.
Forgive me, but could these 20th century debates be any more boring? Look. I’m not going to debate about collective ownership or central ownership, I’m going to come at this from a different angle than most others. I do not really reject communism on the basis of its inability to work - whether it is or isn’t, I don’t care. I reject on the basis that your politics, communism, anarcho-communism, general socialism is boring! It’s boring as f*ck! Come on, it’s been how many centuries since that ratty old Communist manifesto was written. Can we move on already?
Please, you have a cute girl in your picture, maybe you can understand the desirability for aesthetics. Communism is ugly. 20th century capitalism is ugly. Democracy is ugly.
I come on here and speak in defense of Marx and I’m looked at as the second coming of Stalin. [;)]
The incidence of losses will fall on the workers as a collective. I don’t see why you are asserting I want to do away with profit and loss. If a democratically owned business fails to meet society’s needs they will inevitably fail. If a business meets society’s needs exceptionally and receives profit, the collective can vote and democratically choose what said profit will be spent on, be it bonuses for all the workers, more machines, donate to charity, anything.
I realize that you can be self employed in capitalism. Capital is scare, for the majority of people not for the capitalists. 40 percent of the worlds wealth is owned by 1 percent of the worlds population while children are starving, does that speak well of our economic system? Capitalism is not all evil like many Marxists make it out to be. I sympathize with anarcho-capitalists strongly. Capitalism is not ideal and I don’t see any practicality or moral problems with socialism.
How are workers the original owners of the means of production? The worker sells his labor correct, it is an exchange between two individuals, correct. But there is no non-exploitative, practical alternative, not everyone can be self-employed. The worker’s wage is not within the market and laws of supply and demand. The boss wants the worker’s wage to be as low as possible, if the worker’s wage was really in line with the market, they would be paid for what they produce and there would be no profit for the boss that does not produce anything. The boss wants low wages to increase his profit.
The workers would democratically own the means of production. Who said no one would own the means of production? The worker’s incentive is to be paid. The business’s incentive is to contribute to society and therefore collect reward. Have you figured out I’m not a commie yet? : P
Understood. I consider myself an anarchist without adjectives. I enjoy watching and reading anarcho-capitalist/market anarchists works. Cheers!
I never thought you were a commie. Your posts aren’t emotional enough. And you didn’t really address the problem of tragedy of the commons.
I realise that market anarchism is a redundancy as it allows for socialist communities to exist on a voluntary basis as well as any other form of organisation. However given the longtime association of anarchists with violent socialist movements, I add that just in case.
I have a fundamental problem with this democratic allocation of resources.
Its an old antidote that I believe speaks volumes on this position:
Say two robbers break into my house and I catch them stealing my TV. I confront them and their response is hey dont worry, were reasonable robbers with some philisophical background… lets put it two a democratic vote… ofcourse the vote is 2v1, and they have “justified” taking my tv…
Tragedy of the Commons as in Garrett Hardin? Has that theory really been proven? Democratically controlled business worked great in anarchic Spain, productivity sky rocketed. In democratically controlled business’s wages would inevitably be higher because there is no money reaped from every worker for one owner. So the workers would realize that if the business falls and a capitalist business takes over they would have lower wages and insufficient hours and conditions. Not to mention renting yourself to an institution is highly unnatural.
Market Anarchism is no redundancy, traditionally anarchism is socialist.
Obviously, theft would be illegal in any socialist society. I’m guessing you also have a problem with democracy? Two wolves and a sheep?
A wage is paid in terms of previous valuation of the work. In this case, it’s in measure of productivity (Confederal Socialist explains this well on Youtube). So, if worker 1 makes 10 units of A and worker 2 makes 5 units of A, worker 1 will get paid more than worker 2 in terms of productivity (as reflected in his/her wage). Thus, it’s not exploitive due to the laborer’s productivity is paid for in whole.
That’s the way it should be (one worker paid more than the other according to production) but it is still exploitative because neither worker is paid anywhere near in full for what they produce. Say worker A makes seven shirts and worker b makes four shirts. Each shirt is worth twenty dollars. Worker A’s labor equates to 140 dollars and work B’s labor equates to 80 dollars. They are not paid directly for what they produce even if their pay is still in wages and one is paid more than the other it is still exploitative because the boss collects profit. Worker A should be payed close to 140 dollars, minus money which is used to transfer the shirts to the store and worker B should be payed close to 80 dollars. How can you even say that the laborer’s productivity is paid for in whole, if that was true than there would be no profit for the boss.
Value is subjective. Anyway, what is wrong with the owner making a profit if the worker agreed to do the work at the given price? Also, the price at which the owner sells the product is not directly determined by the costs. The price is directly determined by supply and demand. Furthermore, if a worker produces a shirt for $2, and then the factory owner sells the shirt for $1, should the worker return $1 to the factory owner? Afterall, the worker was paid more than what the shirt was valued. Lastly, you are ignoring time preference.
Except you have to take into account that the equity holder(s) have to pay the costs of the capital, and that they assume the risk of the business. So even though they may not have any direct part in making the final good, they still deserve the normal profit (which is the theoretical market value of their enterprenurial skill and the assumption of the risk, which the workers themselves would be averse to, hats why they chose to become workers who are paid a wage instead of seeking a more risky profession). And that is what they earn in a competitive market
“Exploitation” happens in a noncompetitive market where the capital owner is able to violently repress competition, and exploit the workers and consumers to attain monopoly profits which are greater than the value added by the capitalists’ enterprenurial ability and risk taking.
