SOCIALISM IS DEAD (was: Resolved: That Capitalism and Anarchy)
Lamont Granquist
>Socialism IS bureaucratic intervention and
>redistribution.
So you keep asserting.
Nice world you're living in, you should try it out here with the rest of
us sometimes...
>To me, the phrase "socialist anarchy" is ridiculous, inasmuch
>as it is a complete dichotemy.
Which just shows that you've failed to consider the alternatives.
>>You hit the nail on the head! Just how DO you have a socialist state
>>without bureacracy? You DON'T. Because all states have beauracracies.
>>Since WE aren't talking about socialist states or state-capitalism,
>>bureacracies are irrelevant.
>
>Then what ARE you talking about? Who will organize your effort? Who will
>oversee resource allocation? If you are so perterbed about my
>"misunderstanding" of "libertarian socialism", why don't you answer the
>questions about resource allocation (and indeed, resource allocation without a
>state, or a bureacracy, or whatever). If I am not mistaken, this is the
>argument of Doug Kellner, among others, none of whom will ever address
>the issue.
Syndicalism. You just have worker-owned shops (essentially) where capital is
democractically controlled. To the extent that the means of production
are in the hands of the people this could be quite validly be referred to
as "socialism" although there is no need for a state. As syndicates earn
money then they could give higher wages, expand or (i suppose) invest. I
don't know enough about futures markets and shit like that to comment, but
if they were to be retained the syndicates could supply the investment
capital.
Then you season with state-control to taste, or take your free market
straight if that is to your liking.
--
Lamont Granquist (lam...@u.washington.edu)
Q: How many economists does it take to change a light bulb?
N: None! If it needed fixing, the market would take care of it!
Randy Wiese
: The capitalists will not allow for the government to be abolished and totally
: free markets to be instituted. To do so would be to eliminate their
: privaledge which they aren't going to support, and they'll hold the country
: hostage with threats of capital flight.
"threats of capital flight"? Where exactly would us nasty capitalists
flee with our loot? If there's a safe haven for capitalism in this world,
I'd love to know where it is.
Frank R. Ahlgren
>Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!caen!usenet.coe.montana.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!lamontg
>From: lam...@u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
>Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.philosophy.objectivism
>Subject: Re: SOCIALISM IS DEAD (was: Resolved: That Capitalism and Anarchy)
>Date: 13 Dec 1994 01:55:20 GMT
>Organization: University of Washington
>Lines: 24
>Message-ID: <3ciuu8$d...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>
>References: <3ccrcm$2...@giga.bga.com> <3ch731$l...@rockall.cc.strath.ac.uk> <jonson.20...@bga.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: saul4.u.washington.edu
>Xref: bga.com alt.society.anarchy:10855 alt.politics.economics:7487 alt.politics.radical-left:21428 alt.fan.noam-chomsky:4013 alt.philosophy.objectivism:17145
>The capitalists will not allow for the government to be abolished and totally
>free markets to be instituted. To do so would be to eliminate their
>privaledge which they aren't going to support, and they'll hold the country
>hostage with threats of capital flight. Free market capitalism simply
>isn't a possible option. There is no way to get from here to there.
Wrong. Deconstruction began over 200 years ago, and it will continue.
>>socialist (libertarian or otherwise). Before you promulgate this idealogy,
>>you MUST read Mises. Know your enemy like I know Lenin, Marx, and Engle's.
>>Understand the "subjective theory of value" as well as I understand Marx's
>>"Labour Theory of Value".
>Know thine enemy in the conext of a.f.n-c would imply that you should read
>Rocker and Bakunin. You quite obviously haven't.
You are correct, and I will look into it. This does not absolve socialists
from solving the problems of resource allocation (for the zillionth time).
Frank R. Ahlgren, III
Austin, TX
jon...@bga.com
71203...@compuserve.com
Frank R. Ahlgren
>Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!lamontg
>From: lam...@u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
>Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.philosophy.objectivism
>Subject: Re: SOCIALISM IS DEAD (was: Resolved: That Capitalism and Anarchy)
>Organization: University of Washington
>Lines: 43
>Message-ID: <3cj2rd$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>
>References: <3ccrcm$2...@giga.bga.com> <3ch731$l...@rockall.cc.strath.ac.uk> <jonson.20...@bga.com> <3cihmo$n...@magus.cs.utah.edu> <jonson.30...@bga.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: saul4.u.washington.edu
>Xref: bga.com alt.society.anarchy:10859 alt.politics.economics:7497 alt.politics.radical-left:21437 alt.fan.noam-chomsky:4020 alt.philosophy.objectivism:17163
>jon...@bga.com (Frank R. Ahlgren) writes:
>>Socialism IS bureaucratic intervention and
>>redistribution.
>So you keep asserting.
>Nice world you're living in, you should try it out here with the rest of
>us sometimes...
Perhaps I will, when you can solve the problem of resource allocation.
>>To me, the phrase "socialist anarchy" is ridiculous, inasmuch
>>as it is a complete dichotemy.
>Which just shows that you've failed to consider the alternatives.
Which are?
>>Then what ARE you talking about? Who will organize your effort? Who will
>>oversee resource allocation? If you are so perterbed about my
>>"misunderstanding" of "libertarian socialism", why don't you answer the
>>questions about resource allocation (and indeed, resource allocation without a
>>state, or a bureacracy, or whatever). If I am not mistaken, this is the
>>argument of Doug Kellner, among others, none of whom will ever address
>>the issue.
>Syndicalism. You just have worker-owned shops (essentially) where capital is
>democractically controlled. To the extent that the means of production
>are in the hands of the people this could be quite validly be referred to
>as "socialism" although there is no need for a state.
And who makes the decisions for these shops? Who organizes them? Who starts
them? Can anyone start one?
As syndicates earn
>money then they could give higher wages, expand or (i suppose) invest.
You suppose. How about something concrete for someone who just doesn't know
anything about anything.
I
>don't know enough about futures markets and shit like that to comment, but
>if they were to be retained the syndicates could supply the investment
>capital.
Then why are you still talking, Big Brain? Since I DO know a little
something about these markets, why don't you have a seat. Without organized
futures and cash markets, resources cannot be efficiently allocated. Mises.
Mises. Mises.
>Then you season with state-control to taste, or take your free market
>straight if that is to your liking.
I like it straight. Thanks.
i.m.mckay, CAD Centre
> In article <3cj2rd$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu> lam...@u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>
> >>To me, the phrase "socialist anarchy" is ridiculous, inasmuch
> >>as it is a complete dichotemy.
>
> >Which just shows that you've failed to consider the alternatives.
>
> Which are?
>
The ideas of Bakunin and co, the ideas of the anarchist movement for
over 120 years, ie socialist anarchy.
> >>Then what ARE you talking about? Who will organize your effort? Who will
> >>oversee resource allocation? If you are so perterbed about my
> >>"misunderstanding" of "libertarian socialism", why don't you answer the
> >>questions about resource allocation (and indeed, resource allocation without a
> >>state, or a bureacracy, or whatever). If I am not mistaken, this is the
> >>argument of Doug Kellner, among others, none of whom will ever address
> >>the issue.
>
> >Syndicalism. You just have worker-owned shops (essentially) where capital is
> >democractically controlled. To the extent that the means of production
> >are in the hands of the people this could be quite validly be referred to
> >as "socialism" although there is no need for a state.
>
> And who makes the decisions for these shops? Who organizes them? Who starts
> them? Can anyone start one?
>
See, told you he did not understand "self-management"!
And he does not read other people's posts!
Who makes the decisions? "worker-owned shops (essentially) where capital is
democractically controlled." in other words, the workers themselves!!!
Who organises them? Why, those who do the work (ie self-management).
Who starts them? People associating together, maybe existing syndicates,
maybe just other people.
>
> As syndicates earn
> >money then they could give higher wages, expand or (i suppose) invest.
>
> You suppose. How about something concrete for someone who just doesn't know
> anything about anything.
Oh, the wit, the arogance! A true savant!
The economic ideas of anarchy are based on collective labour based
around communes with their associated "banks" (places to store goods/
credit/whatever). The workers associated in the workplace manage their
own work, deciding what to produce based on feedback from consumers
and consumption figures. these figures being processed by rotated
admin. staff. Each workplace would federate (if it so chooses) with
others in the area (same branch plus cross industry) to discuss
common problems, new ideas, etc. These federal councils would be
admin only, made up of manadated delegates who draw up suggestions
for the industry based on these mandates. The reports would then
go back to the workplaces where they would be discussed and
the necessary changes, actions undertaken, if the workplace so
desired (its a federal structure). All delegates being strictly
mandated from mass meetings and subject to instant replacement.
Plus the element mass assembly has the final say in what affects
it.
The aim of such meetings would be reduce working hours, improve
conditions and better meet demand. Distribution would be a matter
of taking orders from places and producing them. It collecting
statistics, analysising them and acting on them.
The role of labour notes would depend on what the collectives
decided. But the market would be no more :)
>
> I
> >don't know enough about futures markets and shit like that to comment, but
> >if they were to be retained the syndicates could supply the investment
> >capital.
>
> Then why are you still talking, Big Brain? Since I DO know a little
> something about these markets, why don't you have a seat.
Savant speach again!!!
Really, insults are just sad.
And a basic anarchist idea is that the future is not created by our
"blue-prints" but by the actions and ideas of those live there. So
Lamout is correct in saying he cannot predict *exactly* what future
demand is going to be.
> Without organized futures
Who does the organising? Its obvious you don't think its
going to be the workers.
> and cash markets, resources cannot be efficiently allocated.
No, sorry. But is just not true. Resources can be allocated
efficiently, all it requires is the gathering of statistics
(which capitalists will have to do as well, otherwise how
will they know where to invest).
>Mises. Mises. Mises.
Savant. Savant. Savant.
<snip>
Iain : Saorsa, Ionannachd, Dluthachd!
: Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
*************************************
"In all the course of history, as in the present epoch, government is either
brutal, violent, arbitrary domination of the few over the many, or it is an
instrument devised to secure domination and privilege to those who, by force,
or cunning, or inheritance, have taken to themselves all the means of life,
first and foremost the soil, whereby they hold the people in servitude, making
them work for their advantage." -- Errico Malatesta
Eric Schissel
You treat capital flight as thought it were a new, and untested, idea.
On the contrary, it's been standard practice to remove capital from a
poor country, or area in a country, if there is a serious threat of
conditions unfavorable to capitalism and to capital being created and
enforced.
-eric schissel
--
1.The most common mistake of young thieves is stealing complimentary copies.
2.Read misc.activism.progressive. (Std disc).
es...@crux2.cit.cornell.edu Eric Schissel, at least once in a while.
Frank R. Ahlgren
>Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!stevec
>From: ste...@unixg.ubc.ca (Steve Cumming)
>Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky
>Subject: Re: SOCIALISM IS DEAD (was: Resolved: That Capitalism and Anarchy)
>Date: 13 Dec 1994 19:15:35 GMT
>Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
>Lines: 42
>Message-ID: <3ckrsn$a...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>
>References: <jonson.20...@bga.com> <3ciuu8$d...@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <jonson.39...@bga.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: jaeger.geog.ubc.ca
>Xref: bga.com alt.society.anarchy:10877 alt.politics.economics:7539 alt.politics.radical-left:21481 alt.fan.noam-chomsky:4046
>In article <jonson.39...@bga.com> jon...@bga.com (Frank R. Ahlgren) writes:
>>In article <3ciuu8$d...@nntp1.u.washington.edu> lam...@u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>>>Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!caen!usenet.coe.montana.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!lamontg
>>>The capitalists will not allow for the government to be abolished and totally
>>>free markets to be instituted.
>>Wrong. Deconstruction [of governmant] began over 200 years ago, and it will continue.
>Since the modern state as we know it could scarcely be said to have
>been developed by 1790, I do not understand what you mean. It is true
>that the personal power of monarchs was already in effect devolving
>onto a political class, that the locus of concentration of political and
>economic power was changing, and that one or two republics had been created.
>But how these developments bear your interpetation I do not know.
The first constitutional republic was started about that time, which was the
most significant threat to tyrrany in history. Of course, you are right, TRUE
deconstruction probably started before that time.
>>>>you MUST read Mises [for the zillionth time]
>Frank, I do take this point, although I can not take it up just now.
Okay. Take your time. I'll be here.
Lamont Granquist
>"threats of capital flight"? Where exactly would us nasty capitalists
>flee with our loot? If there's a safe haven for capitalism in this world,
>I'd love to know where it is.
If the US (for example) attempted to go pure capitalist, then there would
be capital flight to Japan and Europe along with some of it going to
production in third world countries and now the former USSR. And you might
have, for example, the situation where any attempt to cut corporate
protections would result in downwards fluctuations in the bond market which
would eliminate any savings.
Lamont Granquist
>>Syndicalism. You just have worker-owned shops (essentially) where capital is
>>democractically controlled. To the extent that the means of production
>>are in the hands of the people this could be quite validly be referred to
>>as "socialism" although there is no need for a state.
>
>And who makes the decisions for these shops? Who organizes them? Who starts
>them? Can anyone start one?
United Airlines and Avis are currently employee-owned, and i would assume
that they are reasonably good examples of syndicates.
> As syndicates earn
>>money then they could give higher wages, expand or (i suppose) invest.
>
>You suppose. How about something concrete for someone who just doesn't know
>anything about anything.
>
> I
>>don't know enough about futures markets and shit like that to comment, but
>>if they were to be retained the syndicates could supply the investment
>>capital.
>
>Then why are you still talking, Big Brain? Since I DO know a little
>something about these markets, why don't you have a seat. Without organized
>futures and cash markets, resources cannot be efficiently allocated. Mises.
>Mises. Mises.
My, my, my we've got an intellectual ego, don't we?
What i was arguing was that i don't see any reason why futures markets
are incompatible with syndicalism. You have concentrated capital which is
simply democratically controlled. It could be invested in anything --
including futures markets.
If, based on your expertise with futures markets, you can find some reason
why syndicalism and futures markets are totally incompatible i'd like to
hear it rather than just insults based on straw man arguments.
>>Then you season with state-control to taste, or take your free market
>>straight if that is to your liking.
>
>I like it straight. Thanks.
Cool. Welcome to anarcho-syndicalism.
Frank R. Ahlgren
>Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!caen!usenet.coe.montana.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!lamontg
>From: lam...@u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
>Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.philosophy.objectivism
>Subject: Re: SOCIALISM IS DEAD (was: Resolved: That Capitalism and Anarchy)
>Organization: University of Washington
>Lines: 50
>Message-ID: <3clh0e$j...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>
>References: <3ccrcm$2...@giga.bga.com> <3ch731$l...@rockall.cc.strath.ac.uk> <jonson.20...@bga.com> <3cihmo$n...@magus.cs.utah.edu> <jonson.30...@bga.com> <3cj2rd$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <jonson.41...@bga.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: saul1.u.washington.edu
>Xref: bga.com alt.society.anarchy:10893 alt.politics.economics:7562 alt.politics.radical-left:21498 alt.fan.noam-chomsky:4070 alt.philosophy.objectivism:17282
>jon...@bga.com (Frank R. Ahlgren) writes:
>>>Syndicalism. You just have worker-owned shops (essentially) where capital is
>>>democractically controlled. To the extent that the means of production
>>>are in the hands of the people this could be quite validly be referred to
>>>as "socialism" although there is no need for a state.
>>
>>And who makes the decisions for these shops? Who organizes them? Who starts
>>them? Can anyone start one?
>United Airlines and Avis are currently employee-owned, and i would assume
>that they are reasonably good examples of syndicates.
But there is no cap as to how much any one employee can own. Furthermore,
each of these companies enjoys limited liability. Not good examples.
>My, my, my we've got an intellectual ego, don't we?
Yes. Socialism pisses me off. None of you can solve the problem of resource
allocation. I am not trying to come across as haughty, but I have just gotten
through with a 2 1/2 post to I.M. McKay. He REALLY doesn't get it. He
doesn't even understand syndicalism (to the best of my knowledge). I
apologize for offending you. I shouldn't have said what I did -- it was
uncalled for. There is only one person in this newsgroup so far who has even
ACKNOWLEDGED that Mises and Hayek might have created a problem for socialism.
That is testimony to the arrogance involved. I am reading every piece of
socialist material I can find, yet this guy I.M. is just brushing the whole
thing off to "statistics". Not good.
>What i was arguing was that i don't see any reason why futures markets
>are incompatible with syndicalism. You have concentrated capital which is
>simply democratically controlled. It could be invested in anything --
>including futures markets.
That would be great. I really MUST get some of the literature you all have
suggested so I can get specific.
>If, based on your expertise with futures markets, you can find some reason
>why syndicalism and futures markets are totally incompatible i'd like to
>hear it rather than just insults based on straw man arguments.
You are correct. Again, my apologies.
>Cool. Welcome to anarcho-syndicalism.
<Grin> We'll see (I say with a tentative twitch of my nose). I strongly
disagree with what I have read of Chomsky. You know what would be good? In
my posts with I.M. McKay, point out the perceived flaws you see in my
argument, because it is all there. That would REALLY give us a good place to
start.
i.m.mckay
>
> >Since the modern state as we know it could scarcely be said to have
> >been developed by 1790, I do not understand what you mean. It is true
> >that the personal power of monarchs was already in effect devolving
> >onto a political class, that the locus of concentration of political and
> >economic power was changing, and that one or two republics had been created.
> >But how these developments bear your interpetation I do not know.
>
> The first constitutional republic was started about that time, which was the
> most significant threat to tyrrany in history.
I thought frank would say this. Its "democracy" thats bad. Yeh, lets go
back to the monarchy (ie dictatorship) that was no threat of tyrrany.
What about the Roman Empire? Or do slaves not matter? The British
Empire? I mean that imposed the British Monarchy's rule over a
quarter of the globe.
The "problem" with democracy is that it limits the power of the elites
to do exactly what they want. Thats why the business classes removed
the township assemblies in favour of representative government. Thats
why they hate unions. Thats why democracy is the system it is, little
or no direct involvement by the population in what happens to their
communities. Instead the lackies of the business class have that
privilege. As intended, as is "socialism" (ie state intervention)
in the economy.
<snip>
Its all the fault of the "rabble" who just don't understand whats
best for them. Lets leave all the major decisions to the business
class, they know what's best.
Right Frank? Only they can solve the "calculation problem"?
David Miller
: jon...@bga.com (Frank R. Ahlgren) writes:
: >Socialism IS bureaucratic intervention and
: >redistribution.
: So you keep asserting.
And you keep backing up. Sad part is you think you're not....
: Nice world you're living in, you should try it out here with the rest of
: us sometimes...
: >To me, the phrase "socialist anarchy" is ridiculous, inasmuch
: >as it is a complete dichotemy.
: Which just shows that you've failed to consider the alternatives.
Which alternatives would those be?
While I'm asking questions, what the hell is a "libertarian socialist"?
I consider myself a libertarian - strong advocate of individual and
property rights, the freedom to succeed or fail as work, luck, and
intelligence work out. I consider that to be the opposite of everything
that socialism is supposed to be, and the antithesis of what "socialist"
political systems have been in the past.
: >>You hit the nail on the head! Just how DO you have a socialist state
: >>without bureacracy? You DON'T. Because all states have beauracracies.
: >>Since WE aren't talking about socialist states or state-capitalism,
: >>bureacracies are irrelevant.
: >
: >Then what ARE you talking about? Who will organize your effort? Who will
: >oversee resource allocation? If you are so perterbed about my
: >"misunderstanding" of "libertarian socialism", why don't you answer the
: >questions about resource allocation (and indeed, resource allocation without a
: >state, or a bureacracy, or whatever). If I am not mistaken, this is the
: >argument of Doug Kellner, among others, none of whom will ever address
: >the issue.
: Syndicalism. You just have worker-owned shops (essentially) where capital is
: democractically controlled. To the extent that the means of production
: are in the hands of the people this could be quite validly be referred to
: as "socialism" although there is no need for a state.
Capital is democratically controlled and you have no need for a state?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
How do you expect 250 million US citizens to allocate capital
democratically? We'll all just vote on every last dollar, right?
Oh, you say we'll use *representatives*? Well, there's the bureaucracy
you just promised us we didn't need!
: As syndicates earn
: money then they could give higher wages, expand or (i suppose) invest. I
Wouldn't this be democratically controlled? If so, then big, dying
industries with lots of workers and votes you be able to allocate the
capital of small, new, growing industries, right?
: don't know enough about futures markets and shit like that to comment, but
: if they were to be retained the syndicates could supply the investment
: capital.
Futures are a zero sum game based solely on personal greed. They serve a
purpose of providing liquidity to the market. Your ideal society would
have no use for this because capital is democratically controlled.
: Then you season with state-control to taste, or take your free market
: straight if that is to your liking.
Excuse me Lamont, but have you thought about this *at all* before you
posted it?
Democratically controlled capital and free market are about as mutually
exclusive as you can get. Please, think it over and try again:)
: --
: Lamont Granquist (lam...@u.washington.edu)
: Q: How many economists does it take to change a light bulb?
: N: None! If it needed fixing, the market would take care of it!
--
David Miller Usual disclaimers apply
Maine State Government
Frank R. Ahlgren
>Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!uknet!strath-cs!str-ccsun!usenet
>From: cll...@ccsun.strath.ac.uk ( "i.m.mckay")
>Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky
>Subject: Re: SOCIALISM IS DEAD (was: Resolved: That
>Organization: The University of Strathclyde
>Lines: 47
>Message-ID: <3cmccc$e...@rockall.cc.strath.ac.uk>
>References: <jonson.52...@bga.com>
>Reply-To: cll...@ccsun.strath.ac.uk
>NNTP-Posting-Host: avon.cc.strath.ac.uk
>Xref: bga.com alt.society.anarchy:10908 alt.politics.economics:7579 alt.politics.radical-left:21516 alt.fan.noam-chomsky:4084
>I thought frank would say this. Its "democracy" thats bad. Yeh, lets go
>back to the monarchy (ie dictatorship) that was no threat of tyrrany.
>What about the Roman Empire? Or do slaves not matter? The British
>Empire? I mean that imposed the British Monarchy's rule over a
>quarter of the globe.
When did I say any of this? Thank you for creating my argument.
>Its all the fault of the "rabble" who just don't understand whats
>best for them. Lets leave all the major decisions to the business
>class, they know what's best.
>Right Frank? Only they can solve the "calculation problem"?
Um, I think you better sit down for a minute. You have put a lot of words in
my mouth, and you MUST be tired. Oh, and it's the "calculation argument", and
you still haven't solved it.
Samantha Atkins
Lamont Granquist <lam...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
.>If the US (for example) attempted to go pure capitalist, then there would
.>be capital flight to Japan and Europe along with some of it going to
.>production in third world countries and now the former USSR. And you might
.>have, for example, the situation where any attempt to cut corporate
.>protections would result in downwards fluctuations in the bond market which
.>would eliminate any savings.
Thanks for the bevy of bald assertions. Would you care to attempt to proof
any of these or even make a plausible argument for them?
- Samantha
Lamont Granquist
>>are incompatible with syndicalism. You have concentrated capital which is
>>simply democratically controlled. It could be invested in anything --
>>including futures markets.
>
>That would be great. I really MUST get some of the literature you all have
>suggested so I can get specific.
Well, that probably isn't going to answer a lot of your questions. What i've
read of Rocker pretty much is just a diatribe against Leninists and Trots
using state power (and against capitalists sort of in the vein of Marx talking
about "wage slavery" and shit like that... you might think it is a little
bit schizophrenic if you don't think about how it could be implimented). He
doesn't analyze a lot about how syndicalism really works. According
to Chomsky the European anarchists worked a little more on how to build up
alternative social structures, but i haven't read much of them. I wouldn't
take anything you read as gospel, either -- i don't think there is any
bible of anarchism.
In reference to your questions about caps on the amount of capital which
could be accrued -- i'm not certain that that would be necessary. I'm a
little bit concerned about inheritance, but i'm not certain how much of
a problem it would be. I think that provided that the workers own the
means of production (and i don't think we'll need to pass laws to have this
occur -- i think it'll just naturally evolve to this state) i think that
you could probably allow for quite a bit of private wealth.
kea...@uwpg02.uwinnipeg.ca
respond to;
a)Why is all evil the result of socialism and all good the result of
capitalism? This cannot be proven a priori, as you have attempted to do.
b)Is repeating the name of Mises three times an attempt to raise up
his spirit, like the character Beetlejuice in the movie of the same name?
c)Effective production would be based on 1)identifying a goal to be
achieved, ex. build a road, a building, whatever. This would be determined
by first determining what a society needs, through its democratically
elected representatives, and then deciding what steps should be taken to
meet those needs, again through democratic representatives. 2)Deciding
what is the best means to build that road. This is the step where gold
roads and diamond lined driveways would be eliminated. In most cases, this
would result in the most efficient means being chosen. Other, less efficient
means might be chosen, however, if it is deemed in the interests of the
community, and within the means of the community to supply that less
efficient factor.
This system is effective in that the community, not the market, decide
what is needed. Then, the most efficient method would generally be chosen
to fulfill that need, even if that need is not necessarily the most
efficient way to spend those resources.
Finally, this democratic representation could occur through a variety
of systems, be it a democratically elected state, a workers collective, or
what have you.
An example of this might be found in Canada. If efficiency was the
prime concern of Canadians, then we would have joined the US long ago,
rather than keep up the long east-west connection. Most Canadian regions
would naturally trade to the south. Geographically, this is the way the
continent is aligned. But because Canadians determined it to be in our
best interests to remain independant, we built a country, as efficiently
as possible, after forsaking the most efficient setup for one that most
effectively met our needs and desires.
Ultimately, effectiveness is more important than efficiency. For me at least,
that makes Mises arguement irrelevant.
Travis Kearns
Frank R. Ahlgren
>No. This is complete nonsense. Capitalism is an economic system. Technology
>is a human construct. To be precise, technolgy advances because of -- as
>a result of -- human *creativity*. Capitalism didn't *create* the wheel --
>sorry, but that is just absurd. A person created the wheel because she or
>he felt that it was needed.
But WHY did they think it was needed? They just built it "because"? That
truly IS asurd.
>Again, Socialism a properly defined as an economic system: "a theory or
>system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and
>control of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole".
And again, I ask, how will socialists solve the "calculation argument"?
>
>> The standard of living has been steadily increasing for the last 400
>>years (and beyond, to a lesser extent) because of advances in technology that
>>are a DIRECT result of capitalistic innovation -- an ECONOMIC system that
>>allows individuals to allocate resources through innovative advances.
>No. People create technological advances -- Capitalism does not create
>anything. It is an economic system -- period.
Then why did these people innovate?
>Ahh. Such a nice arguement. Everything bad that happens is socialism.
>Everything that is good is capitalism. This is silly. Care to back this
>up with facts?
I have already told you that I am arguing from a purely theoretical standpoint
-- namely that socialists cannot solve the problem of efficient resource
allocation without the implementation of prices. Again, I am NOT defending
capitalism, I am DIRECTLY challenging socialism to solve the calculation
argument. . .
>Go down to your local library. Look at the card catalog under Anarchism.
>You should find a list of authors like Peter Kropotkin, Michael Bakunin,
>Pierre Joseph Proudhon, perhaps even Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman,
>Malatesta, Reclus, Colin Ward, Murray Bookchin, William Godwin, etc., etc.
I have looked through many of these books, as well as books and essays by Doug
Kellner and Noam Chomsky. I have NEVER seen an answer to the problem of
efficient asset allocation. Please solve the calculation argument.
>This is the intellectual pantheon of anarchism. It's anti-state AND
>anti-capitalist.
And, apparently, anti-resource-allocation.
>Take a look at a political science text on anarchism -- you will find that
>it is very specific -- also anti-state AND anti-capitalist. This is because
>anarchism MEANS "no rulers" -- economic or political rulers. You seem to
>see one set, but not the other.
I am sure that it IS specific about these things. That is fine. Now I am
asking socialist anarchy to solve the problem of resource allocation.
>The issue has been answered -- repeatedly, but you seem to fail to see it.
>Resources will be allocated by jointly by the producers and the consumers --
>who incidently are one in the same. A state bureaucrat won't do it nor will
>the capitalist manager -- the people who make the products and use them will.
>It's just that simple.
And how will they know the most efficient means of, say, building a tunnel
under the English channel, or if it should be done at all? The project was
first proposed over a hundred years ago, but was abandoned because it COST too
much. I understand that you have answered the question in a vague sense, but
how can it be answered specifically? In a socialist anarchy, a tunnel attempt
would have been made over a century ago, even though prices could have told
us that it would have been EXTREMELY inefficient at that time.
But let's say that it was only proposed today. How would a
socialist anarchy decide on whether or not it would be MORE efficient to dig
with shovels or heavy equipment? The man-hours are easy, but how do you
compare those man-hours to machine efficiency? How will we know how much it
will "cost" per hour to run those machines? What about building the machines?
Do we use steel or aluminum? Do we use glass or plastic? Do we use rubber
or plastic? What do we use to build those machines? What is the least
"expensive"? What will cost the most in terms of human value? Do we use
unleaded gasoline, alcohol, diesel fuel, coal, or wood to run the machines?
Can it be done more efficiently with electricity?
You have not answered the problem of resource allocation by
ANY stretch of the imagination, Without prices, there is no way to know. . .
>>>Ummm... take out the garbage, possible? Wouldn't that be a novel idea?
>>>What part of 'self-manage' don't you understand? 'Self' or 'manage'?
>>>Amazingly enough, some people might even come up with the crazy idea of
>>>carrying off the garbage BEFORE everything becomes disease ridden and
>>>people are starving and dying.
>>
>>Yes, they might, but why didn't they do that in New York City in the 1970's
>>during the garbage strikes? What happened to "self-management"? What part of
>>"New York City garbage strikes" don't you understand? "New York City" or
>>"garbage strikes"? Why do hundreds of cities in the world still have problems
>>with sewage, garbage and disease? What happened to "self-management"? Why
>>are people going to be more willing to take on these tasks in your society?
>Hmmm. Capitalism is responsible for all that is good I remember hearing. But
>New York in 1970 was also capitalist. But the garbage wasn't being managed
>correctly. Oh yeah -- that's socialism again! Right!?
>But seriously, there are two problems that you are not seeing. First, humans
>relate to one another via social organization. If people become accustomed to
>bureaucratic-management or capitalist-management, then they learn to deal with
>a certain mode of interaction. This social-economic system affects the
>culture. Now if people were to re-learn social interaction based on
>self-management, then the problem disappears. Secondly, social systems tend
>to perpetuate themselves. If people are submitted to authority, they learn
>to accept it in order to survive. The same holds for any mode of social
>interaction. This is one of the reasons humans are so successful at survival
>-- we adapt. So it's not a question of which system works or doesn't work,
>it's a question of which system is better and more just.
>>>I am not making any claims that making the government more and more
>>>socialist have helped or hurt society. I'm just saying that your logic
>>>doesn't seem very convincing... not to mention the fact that correlation
>>>doesn't prove causality (perhaps markets have grown because of technological
>>>advancements and not vice versa, for example).
>>I understand that this might be hard to follow, especially if you are on the
>>other end of the spectrum. I have something of an advantage because I was a
>>Marxist, and I understand the details of Marxism. I admit that the ideas of
>>Chomsky and others are new to me,
>Well what the hell kind of Marxist *were* you? There are countless sects of
>*Marxists* out there. In fact, Marxism is a silly word to describe any system.
>Marx said very little about what he *wanted* to see happen. Most of his
>writings were a critique of capitalism. It was later *Marxists* like Lenin,
>Trotsky, Gramsci, Luxemburg, Kautsky, Mao Tse-Tung (to name just a few) who
>actually attempted to create a working model for a future "socialist"
>society.
>Jason Wehling
><ja...@ee.pdx.edu>
i.m.mckay
In article 0017...@bga.com, jon...@bga.com (Frank R. Ahlgren) writes:
> In article <3ckolt$j...@rockall.cc.strath.ac.uk> cll...@ccsun.strath.ac.uk ( "i.m.mckay", CAD Centre ) writes:
<snip>
>
> >Syndicalism. You just have worker-owned shops (essentially) where capital is
> >> >democractically controlled. To the extent that the means of production
> >> >are in the hands of the people this could be quite validly be referred to
> >> >as "socialism" although there is no need for a state.
>
> exist.
Nope, it does not. That is *your* assumption based on *your* definition
of socialism. But what democractically controlled capital means is that
those who do the work make the decisions concerning it and the capital
in question.
It does not assume anything about prices.
And under capitalism, capital is *not* under workers self-management, by
definition it is under private ownership. Capitalism and self-management
do not go together.
> If price controls exist, you will not be able to allocate resources.
> If you cannot allocate resources, people will starve.
Who does the allocating? Thats the question. Socialists say the people
who are affected by the decision, capitalists say those who "own" the
capital. As would be obvious, if it was profitable to let people starve
then capitalism would (and has) do to.
Under capitalism, production controls people, not vice versa. Thats
what socialism wants to change.
>
> >See, told you he did not understand "self-management"!
>
> ROF,L! Who are you talking to? YOU don't understand resource allocation.
No, I do. I just reject what you think as being "efficient" and instead
argue for other values, human ones.
> Don't get elitist, I.M..
I'm not, I'm basing my statement on *many* things you have said, for example
you asked "who organises work" under self-management, thus showing that
you do not "FULLY" understand the issues involved.
<snip>
>
> >Who makes the decisions? "worker-owned shops (essentially) where capital is
> >democractically controlled." in other words, the workers themselves!!!
>
> Right. Price controls. It won't work, and you don't even understand why.
> See Nixon and milk.
Who actually mentioned "price controls"? I was talking about the
decision making structure in self-management, ie who "makes the
decisions". Now, that is *obvious* from what I have written.
Now, Nixon as a "socialist"? No, I don't think so. Frank is obviously
from "wonderland" where you can make up definitions as it suits you.
Now, socialism means under common ownership. Thats it, nothing else.
Nothing about the state, prices, etc. Marxism talked about states,
etc, but socialism does not equal marxism.
>
> >Who organises them? Why, those who do the work (ie self-management).
>
> In other words, bureaucracy. And without prices (or WITH price controls),
> that bureacracy won't be able to efficiently allocate resources.
>
Who is talking about *prices*? It logic is truely amazing, it really is.
Capitalist firms, based on authority, decision making from the top
down do not (apparently) have "bureaucracy" but people making the
decisions that affect them directly *is* bureaucracy.
Its a strange bureaucracy that includes *everyone*!
>
> >Who starts them? People associating together, maybe existing syndicates,
> >maybe just other people.
>
> Right. Bureaucracies with artifical prices. DOOOOOOM.
>
Really, Frank. I suggest you do not let your idealogy dominate your
mind so much.
>
>
> >> As syndicates earn
> >> >money then they could give higher wages, expand or (i suppose) invest.
> >>
> >> You suppose. How about something concrete for someone who just doesn't know
> >> anything about anything.
>
> >Oh, the wit, the arogance! A true savant!
>
> Oh the logic. Oh the
> I-bothered-to-gain-an-understanding-of-basic-economic-principles-before-I-start
> ed-spouting. Oh the bored. Oh the yawn.
>
But not, apparently the law of supply and demand, the labour theory of value
and numerous other basic economic ideas.
Maybe I should have said -
"Oh the logic. Oh the
I-bothered-to-gain-an-understanding-of-basic-political-ideas-
before-I-start ed-spouting. Oh the bored. Oh the yawn."
Really, its always the savants who claim others "just doesn't know anything about anything"
<snip>
>
> The workers associated in the workplace manage their
> >own work, deciding what to produce based on feedback from consumers
> >and consumption figures.
>
> Feedback from customers? Prices ARE "feedback from customers",
Nope, they are not. They are a mediated form, with profit for
capitalists being part of the "feedback". Prices only indicate
what people buy at a certain price, not what people actually
want. For example, homeless people have a need, but without
money they cannot "demand".
> and you don't
> need a "bureacracy of workers" to analyze them. When people buy stuff, they
> are feeding back. When they DON'T buy stuff, they are also feeding back. It
> is PURE efficiency.
So how, exactly, do the capitalist firms *know* if something has been
bought? Apparently they just *know* as they do not collect statistics
in order to indicate what actually has been sold.
Now, Frank is obviously living on a different planet if he says
capitalist firms do not collect and analyse statistics of what
has been consumed.
>
> > these figures being processed by rotated
> >admin. staff. Each workplace would federate (if it so chooses) with
> >others in the area (same branch plus cross industry) to discuss
> >common problems, new ideas, etc. These federal councils would be
> >admin only, made up of manadated delegates who draw up suggestions
> >for the industry based on these mandates.
>
> This is called a bureaucracy. B-U-R-E-A-U-C-R-A-C-Y.
Nope, its called anarchy. A-N-A-R-C-H-Y, ie self-management where
the people who do the work make the decisions.
Apparently capitalism, where the management class make all the
decisions *for* people, is not bureaucratic.
I would suggest you find out what "Bureaucracy" actually means.
> And it is incapable of
> allocating resources as efficiently as a hands off price structure
> (translated: consumers communicating necessity through purchase or lack
> thereof -- near perfect efficiency).
Which is what I have been arguing from the start! I said that production
would be based in feedback from consumption figures, that it was a
case of saying X has been produced, Y has been consumed and so the
workers decide to increase/decrease production accordingly.
"near perfect efficiency" in fact, without capitalist profit and
bureaucracy to get in the way.
>
> The reports would then
> >go back to the workplaces where they would be discussed and
> >the necessary changes, actions undertaken, if the workplace so
> >desired (its a federal structure).
>
> You mean the bureaucracy.
Nope, I mean what I say.
> And it would be doing all of this work that the
> markets could do SO much more efficiently.
Nope, production would be aiming to meet consumption, that is
true, based on feedback from consumers (ie what they consumed!!!).
Collecting information about what has been consumed is not
a "market".
> Here's the question. If people
> need stuff, and they are going to get it anyway, why not let them just buy it
> and thereby fulfill the need?
Why do they need to buy it when they can consume it? Capitalism is not
based on meeting peoples needs directly, its based on meeting them
indirectly (via capitalist profit margins). Now, if something is not
profitable, then it will not be produced.
The whole economy is based on production controlling people, an economy
based on grow-or-die, on reducing costs (eg labour costs), basically
people scarifice themselves to the economy.
Thats why socialists are opposed to capitalism, because the economy
becomes a new god to which we scarifice our time and creativity to.
> Why do we need a bunch of workers (federal
> structure, bureaucracy, whatever) telling us what we can tell ourselves by
> going to the store?
Sorry? What are *you* talking about? Really, thats we anarchists are
suggesting. People do to the communal store, take what they need.
The consumption figures are recorded (which they *obviously* do
not do in the present system :) and then passed back to the producers
who then adjust production acordingly.
Now, apparently, Frank thinks the market some how collects information
on what has been consumed and then passes it on to the producers,
alll untouched by human hands. In reality, *people* collect information,
pass it on, etc. The market does not do it.
>
> All delegates being strictly
> >mandated from mass meetings and subject to instant replacement.
> >Plus the element mass assembly has the final say in what affects
> >it.
>
> Oh shit. The "element mass assembly". In other words, the
> BIG-BADASS-BUREAUCRACY that further slows down allocation. Cool.
>
Nope, the people who do the work. Now a bureaucracy is a structure
where the officials at the top (a minority) have the power and
make the decisions. That is a capitalist firm. What I have
described is the exact opposite of bureaucracy. I can suggest
a good dictionary if you feel the need.
> >The aim of such meetings would be reduce working hours, improve
> >conditions and better meet demand. Distribution would be a matter
> >of taking orders from places and producing them. It collecting
> >statistics, analysising them and acting on them.
>
> Meetings.
Obviously, in capitalist firms they *never* have meetings.
> Bureaucracy.
Meetings are not "bureaucracy". Bureaucracy occurs when the top
of the structure has power over the bottom, ie when mass
meetings do not happen.
> Misallocation.
Bureaucracy does result in misallocation. Thats why we are
against capitalism and the bureaucracy it generates in the
economy.
> Starvation. Revolution. Totalitarianism.
>
Lets get this right, people under socialism are starving, so they
revolt and create "pure" capitalism (Revolution), which is totalitarianism.
My, that must be a Feudian slip by Frank indicating exactly what "pure"
capitalism is going to be like (not Big Brother, more Mighty Mises!)
> >The role of labour notes would depend on what the collectives
> >decided. But the market would be no more :)
>
> Sure it would, as soon as some totalitarian like Stalin got power and
> butchered the rest of us.
How would a Stalin get power under self-management? People would be
aware of what was going on, they would be armed (in all likely hood),
the state would be crushed, no armies, etc (no "private states" either).
Stalin could only get power in russia once self-management had been
totally eliminated by Lenin and the new state. Lenin, from the start,
undermined self-management in favour of capitalist relationships in
production (ie one man management).
> Then we could go back to black markets.
>
Only if there was no alternative, an alternative that anarchists
have suggested from over 100 years, namely self-management.
>
> >> Without organized futures
>
> >Who does the organising? Its obvious you don't think its
> >going to be the workers.
>
> Why not? Workers do it now.
Which is what I was saying to begin with!!!!!!!!
> So does every single consumer in the world,
> every time a loaf of bread is bought, every time a gallon of gasoline is
> bought, every time money changes hands, the future is predicted in the most
> perfect, democratic, efficient system of resource allocation ever devised --
> rational self-interest. Capitalism.
>
Nope, notice the difference between self-management and capitalism,
"So does every single consumer in the world, every time a loaf of bread
is consumed, every time a gallon of gasoline is consumed, the future is
predicted in the most perfect, democratic, efficient system of
resource allocation ever devised -- rational self-interest. Socialism."
The difference is important, capitalism is *not* democratic, unless
you think a system where one person has 5 million votes while another
has 200 is "democratic". IN the area of production, it is not
democractic, in fact its fascist (*orders* from the top down).
Now, maybe in newspeak, capitalism is "democratic" but not in
English.
Now, the difference between socialist anarchism and capitalism is
that production is geared directly to meet consumption and is
not mediated by money, which soon becomes a source power over
other people.
>
> >No, sorry. But is just not true. Resources can be allocated
> >efficiently, all it requires is the gathering of statistics
> >(which capitalists will have to do as well, otherwise how
> >will they know where to invest).
>
> Statistics. What a simply ridiculous answer. From whence are those
> statistics to come?
>
The same place they come now, from the same people, the same
process (almost), as I have been arguing *all along*. Namely,
consumers and distribution centres, ie from recording "demand".
Now, that was fun. Its interesting that Frank says the basis of
his own allocation system is "simply ridiculous", as capitalist
firms collect and analysis statistics on what has been sold.
Iain : Saorsa, Ionannachd, Dluthachd!
: Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
/***************************************************************************
**** Organisation, far from creating authority, is the only cure for it ****
** and the only means whereby each of us will get used to taking an **
** active and conscious part in collective work, and cease being **
**** passive instruments in the hands of leaders. ****
***************************************************************************/
i.m.mckay
> In article <3cl5cu$h...@tuba.cit.cornell.edu>, es...@crux3.cit.cornell.edu
> (Eric Schissel) writes:
>
> >You treat capital flight as thought it were a new, and untested, idea.
> >On the contrary, it's been standard practice to remove capital from a
> >poor country, or area in a country, if there is a serious threat of
> >conditions unfavorable to capitalism and to capital being created and
> >enforced.
>
> are imminent.
If, on the other hand, it is not the correct conditions, like for
example a union organising drive is successful and improves
conditions, shortening the working week, then capital will
disinvest, causing unemployment.
Therefore, people would be taught a lesson that they should
keep in the place alloted them as producers and leave the
important issues to those who really matter, ie capitalists.
> However, we were talking here about an impending anarchy,
> which would be a condition RIPE for capitalism.
<snip>
"anarchy" in the sense of whats best for capital, ie whats
best for those who run the system. The rest of us surviving
under the regime of the "privatised states".
And part of the reason why Hong Kong was so successful was
because it had a dictatorship, run by the rich for the rich
(ie a privatised state). Now we get an idea of what "pure"
capitalism will be like.
Thanks NRK. You've proved our point well.
Iain : Saorsa, Ionannachd, Dluthachd!
: Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
i.m.mckay
> In article <3d1clb$p...@rockall.cc.strath.ac.uk> cll...@ccsun.strath.ac.uk ( "i.m.mckay") writes:
>
> >> If capital is democratically controlled, that means that price controls will
> >> exist.
>
> >Nope, it does not. That is *your* assumption based on *your* definition
> >of socialism. But what democractically controlled capital means is that
> >those who do the work make the decisions concerning it and the capital
> >in question.
>
> >It does not assume anything about prices.
>
Because the source of wealth collection, namely property rights cannot
exist as the state would not exist to enforce them. Hence surplus value,
rent, etc could not exist as under capitalism.
> Indeed, if
> values and wealth exists, you have ADMITTED that prices exist, because prices
> are only expressions or interpretations of value. That is capitalism, and
> that is why socialism cannot work. Thank you again.
Nope, all you have "proved" is that socialism cannot exist under your
terminology, it "proves" that socialism is just a branch of capitalism.
Ie Mises *is* a red herring.
> >> If price controls exist, you will not be able to allocate resources.
> >> If you cannot allocate resources, people will starve.
>
> >Who does the allocating? Thats the question. Socialists say the people
> >who are affected by the decision, capitalists say those who "own" the
> >capital. As would be obvious, if it was profitable to let people starve
> >then capitalism would (and has) do to.
>
> NO. The question is not only WHO does the allocating, but HOW they do it.
> You have already admitted that values will exist in your society. Values
> CANNOT exist without prices, for prices are espressions of value.
>
But values do not need *money* to exist, in fact many subjective
values are ignored by money. But earlier you claimed that "prices"
were "subjective values" now you claim that "subjective values"
create prices! What is it to be?
> >> >See, told you he did not understand "self-management"!
> >>
> >> ROF,L! Who are you talking to? YOU don't understand resource allocation.
>
> >No, I do. I just reject what you think as being "efficient" and instead
> >argue for other values, human ones.
>
> No, THAT is not the issue.
Sorry, yes it was. That was *exactly* the issue, if you had cared to explain
the terminology you used from the start.
> "Human values" are the basis of prices (by
> definition), so you have implicitly admitted that your society CANNOT exist
> without markets.
>
No, I have admitted that society cannot exist without human values, that
is all. Its your "definitions" of price which "prove" that socialism
cannot exist.
I do reject the idea that society can be run only with the money market,
that is true, as it destroys many "human values" such as sympathy,
creativity, etc.
>
> >I'm not, I'm basing my statement on *many* things you have said, for example
> >you asked "who organises work" under self-management, thus showing that
> >you do not "FULLY" understand the issues involved.
>
> I fully understand that your society cannot exist without price structures,
> and you have confirmed that understanding.
>
"value structures" as in criteria for making decisions, somewhat different
from price structures as in this is worth $2, that $4.
>
> >Who actually mentioned "price controls"? I was talking about the
> >decision making structure in self-management, ie who "makes the
> >decisions". Now, that is *obvious* from what I have written.
>
> I mentioned them, because in order to maintain equality of condition, prices
> MUST be controlled. That is what you are attempting, and it CANNOT work, as I
> have shown.
>
Nope, social "equality" can be maintained by getting rid of capitalism,
namely property rights and wage labour, introducing workers control
and ensuring that those who do the work make the decisions and get
the full product of their labour.
>
> >Now, socialism means under common ownership. Thats it, nothing else.
> >Nothing about the state, prices, etc. Marxism talked about states,
> >etc, but socialism does not equal marxism.
>
>
> And "common ownership" entails the use of values, which NECESSITATES the use
> of prices.
*Exactly*. Your "definition" of socialism is at fault, not mines.
>
> price n. value or worth (Webster's New World)
>
> Are you suggesting that in your society, commodities and services will NOT
> have "value" or "worth"? Earlier you specifically said that BOTH would exist.
> How will you solve the problem of asset allocation if prices "don't exist"?
>
Value and worth would exist, but diferent *criteria* would be used for
allocation of resources based on different "subjective values".
>
> >Who is talking about *prices*?
>
> YOU ARE! Will nothing in your society have "value" or "worth"? Will you
> simply be able to STOP people from holding value? Your system WILL have
> prices, because prices are statements of value. This is why socialism CANNOT
> work.
But "prices" are *not* the same as value, ie prices are money amounts,
values are human feelings. By confusing the two with the same word,
you are just creating confusion.
>
> >But not, apparently the law of supply and demand, the labour theory of value
> >and numerous other basic economic ideas.
>
> You keep saying that. How will you solve the problem of resource allocation
> without prices? Indeed, how can you even maintain that prices will not exist
> in a socialist society? Your argument is full of holes, lain.
>
Nope, its just that your "definitions" of socialism is not one I
subscribe to, in fact its one that makes socialism impossible
as socialism is based on subjective values such as creativity,
self-management, etc. I would suggest you read Kropotkin, for
example.
>
> >> Feedback from customers? Prices ARE "feedback from customers",
>
> >Nope, they are not. They are a mediated form, with profit for
> >capitalists being part of the "feedback". Prices only indicate
> >what people buy at a certain price, not what people actually
> >want. For example, homeless people have a need, but without
> >money they cannot "demand".
>
> Prices DO reflect what people want -- the more they want it, the
> higher the price. That's what prices DO. That is their function.
Nope, money prices are the means by which capitalists can make
profits from human labour. Its the means by which one class
of society can dominate the others via economic wealth.
Now, how do prices indicate peoples wants for self-management?
Creative work? They cannot. All they indicate is where to
make a profit for capitalists. If people don't have the money
then they do not exist in the market, and can get *nothing*.
Nope, money does hide totally what people often want, it hides
the human costs of capitalism.
> And unless
> you can eliminate "value" and "worth", your society WILL have prices. Some
> commodities and services are "worth" MORE than others to people. This
> NECESSARILY causes price structures.
ie, some people want somethings but not others. Thats a surprise, but
such facts do not *necessarily* mean capitalism, far from it. For
example, the higher (money) costs associated with self-management
under capitalism always results in coops becoming mirror images of
capitalist firms, with bureaucracy and wage labour. Always peoples
scarifice themselves to the economy, production controls them and
not the other way round.
Until such time as capitalism can resolve the human price, it will
never be aviable system, instead it will be the rule of the rich
over the poor, via states (privatised or not) and authority structures.
Now, "prices" as subjective values will always exist, its money
prices as the measure of "efficiency" which destroys so many
human values and replaces them with price tags. That is what
socialism rebels against, the destruction of human values
and community by the money systems and its "morality".
>
> >Nope, its called anarchy. A-N-A-R-C-H-Y, ie self-management where
> >the people who do the work make the decisions.
>
> Yes, anarcho-capitalism, as you have shown us all. Thank you.
Since when was capitalism based on "self-managment"? Never,
"anarcho-capitalism" is based on those who own telling those
who work what to do.
Now, as Frank has shown us, the "allocation" problem basic
terminology is designed to make socialism impossible. Therefore,
it is a red herring.
I will leave yous with this quote by Chomsky which effectively
disproves the nonsense of the "calculation argument" concerning
socialism and "subjective values".
"In pre-capitalist days, Adam Smith, like other founders of
classical liberalism, stressed such values as sympathy and the
right of creative work, offering nuanced arguments for markets on
the grounds that under "perfect liberty" there should be a
natural tendency towards equality, a condition for efficient
market function. Such ideas had to be demolished both in
practice and in the ideological sphere. It is interesting to
trace the transition to the modern era, in which a very different
conception of human nature has been crafted, one better suited to
rule of the economy and social life by the absolutist,
unaccountable, totalitarian institutions of the corporate world.
For example, the conception expressed by Nobel laureate in
economics James Buchanan, who instructs us that in "any person's
ideal situation," "each person seeks mastery over a world of
slaves" (_The Limits of Liberty_, Chicago 1975, p. 92). That
is an idea that Smith would have considered pathological, as did
the working people who were beaten into submission as industrial
state capitalism gained power."
It looks like certain "anarcho" capitalists have "demolished" these
ideas and values and replaced then with the values of profit,
"efficiency" and price tags.
The Mises argument has proven that Frank does not understand
anarchist-socialism at all.
Iain : Saorsa, Ionannachd, Dluthachd!
: Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
/***************************************************************************
i.m.mckay
> Money ONLY has subjective value. Are you prepared to make a case to the
> contrary? Again, I am ALL ears.
Ah, now we know. economic decision making need not be expressed in
terms of money, as I have been arguing all along.
>Any "subjective value" IS a price -- created to measure the "worth" of a good
>or a service. Thank you.
No, sorry. but I was arguing that money was not the only "subjective
value" that could be used, for example creative work, less hours, etc
were the subjective values I suggested instead of "price" (ie money).
I was arguing that money was not the best method of making economic
decisions, that it ignored the "human cost" of capitalism.
Now, if you had defined price as "any subjective price" to begin with
then I would not have argued with you as any decision is made based
on subjective value. Capitalism is based on crushing certain subjective
values for profit, that is why we socialists are against it.
Frank R. Ahlgren
>> If capital is democratically controlled, that means that price controls will
>> exist.
>Nope, it does not. That is *your* assumption based on *your* definition
>of socialism. But what democractically controlled capital means is that
>those who do the work make the decisions concerning it and the capital
>in question.
>It does not assume anything about prices.
Then how will you prevent the collection of wealth by individuals? Indeed, if
values and wealth exists, you have ADMITTED that prices exist, because prices
are only expressions or interpretations of value. That is capitalism, and
that is why socialism cannot work. Thank you again.
>> If price controls exist, you will not be able to allocate resources.
>> If you cannot allocate resources, people will starve.
>Who does the allocating? Thats the question. Socialists say the people
>who are affected by the decision, capitalists say those who "own" the
>capital. As would be obvious, if it was profitable to let people starve
>then capitalism would (and has) do to.
NO. The question is not only WHO does the allocating, but HOW they do it.
You have already admitted that values will exist in your society. Values
CANNOT exist without prices, for prices are espressions of value.
>> >See, told you he did not understand "self-management"!
>>
>> ROF,L! Who are you talking to? YOU don't understand resource allocation.
>No, I do. I just reject what you think as being "efficient" and instead
>argue for other values, human ones.
No, THAT is not the issue. "Human values" are the basis of prices (by
definition), so you have implicitly admitted that your society CANNOT exist
without markets.
>I'm not, I'm basing my statement on *many* things you have said, for example
>you asked "who organises work" under self-management, thus showing that
>you do not "FULLY" understand the issues involved.
I fully understand that your society cannot exist without price structures,
and you have confirmed that understanding.
>Who actually mentioned "price controls"? I was talking about the
>decision making structure in self-management, ie who "makes the
>decisions". Now, that is *obvious* from what I have written.
I mentioned them, because in order to maintain equality of condition, prices
MUST be controlled. That is what you are attempting, and it CANNOT work, as I
have shown.
>Now, socialism means under common ownership. Thats it, nothing else.
>Nothing about the state, prices, etc. Marxism talked about states,
>etc, but socialism does not equal marxism.
And "common ownership" entails the use of values, which NECESSITATES the use
of prices.
price n. value or worth (Webster's New World)
Are you suggesting that in your society, commodities and services will NOT
have "value" or "worth"? Earlier you specifically said that BOTH would exist.
How will you solve the problem of asset allocation if prices "don't exist"?
>Who is talking about *prices*?
YOU ARE! Will nothing in your society have "value" or "worth"? Will you
simply be able to STOP people from holding value? Your system WILL have
prices, because prices are statements of value. This is why socialism CANNOT
work
>But not, apparently the law of supply and demand, the labour theory of value
>and numerous other basic economic ideas.
You keep saying that. How will you solve the problem of resource allocation
without prices? Indeed, how can you even maintain that prices will not exist
in a socialist society? Your argument is full of holes, lain.
>> Feedback from customers? Prices ARE "feedback from customers",
>Nope, they are not. They are a mediated form, with profit for
>capitalists being part of the "feedback". Prices only indicate
>what people buy at a certain price, not what people actually
>want. For example, homeless people have a need, but without
>money they cannot "demand".
Prices DO reflect what people want -- the more they want it, the
higher the price. That's what prices DO. That is their function. And unless
you can eliminate "value" and "worth", your society WILL have prices. Some
commodities and services are "worth" MORE than others to people. This
NECESSARILY causes price structures.
>Nope, its called anarchy. A-N-A-R-C-H-Y, ie self-management where
>the people who do the work make the decisions.
Yes, anarcho-capitalism, as you have shown us all. Thank you.
Frank R. Ahlgren, III
Austin, TX
jon...@bga.com
71203...@compuserve.com
Frank R. Ahlgren
>Nope, I said I had not read Mises, but I had read some economics.
No, lain, you said that you know nothing about futures and cash markets.
>However, when Frank admitted to knowing *nothing* about syndicalism
>but what I happen to know alot about, he claimed I "knew nothing"
>about it because I cared enlighten him about them!
I defined syndicalism to the satisfaction of MANY socialists in this forum,
lain.
>A "price structure", but a different one to that of capitalism, using
>Franks definition of "price" being a "subjective value" on an object.
What is YOUR definition of price, lain?
price n. value or worth (Webster's New World)
"Value" and "worth" are subjective constructs, lain. They cannot exist
independent of man's existence (with respect to man, that is).
>The "calcaulation argument", in effect, proves socialism cannot
>exist as any attempt to place a "subjective value" onto an object
>is defined as "capitalism". As socialists aim to place *different*
>"subjective values" on objects then it is also "capitalism".
So you admit finally that your society will be based on capitalistic markets?
Good. Now, you must contend with the inability of this society to maintain
conditional equality without bureaucracy.
>The "calculation argument" is a total red herring as its methodology
>is such that placing any subjective value on something is "capitalism".
Are you now going to tell us that commodities and services have OBJECTIVE
value, lain? I am ALL ears. . .
>But now Frank is using the word "price" to mean "money", not "subjective
>value". There is a difference, please be consistant.
Money ONLY has subjective value. Are you prepared to make a case to the
contrary? Again, I am ALL ears.
>But "markets" are based on money, and money prices are not the
>only form of "subjective values" can be expressed in.
Ahhh, so you are amitting that your society WILL have values, expressed in
some "form". Good.
price n. value or worth (Webster' New World)
Any "subjective value" IS a price -- created to measure the "worth" of a good
or a service. Thank you.
John Enright
: By the way, folks, the word "libertarian" was first used
: by socialist anarchists around 1880 to describe their
: ideas.
The word originally referred to believers in freedom of the will.
The OED shows this usage going back to to 1789.
The OED shows the political meaning as going back to to at least 1878,
citing Sir John Seeley as using it that year in a work entitled "The Life
and Times of Stein".
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Enright from address: jenr...@home.interaccess.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
R. Beach
"syndicalism" idea. If I have followed it correctly, the socialist here
wants to abolish private property. A noble goal, I suppose, but
how would new machines and so on be purchased to improve productivity?
How would goods be allocated to consumers if there were no money? It seems
there an awful lot of holes in this plan -- it reminds me of the
economic system of Star Trek--the next generation. I don't understand
that one either. If you can enlighten me, Mr. Socialist, please do.
Live free or die.
Frank R. Ahlgren
>> Then how will you prevent the collection of wealth by individuals?
>Because the source of wealth collection, namely property rights cannot
>exist as the state would not exist to enforce them. Hence surplus value,
>rent, etc could not exist as under capitalism.
But you already admitted that prices WOULD exist in your society. Here, let
me remind you:
<<It is *impossible* to stop people placing subjective values on
things (although power often tries to).
Thank you.
value n. the worth of a thing in money or goods (Webster's New World)
premise: "It is impossible to stop people from placing subjective values on
things . . ." -- I.M. McKay
premise: value is defined as the worth of a thing in money or goods
(Webster's New World)
conclusion: It is impossible to stop people from placing subjective values
(the worth of things in money or goods) on things.
Now, Iain, I invite you to establish that goods and services have some
OBJECTIVE value, of which we are not aware. But, as you have admitted,
objective value does not exist. Your argument is now officially dead.
Socialism is dead.
I am going to save this syllogism and reprint it as often as necessary . . .>>
Remember?
>Nope, all you have "proved" is that socialism cannot exist under your
>terminology, it "proves" that socialism is just a branch of capitalism.
>Ie Mises *is* a red herring.
As YOU demonstrated with the syllogism above, no society can exist without
prices, because any other proposal would entail the elimination of values.
You have SPECIFICALLY allowed for the continuation of values.
>But values do not need *money* to exist, in fact many subjective
>values are ignored by money. But earlier you claimed that "prices"
>were "subjective values" now you claim that "subjective values"
>create prices! What is it to be?
Really? How are values expressed? In terms of cost. How are costs defined?
As prices. Your hole is getting deeper. See the above syllogism (that YOU
created). Some of your colleagues have allowed for prices under socialistic
syndicalism. I suggest you adopt their methodology so we can progress(not
that it allows for efficiency, but we WOULD be closer to the goal). Until you
do, I will continue to post the above conclusion. . .
>No, I have admitted that society cannot exist without human values, that
>is all. Its your "definitions" of price which "prove" that socialism
>cannot exist.
How do YOU define price, lain? Price is defined by value, and value is
communicated by price. Are you prepared to argue that there are OBJECTIVE
values?
>I do reject the idea that society can be run only with the money market,
>that is true, as it destroys many "human values" such as sympathy,
>creativity, etc.
You REJECT it? In the above syllogism, you created it. Human values like
sympathy and creativity are the SOURCE of markets -- they create demand . . .
>Nope, social "equality" can be maintained by getting rid of capitalism,
>namely property rights and wage labour, introducing workers control
>and ensuring that those who do the work make the decisions and get
>the full product of their labour.
You will either have to eliminate values, or contend with prices. You have
already admitted that your society will implement "assemblies" and "federal
administrations". These are both bureaucracies. You allowed for the creation
of the above syllogism PROVING that your society will implement price
structures. How can you claim to be an anarchistic socialist? The whole
world is watching <g> . . .
Frank R. Ahlgren
>Live free or die.
Hey, lain, do you STILL believe that people aren't being influenced by Mises'
"calculation argument"? Price structures are the MOST efficient means of
resource allocation.
Well said, Mr. Beach . . .
JASON Wehling
On Sat, 17 Dec 1994, Frank R. Ahlgren wrote:
>
> >Just a few quick points I would like Frank Ahlgren and his backers to
> >respond to;
> > a)Why is all evil the result of socialism and all good the result of
> >capitalism? This cannot be proven a priori, as you have attempted to do.
> Because socialism is a bureaucratic condition that involves the redistribution
> of wealth, and it is inherently inefficient. Capitalism is an economic system
> that involves the exchange of goods and services. It is responsible for
> almost all of the innovations of this planet that account for our current
> standard of living, which is the highest ever.
This is a non-sequitar. All good is capitalism -- all bad is socialism.
How many times do I have to define socialism for you? Your definition of
socialism is incorrect -- you are describing state-communism. Socialism
is an economic system whereby the means of production are owned and
controlled by the community as a whole. There's no implication of
bureacracy there at all. Basically you are interchanginf to separate
words and ideas: socialism and bureacracy. There is a reason that there
are two words -- there are two different ideas attached to them.
And your definition of capitalism is very ambigious. Basically it is not
a definition of a particular economic system (say capitalism) but ALL
economic systems. They ALL deal with an exchange of goods and services --
the point is to define how that happens. Capitalism is different from
other economic systems in that it is based on a system where the means of
production are owned and controlled privately and exchanges are done
within the arena of markets -- to be more precise.
I am not defending capitalism,
> I am attacking socialism.
This is funny. You basically say: socialism is everything that is bad.
Capitalism is responsible for all that is good. BUT... "I am not
defending capitalism". That's funny.
I am not saying that capitalism is the ONLY system
> by which to efficiently allocate resources, nor am I saying that it is
> perfect. I am saying that it has never existed in the absence of bureacratic,
> socialistic intervention, and that it very likely IS the best and most
> efficient means of resource allocation. I am asserting that it IS more
> efficient and more productive than socialism.
You have not explained why it is better other than saying that socialism
can't deal with resource allocation and is based on price fixing. I have
shown why price fixing is not inherent under anarcho-socialism. And I
have shown how resources will be allocated: basically democratically.
Jason Wehling
<ja...@ee.pdx.edu>
JASON Wehling
On Sat, 17 Dec 1994, Frank R. Ahlgren wrote:
> >>If capital is democratically controlled, that means that price controls will
> >>exist. If price controls exist, you will not be able to allocate resources.
> >>If you cannot allocate resources, people will starve.
> >This is funny logic:
> > Democracy = price controls
>
> >How? This is a complete leap of logic -- if you can call it that.
> Leap of logic? How will a socialist society allocate resources without
> prices?
As we have said many times: democratically. People in a given community
will come together and figure out how many resources are available and
what is the best way to produce with them and allocate them so that
everyone that participates will be happy.
Since these people are the same ones that both consume and produce the
products, they know what the "costs" involved are. So they are well
equiped to make the necessary decisions about resource allocation.
> How will it impose equality of condition WITHOUT the imposition of
> price controls. Your whole idealogy is a leap of logic.
Impose equality of condition? I have really said this -- you just did.
I'm not sure what you mean by this? If it means that everyone takes part
in the control of the means of production (ie equality of decision-making
power) then yes. But there's no need to impose this on anyone. If you
mean that everyone will be equal -- like in a big brother kind of way --
well we have never argued for this.
> >Followed by leap number two:
> > Price Controls = Unallocatable resources
>
> >Again -- how?
> Prices are communication of value.
Yes. One type of communication among many types.
You aim to eliminate prices, but you
> cannot do so without eliminating value.
Are you saying that prices are the only way to communicate value? If so,
this is absurd. If I am part of an anarcho-socialist community, then I
can participate in the citizen's assemblies and communicate any problems
that I see or can foresee. I can argue that one product, or one type of
porduction technique has more value than another. This is another way to
communicate value -- one without prices or markets.
How do you propose to do that? How
> do you propose to "equalize condition" without reallocation of assets?
Again, that's your words (about "equalization of condition"), not mine.
And again -- the means of production are not redistributed -- they are
"owned and controlled by the community as a whole".
This
> NECESSARILY involves bureaucracy and price controls.
No. You are describing a statist system of socialism. We are not arguing
for this -- I think obviously.
How can a bureaucracy
> POSSIBLY be more efficient than 6 billion+ consumers and producers conveying
> need through prices?
Well your system is not democractic. People communicate value through
prices, as you say. But this system is not based on one person, one vote.
A rich man may have several billion votes, while another may have only
100 votes. This is not an efficient way to allocate resources if by
efficient you mean that the quality of life for the entire society is
taken into account. Under your system, the rich do very nicely, while the
majority do very poorly in comparison.
> >And the logic concludes by stating that ultimately:
> > Democracy = starvation.
>
> >This is truly funny.
> It seems to me that a socialist society that is incapable of efficient
> resource allocation is destined to starve. Not very funny, I'm afraid. Your
> ignorance of the laws of scarcity, however, ARE funny.
You are truly obnoxious. You have no idea what I know or do not know
about the "laws of scarcity" or many other things. You are arrogant and
are getting on my nerves. If you are so damned informed on this stuff --
which I seriously doubt -- you wouldn't resort to name-dropping and the
use of jargon without any substance to you arguements. We have been
arguing ideas and your posts are severely lacking in this department.
Instead of showing what the hell you are talking about by pointing out
WHY you think I am forgetting something important, you just say, well
you're stupid -- essentially. This is ridiculous and is trying my
patience. Either argue with substance or not at all -- please.
> >>ROF,L! Who are you talking to? YOU don't understand resource allocation.
> >>Don't get elitist, I.M.. I FULLY understand your ideas about
> >>"self-management" (it isn't some hyper-intellectual, esoteric construct as you
> >>would have "us" all believe <g>).
>
> >Elitist? Didn't I just read your post telling someone else that YOU knew
> >all this stuff and they had better just "sit down"?
>
> Yes. I believe it was I.M. He admitted that he knew next to NOTHING about
> organized futures and cash markets. And, since I actively trade in both, I
> thought I'd let him take a back seat in the process of economic edification.
> It seems that you might care to join him. Do you understand how critical
> these markets are in creating liquidity in this global economy?
As a matter of fact I do know a thing or two about these things. What you
fail to realize is that this knowledge hass very little to do with
understanding anarcho-socialism. It is obvious that you know "next to
NOTHING about" it. Why don't you take a back seat on these matters, aye?
[snip..]
> >>>Who makes the decisions? "worker-owned shops (essentially) where capital is
> >>>democractically controlled." in other words, the workers themselves!!!
> >>
> >>Right. Price controls. It won't work, and you don't even understand why.
> >It will work. It HAS worked. But you "don't even understand why".....
> Price controls have worked? Where, when?
This is good. You confused yourself with your own illogic. The discussion
was democratic control of the means of production. THAT was the topic.
THAT has worked. But you, once again, brought in your own bizarre notions
of what anarcho-socialism REALLY is -- ie. your obsession with price
controls. You obviously know next to NOTHING about anarcho-socialism --
now take your own advice and take the back seat buddy.
> >>See Nixon and milk.
> Again, see Nixon and milk. Read THE FUNDAMENTALS OF AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS, by
> Thomas C. Taylor. There is a very thorough explanation of the ills of price
> controls.
AGAIN, for the last ^%$%#%$# time -- WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT PRICE
CONTROLS. I don't know how to make this any more clear.
> >See the CNT/FAI and worker's syndicates based on SELF-MANAGEMENT.
>
> In this MIXED economy? Do tell me all about it . . .
Ahh. Now this is refreshing. You didn't immediately shout about price
controls, bureacracies and Mises! This is a good response. For a good
explanation of the worker's self-management, see the following:
Franz Borkenau, "The Spanish Cockpit"
George Orwell, "Homage to Catalonia"
Jose Peirats, "Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution"
Gaston Leval, "Collectives in the Spanish Revolution"
Burnett Bolloten, "The Spanish Revolution"
That's a good start anyway. And if you continue to be more polite in this
way, I might even explain what happened there to you.
[snip...]
> In a political
> >system based on universal suffrage -- it's one person, one vote. You are
> >advocating a system based on one person who might have 5 billion votes while
> >others are left with no votes. It's so nice to hear a reputed "anarchist"
> >argue for economic autocracy -- it's called plutocracy. You are a Plutocrat,
> >not an anarchist.
>
> plutocracy n. government by the wealthy (Webster's New World)
Oh my god -- he does own a dictionary. Congrats! Now use the damn thing.
> I am an anarcho-capitalist. I believe in the deconstruction of government.
What the hell does this mean? Or did you mean to say, destruction?
> You are mistaken. This thread was started to solve the "calculation
> argument". I am not defending capitalism, I am attacking socialism. I am not
> prepared to defend capitalism to you because you lack basic economic
> understanding.
Again, you arrogance is incredible. I will ask you: please explain
*exactly* what the hell you are talking about. Which basic economic ideas
don't you think I understand? Specifically. I can't defend myself when
you resort to ad hominem attacks.
This discussion is geared towards solving the problem of
> efficient resource allocation without prices, or in the presence of artificial
> price structures. No socialist has ever been able to solve the problem.
You just haven't bothered to read any that have. And I will take you to
task on every point you make. You say "no socialist" -- this is a strong
accusation. Which socialists, specifically (and I want a list of names),
have you read so that you could make such a ridiculous arguement? Have
YOU read books by EVERY socialist? Remember the list.
> >Oh that's right -- I almost forgot. Money is the savior for humanity.
>
> That isn't what I said, now is it? I said that prices are the only available
> means of efficiently allocating resources. How can it be done otherwise?
>
> That's
> >why a person and literally starve on the streets -- because his necessity
> >(ie. food) was communicated "throught purchase or lack thereof".
> No. People starve because of intrusive governmental bureaucracies attempting
> to allocate resources (socialism). Price controls inhibit markets, and
> markets are the most efficient means known of allocating resources. They are
> not perfect, but, like I said before, I am attacking socialism, not defending
> capitalism.
No. People starve because food is rotting on the selvess of
super-markets. And if they went into these stores and took the bread they
needed, the state would arrest them -- possibly even beat them -- and
then imprison them.
> Yep.
> >Capitalism sure is neat! Gotta love a system where some people are more
> >equal than others. Boy that sure sounds like anarchy to me! What ever!
> People are not equal. I hate to be the one to point that out to you.
Are whites better than blacks? Are men better than women? Are
heterosexuals better than homosexuals? People are not exactly the same --
but they are all people and should be treated the same. They are not
equal, but they should be treated EQUALLY. there is a difference -- but
"I hate to be the one to point that out to you".
> >>Sure it would, as soon as some totalitarian like Stalin got power and
> >>butchered the rest of us. Then we could go back to black markets.
>
> >You don't read very well do you. McKay said that the political system was
> >based on a delegate system. Do you even comprehend any of that?
>
> I comprehend that a delegate system is necessarily the implementation of
> bureaucracy.
You have comprehended incorrectly. It is obvious from your reply that you
fail to grasp the concepts associated with a delegate system.
Delegates /= (not equal) Bureacracy.
That's nice and simple for you. Bureacracy is based on a governemental
system. In a governmental system, power must flow from the top,
downwards. In a delegate system, power must flow from the bottom,
upwards. There is no association between the two.
Jason Wehling
<ja...@ee.pdx.edu>
JASON Wehling
On Sat, 17 Dec 1994, Frank R. Ahlgren wrote:
> In article <3cs3u5$7...@flotsam.ee.pdx.edu> ja...@ee.pdx.edu (Jason Wehling) writes:
>
> >No. This is complete nonsense. Capitalism is an economic system. Technology
> >is a human construct. To be precise, technolgy advances because of -- as
> >a result of -- human *creativity*. Capitalism didn't *create* the wheel --
> >sorry, but that is just absurd. A person created the wheel because she or
> >he felt that it was needed.
>
> But WHY did they think it was needed? They just built it "because"? That
> truly IS asurd.
Your arguement is a non-sequitar.
> >> The standard of living has been steadily increasing for the last 400
> >>years (and beyond, to a lesser extent) because of advances in technology that
> >>are a DIRECT result of capitalistic innovation -- an ECONOMIC system that
> >>allows individuals to allocate resources through innovative advances.
> >No. People create technological advances -- Capitalism does not create
> >anything. It is an economic system -- period.
> Then why did these people innovate?
Because it is needed or it makes their lives easier. Are you trying to
argue that there was NO innovation prior to the advent of capitalism?
This would be very interesting indeed.
[snip... Resource allocation, again...]
> >The issue has been answered -- repeatedly, but you seem to fail to see it.
> >Resources will be allocated by jointly by the producers and the consumers --
> >who incidently are one in the same. A state bureaucrat won't do it nor will
> >the capitalist manager -- the people who make the products and use them will.
> >It's just that simple.
> And how will they know the most efficient means of, say, building a tunnel
> under the English channel, or if it should be done at all?
Well just think about it. How? First of all, is the tunnel needed? By
whom? How badly is it needed?
If it is needed by a significant portion of the population, then they
will be willing to "pay" the "cost" of all the work-hours involved and
the used resources that could have gone to other things. Again, this is a
democratic process. All that the decision affects will have a say in the
matter. If only 100 people want the tunnel -- it is up to them to figure
out how to build it. Is there enough of them to do the work themselves?
If yes, then they can proceed. If not, then they must convince others to
join them. Perhaps the tunnel-wanters will help the helpers with a
project that the helpers want completed. From there -- they need to find
available resources -- steel, electricity, earth-movers, etc., etc. These
resources are "controlled by the community as a whole". Perhaps many
communities will benefit from such a tunnel. Then it is up to the people
that wnat it to convince these communities to give up the necessary
resources to build the thing. Perhaps they will make their case before
the citizen's assembly. Perhaps the communities will go for it -- perhaps
not. But it's not up to a single person or insitution, like a government
or a corporation -- it's up to the people that will be affected by such a
project.
The project was
> first proposed over a hundred years ago, but was abandoned because it COST too
> much. I understand that you have answered the question in a vague sense, but
> how can it be answered specifically? In a socialist anarchy, a tunnel attempt
> would have been made over a century ago, even though prices could have told
> us that it would have been EXTREMELY inefficient at that time.
No. This is false. You basically already show this by your arguement. Was
technology available back then for such a project to be possible? Well it
would have used up a significant portion of a community's resources to
do. So they probably would not have accepted the proposal.
> But let's say that it was only proposed today. How would a
> socialist anarchy decide on whether or not it would be MORE efficient to dig
> with shovels or heavy equipment?
It depends on what it available. Obviously you want to make the project
as easy as possible. But you also have to weigh the community "costs" --
so perhaps the heavy machinery is being used for something more important
(defined by the community as a whole) like building housing for people.
Then they might be stuck with shovels. If the machinery is available, I
don't see why anyone would want to dig a tunnel like that with shovels.
The man-hours are easy, but how do you
> compare those man-hours to machine efficiency?
I don't follow this. Machines will also produce -- in fact the more the
merrier -- people will have less work hours. I'm all for that.
How will we know how much it
> will "cost" per hour to run those machines?
Again, its a question that the community as a whole -- perhaps through a
citizen's assembly -- would answer. How much electricity does the
community have? In what way is this resource best used? Well that's up to
the community to decide. If there is a surplus after necessities are
taken care up (again, defined by the community), then perhaps they have
extra for such a tunnel project. Perhaps they have extra but want to run
a 1,000,000 VCR's instead. It's up to the community to decide.
What about building the machines?
> Do we use steel or aluminum?
What's available? Both? Then the community must figure out which is a
better use versus "cost". Does the stronger material take more communtiy
resources to produce? If so, what is the trade off? Then they decide.
Do we use glass or plastic? Do we use rubber
> or plastic? What do we use to build those machines? What is the least
> "expensive"? What will cost the most in terms of human value? Do we use
> unleaded gasoline, alcohol, diesel fuel, coal, or wood to run the machines?
> Can it be done more efficiently with electricity?
Great questions. I say let the community "as a whole" decide -- not just
a government bureaucrat or a capitalist manager. Let the people whom it
will affect all have a say.
> You have not answered the problem of resource allocation by
> ANY stretch of the imagination, Without prices, there is no way to know. . .
I think I just did.
Jason Wehling
<ja...@ee.pdx.edu>
JASON Wehling
On 18 Dec 1994, R. Beach wrote:
> I just read this thread, and I don't get this anarcho-socialist,
> "syndicalism" idea. If I have followed it correctly, the socialist here
> wants to abolish private property. A noble goal, I suppose, but
> how would new machines and so on be purchased to improve productivity?
I think you confuse means with ends. What is the desired goal (end)? What
is the desired method to get there (means)? What is the goal here? Well,
you want to have new machines to improve productivity. There's one means
-- purchase them. But where did it come from -- if you purchase
something, someone created it. I'll assume that we agree that imporved
productivity is good -- it reduces working-hours and/or the amount of
resources necessary to create a good. People want this for obvious
reasons. Why, under a system of public ownership and control of the means
of production, would this change? It wouldn't. People need things -- but
they would rather spend time doing things they like. People would create
innovations (such as imporve productivity) because they would benefit
from it.
> How would goods be allocated to consumers if there were no money?
Well what is money for? It's another means, not an end. People like to
accumulate money. Why? You can't eat it, you can't put it in your NEC
game system and play it. By itself it's worthless. It is a means to the
things people want. Well there are problems with money -- accumulation.
If money is accumulated, the possessing person gains power, authority
over others. Anarchists think this is wrong.
So, instead of a means that has inherent problems (money), why not create
a system that uses a different means -- without problems? Such a means
would incorporate the good things that money delivers: a way of tracking
what people want and need. But there are other ways to do this. The way
anarchists propose to fulfill this need is with direct public
participation. The people that produce are the same as those that consume
-- they should be able to voice directly what they need and want. With
money, one person may have 5 billion voices (ie dollars) while another
only has 100 ($100). This is inherently hierarchical and undemocratic --
anarchists propose to change this situation.
It seems
> there an awful lot of holes in this plan -- it reminds me of the
> economic system of Star Trek--the next generation. I don't understand
> that one either. If you can enlighten me, Mr. Socialist, please do.
>
> Live free or die.
Actually, you sound like an anarchist!
Jason Wehling
<ja...@ee.pdx.edu>
bab
both left libertarian (eg, IWW) and right libertarian (eg, LP)
organizations I've seen this debate many times.
There are a couple of underlying problems with this debate.
First, there's definitions. Right-Libertarians (RL) tend to define
"capitalism" to be identical to "a free economy". All libertarians
believe in a free economy, so this makes the term useless in a discussion
among libertarians on comparative (free) economic systems. I have had RL
tell me in all seriousness that anarcho-syndicalism is a variant of
capitalism and that the phone company is not capitalist. Related to this
is the tendency of both sides to distance themselves from the statist
versions of their system. Unfortunately, both state-socialism and
state-capitalism are real variants of socialism and capitalism. In each
case it's necessary to separate the criticism of statism from the
criticism of the economic system.
Another problem is that it isn't an either/or situation, but a continuum.
Virtually all families operate on a communist model (from each according
to their ability to each according to their need). Virtually
all world-scale economic distribution operates on a market model. It's
equally hard for me to see how a family could function by charging the
kids for dinner as it is for me to see how, say, world cotton production
and distribution could be coordinated administratively -- things are just
too complex.
There's also a tendency for RL and LL to discount the fact that the other
is honestly a libertarian and as such believes in individual freedom and
a free economy. Thus you get RL who insist that LL defend state socialism
and LL who insist that RL defend state capitalism. A lot of this is just
ignorance of the other tradition, not too surprising since the dominant
forms of both socialism and capitalism in this century have been statist.
In a free society, people will choose how they want to interact with each
other. We don't know what it will look like, except that it will (by
definition) be free. There are advantages and disadvantages to both the
administered and the market model. The relative benefits and costs change
as the size grows, and different people will value different combinations.
It is stupid for libertarians to argue the way statists do about what kind
of economy should be imposed. The economic system will arise from the
decisions of the people who use it, not from some group of experts. If you
want socialism, go out and build free-socialist institutions that people
will choose to participate in. If you want capitalism, go out and build
free-capitalist institutions that people will choose to participate in.
Frank R. Ahlgren
>> Because socialism is a bureaucratic condition that involves the redistribution
>> of wealth, and it is inherently inefficient. Capitalism is an economic system
>> that involves the exchange of goods and services. It is responsible for
>> almost all of the innovations of this planet that account for our current
>> standard of living, which is the highest ever.
>This is a non-sequitar. All good is capitalism -- all bad is socialism.
No, THAT is a non-sequitur, as NO ONE claimed that capitalism embodies all
good and socialism is the root of all evil.
>How many times do I have to define socialism for you? Your definition of
>socialism is incorrect -- you are describing state-communism. Socialism
>is an economic system whereby the means of production are owned and
>controlled by the community as a whole. There's no implication of
>bureacracy there at all. Basically you are interchanginf to separate
>words and ideas: socialism and bureacracy. There is a reason that there
>are two words -- there are two different ideas attached to them.
Um, I HATE to keep bringing this up, but all of you have admitted that a
"federal assembly" will determine economic policy. This IS a bureacracy, and
it is DEMONSTABLY less efficient than the market, which performs the same job
for free. Why buy an abacus when you already own a super-computer? At any
rate, most of you have acquiesced to the necessity of prices in your society.
This is good, since I am going on vacation for three weeks and may not be able
to continue the conversation for a while after Friday. Really, your
acceptance of the necessity (really, the inescapability) or prices only
establishes strong support for Mises' calculation arguement, which is what got
me into this thread to begin with.
>This is funny. You basically say: socialism is everything that is bad.
>Capitalism is responsible for all that is good. BUT... "I am not
>defending capitalism". That's funny.
Here's that "non-sequitur" again. Great leap . . .
>You have not explained why it is better other than saying that socialism
>can't deal with resource allocation and is based on price fixing. I have
>shown why price fixing is not inherent under anarcho-socialism. And I
>have shown how resources will be allocated: basically democratically.
No you haven't. You have shown that values will exist in your society, which
means (by definition) that prices will exist. You have shown nothing more
than the fact that people VALUE some things more than others. You have shown
that you will implement bureacracies in your society in order to attempt to
allocate resources "democratically", but I have shown that bureaucracies are
inherently inefficient and unnecessary. You have provided NOTHING but support
for the calculation argument -- that scarce resources are MOST efficiently
allocated by individuals, and that they do this through the communication of
subjective value (i.e., prices).
Frank R. Ahlgren
>> >>And who makes the decisions for these shops?
>> >The people who make up these shops.
>> Bureaucracy.
>No, you are wrong once again. You use terms without any thought as to
>their proper meaning.
bureaucracy n. the concentration of authority in administrative bureaus
(Webster's New World)
Unless you allow for COMPETING bureaucracies, they will be UNABLE to maximize
efficiency. This is the definition of bureaucracy to which I refer. I have
been using it consistently, and you offer no evidence to the contrary.
>Again, it's back to the BIG dictionary (you really should get one of
>these, they are quite helpful).
>Bureacracy: "government by many bureaus, administrators, and petty
>officials".
That is another defintion. I accept it as viable, but YOU are late. If you
are using "bureaucracy" to mean "government", then you have created a
tautology, and I have no response. I am (and have been) using the definition
I posted above SPECIFICALLY to avoid this sort of sophistry.
>> >The people in these shops.
>> Bureaucracy.
>Oh please! Please, buy a dictionary -- SOON!
I did. If you reject my use of a PROPER connotation in favor of a tautology,
then your argument has failed. If you mean to say "government", then say
"government". I am NOT using "bureaucracy" to connote government -- if I
was interested in doing that I would have said "government". And I have
SPECIFICALLY posted the defintion MANY times so as to avoid any confusion.
>> >The people who work in these shops.
>> Bureaucracy.
>This is getting very old, very fast.
Yes, I agree -- especially since I went to all the trouble to be so specific
and you STILL chose to take such an easily-refutable position.
>> >> Can anyone start one?
>> >If you need something and want to produce a product that fulfills this need,
>> >then yes -- anyone like this can start one.
>> In other words, if the market has an opening? Capitalism.
>How many times do I have to say this. Anarchism does not rely on markets.
>Just because a group of people want to create something new -- perhaps a
>new toothpaste -- it does not follow that the community's relationship
>with the means of production will suddenly change.
But if values exist, then those values WILL be communicated IN TERMS OF COST.
And costs are defined by prices. If this is true, then you will have markets.
That is capitalism. If you create a new toothpaste, it will only be used if
it can garner DEMAND. Demand is the condition of wants or needs, which is a
DIRECT statement of value. This value will be communicated in terms of cost.
Cost is defined by price. Your society WILL rely on markets, regardless of
the method of institution.
>> >To which I reply in kind: BULLSHIT. BULLSHIT. BULLSHIT.
>> Are all of your replies bullshit?
>No, your constant referrence to Mises is bullshit. Good god.
"Bullshit" is a subjective construct you have created to communicate your
interpretation of the "value" of the calculation argument. If I was in your
shoes, I might at this point assign it the value of "bullshit", myself, as it
is CERTAINLY the biggest obstacle between you and theoretical utopia.
Argue Mises
>point and cite him -- don't just shout his name and assume that that
>somehow proves your point.
I have -- quite succinctly.
You don't see us anarcho-socialists shouting
>Kropotkin! Kropotkin! Kropotkin! to prove our points. We actually explain
>the ideas -- you just name-drop.
Actually, now that you mention it, I haven't heard ANYONE effectively assign a
specific idea (or epitomization thereof) to Kropotkin. Please DO use
Kropotkin to solve the problem of efficient allocation of scarce resources. . .
>When we started to outline such a system -- you just say "oh that's
>bureacracy", without explaining what the hell you mean.
Um, I have defined it countless times, now. Your ineffective attempt to
"prove" that bureaucracy is government resulted in a tautological argument.
Frank R. Ahlgren
>Ie, "subjective values" are "money". therefore money always exists even
>if "money" (ie paper/coins/etc) does not. What does this terminology
>actually prove? That socialism cannot exist, that *every* economic
>system is capitalist. Is this a useful definition? Nope, it is not.
>Why? Because it only creates strawmen.
No, it only creates the reality that socialism cannot exist in the absence of
markets.
>"socialism" is not dead. Why? Because most socialists did not accept
>Frank's definition of socialism.
Frank posted his definition of socialism to the satisfaction of many
socialists in this thread.
Frank R. Ahlgren
>Franks writes :-
>> Money ONLY has subjective value. Are you prepared to make a case to the
>> contrary? Again, I am ALL ears.
>Ah, now we know. economic decision making need not be expressed in
>terms of money, as I have been arguing all along.
What is money, lain?
money n. property; wealth (Webster's New World)
What is wealth?
wealth n. valuable products, contents, etc. (Webster's New World)
If "money" is determined by "valuable products, contents, etc., let me REMIND
you of what you said about value and its susequent syllogism:
>It is *impossible* to stop people placing subjective values on
>things (although power often tries to).
Thank you.
value n. the worth of a thing in money or goods (Webster's New World)
premise: "It is impossible to stop people from placing subjective values on
things . . ." -- I.M. McKay
premise: value is defined as the worth of a thing in money or goods
(Webster's New World)
conclusion: It is impossible to stop people from placing subjective values
(the worth of things in money or goods) on things.
Now, Iain, I invite you to establish that goods and services have some
OBJECTIVE value, of which we are not aware. But, as you have admitted,
objective value does not exist. Your argument is now officially dead.
Socialism is dead.
I am going to save this syllogism and reprint it as often as necessary . . .
>>Any "subjective value" IS a price -- created to measure the "worth" of a
good >>or a service. Thank you.
>No, sorry. but I was arguing that money was not the only "subjective
>value" that could be used, for example creative work, less hours, etc
>were the subjective values I suggested instead of "price" (ie money).
Any subsequent "subjective value" that is used will be MONEY, as defined above.
>I was arguing that money was not the best method of making economic
>decisions, that it ignored the "human cost" of capitalism.
But the syllogism I created above (using YOUR comments) suggests otherwise.
How will your society KNOW the most efficient means of allocating resources?
You have already admitted that bureaucracies and prices will be implemented --
are you now suggesting that they are MORE efficient than markets?
>Now, if you had defined price as "any subjective price" to begin with
>then I would not have argued with you as any decision is made based
>on subjective value. Capitalism is based on crushing certain subjective
>values for profit, that is why we socialists are against it.
How can "price" be defined as anything BUT subjective?
Frank R. Ahlgren
> It seems
>> there an awful lot of holes in this plan -- it reminds me of the
>> economic system of Star Trek--the next generation. I don't understand
>> that one either. If you can enlighten me, Mr. Socialist, please do.
>>
>> Live free or die.
>Actually, you sound like an anarchist!
Yes, he DOES sound like an anarchist -- the realistic kind that allows prices
to be the means of scarce resource allocation rather than uncompetitive,
inefficient bureaucracies. . .
Frank R. Ahlgren
>Franks logic is flawed. With terms like "subjective value" and money he
>is essentially arguing that apples are fruit (money is a "subjective
>value") and, at the smae time the reverse: fruit are apples ("subjective
>value" is money). Certainly money is one form of "subjective value", but
>Frank is ignorant of other forms (like apples are not the only fruit).
Please show me where I said that money is the only subjective value. You are
SO good at creating my argument for me, yet so unable to solve the calculation
argument.
JASON Wehling
On Sat, 17 Dec 1994, Frank R. Ahlgren wrote:
> >>And who makes the decisions for these shops?
> >The people who make up these shops.
> Bureaucracy.
No, you are wrong once again. You use terms without any thought as to
their proper meaning.
Again, it's back to the BIG dictionary (you really should get one of
these, they are quite helpful).
Bureacracy: "government by many bureaus, administrators, and petty
officials".
That's simple enough. ANd it has nothing to do with what I am describing.
I said people, not government. There's a big difference between the two.
Or do I have to explain that as well?
> > Who organizes them?
> >The people in these shops.
> Bureaucracy.
Oh please! Please, buy a dictionary -- SOON!
> > Who starts
> >>them?
> >The people who work in these shops.
> Bureaucracy.
This is getting very old, very fast.
> >> Can anyone start one?
> >If you need something and want to produce a product that fulfills this need,
> >then yes -- anyone like this can start one.
> In other words, if the market has an opening? Capitalism.
How many times do I have to say this. Anarchism does not rely on markets.
Just because a group of people want to create something new -- perhaps a
new toothpaste -- it does not follow that the community's relationship
with the means of production will suddenly change. Either it's owned and
controlled by the people who work, benefit and live there, as a whole --
OR it is owned and controlled by a wealthy elite class. This
differenciates capitalism from socialism.
> >>Then why are you still talking, Big Brain? Since I DO know a little
> >>something about these markets, why don't you have a seat. Without organized
> >>futures and cash markets, resources cannot be efficiently allocated. Mises.
> >>Mises. Mises.
> >To which I reply in kind: BULLSHIT. BULLSHIT. BULLSHIT.
> Are all of your replies bullshit?
No, your constant referrence to Mises is bullshit. Good god. Argue Mises
point and cite him -- don't just shout his name and assume that that
somehow proves your point. You don't see us anarcho-socialists shouting
Kropotkin! Kropotkin! Kropotkin! to prove our points. We actually explain
the ideas -- you just name-drop.
If you cannot solve the problem of
> efficient resource allocation, and you continue to argue as such, I would
> assume so . . .
>
> Solve the "calculation argument". I am not defending capitalism, I am
> attacking socialism. How will a socialist society allocate resources
> efficiently without markets?
Well, you have shown no real interest in understanding the anarchist
ideal at all. Once we start to explain it, you just start shouting about
bureacracy and states. We have explained why you are misinterpreting us.
But you refuse to move past these self-serving definitions that you
repeatedly use -- to wit, capitialism, socialism and bureacracy.
When we started to outline such a system -- you just say "oh that's
bureacracy", without explaining what the hell you mean. You should at
least attempt to explain your arguement. In other words, it appears to be
a bureacracy because of this or that reason. You refuse to back up your
generalizations with facts or logical arguements. This is the problem.
Jason Wehling
<ja...@ee.pdx.edu>
Wayne Dawson
: By the way, folks, the word "libertarian" was first used
: by socialist anarchists around 1880 to describe their
: ideas.
Yes, and your antique meaning is not sufficient any more. Free
enterprise anarchism is an improvement over the old ideas. The modern
meaning is much more tolerant than you are, Iain.
: Hence the term "libertarian socialist" is the one with
: the longest hostorical existance. For anarchists the
: term "libertarian capitalist" is a contradiction in
: terms with capitalist being the opposite to everything
: that capitalism is about.
And since Homo Erectus was around long before Homo Sapiens, we cannot
call ourselves man. They were the true men, and we must pick some other
term for ourselves. ;-)
For *this* anarchist, the term "libertarian capitalist" is *not* a
contradiction in terms.
"...capitalist being the opposite to everything
that capitalism is about"??? Was that a typo?
--
=: "Free men have arms; slaves do not." - Wm. Blackstone :=
A committee can come up with a solution
that is stupider than any of its members.
The love of good is the root of all money.
=: Jon Galt (aka Wayne Dawson) email: jon...@pinn.net :=
Wayne Dawson
: > Leap of logic? How will a socialist society allocate resources without
: > prices?
: As we have said many times: democratically. People in a given community
: will come together and figure out how many resources are available and
*********
: what is the best way to produce with them and allocate them so that
****
: everyone that participates will be happy.
********
*Everyone* that participates will be happy? The only way I'll be happy
is if I'm allowed to accumulate private property as reward for my
efforts. How will your system make *me* happy? And if I am excluded
because of this, then what resources will I be allowed to have for my
one-man "collective"?
: Since these people are the same ones that both consume and produce the
: products, they know what the "costs" involved are. So they are well
: equiped to make the necessary decisions about resource allocation.
The *same* ones that both consume and produce the products? Do you mean I
cannot use *anything* that I didn't make for myself? Or that I didn't
make at least one of for someone else?
JASON Wehling
On 19 Dec 1994, bab wrote:
> If you
> want socialism, go out and build free-socialist institutions that people
> will choose to participate in. If you want capitalism, go out and build
> free-capitalist institutions that people will choose to participate in.
Thank you "bab" -- I appreciate your small piece of sanity in the midst
of all this flame-war B.S. I actually agree with you, even though I fall
solidly in the anarcho-socialist camp. As long as I'm free to associate
with people in the way we choose -- others can associate with still
others in a way that they choose. I would hope that we all could at least
agree upon this.
Jason Wehling
<ja...@ee.pdx.edu>
JASON Wehling
On Mon, 19 Dec 1994, Frank R. Ahlgren wrote:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.94121...@flotsam.ee.pdx.edu> JASON Wehling <ja...@ee.pdx.edu> writes:
>
> >As we have said many times: democratically. People in a given community
> >will come together and figure out how many resources are available and
> >what is the best way to produce with them and allocate them so that
> >everyone that participates will be happy.
> Bureaucracy. Why buy an abacus when you have a supercomputer. Why bring
> people together to democratically decide how to allocate scarce resources when
> you already have markets that do just that at no cost? Where is the
> "efficiency"?
This is exactly why I want your definition of "efficiency". The word
"efficiency" is completely tied to subjective elements. Hitler WAS
efficient if killing is the criteria. But what is the subjective criteria
in the case at hand? For me, equality of power is the subjective
criteria. In this case, your system is inefficient. In this case, my
system is more efficient. Provide your own criteria and this changes.
> >Since these people are the same ones that both consume and produce the
> >products, they know what the "costs" involved are. So they are well
> >equiped to make the necessary decisions about resource allocation.
>
> Which is what they do every time they make a purchase?
But a system based on money and purchasing is not democratic -- hence is
not "efficient" based on the above criteria.
Why complicate the
> matter? Where's the efficiency? Are you somehow going to eliminate scarcity?
Scarcity is reality. Why do you keep bringing this up? I and others have
said this many times before. More strawmen perhaps?
> >Impose equality of condition? I have really said this -- you just did.
> >I'm not sure what you mean by this? If it means that everyone takes part
> >in the control of the means of production (ie equality of decision-making
> >power) then yes. But there's no need to impose this on anyone. If you
> >mean that everyone will be equal -- like in a big brother kind of way --
> >well we have never argued for this.
> No, another socialist in this thread said it. How will you prevent
> individuals from accumulating wealth? What if I have MORE than my neighbor?
Who cares? I don't. If no one has exclusive control over the means of
production then they can be as wealthy as they like. I will not prevent
some from producing as much as they like -- they can have a heart-attack
for all I care. It's their choice. If I have access to the means of
production, and subsequently, a way of producing items that I find
necessary without being subjected to exploitation, then I am happy.
> What if I invent the widget and make a million pounds of silver off of the
> "sales"? Are you going to take all of my money away?
Money would not exist under anarcho-socialism. If you want to make a
million widgets -- by all means, have fun. I won't stop you.
How will you do that
> without bureacracy? How will you equalize my condition without the
> implementation of price controls?
If by price, you mean defintion #2 (ie. Money), then it doesn't exist.
There's no need to stop something that doesn't exist.
This society will be based on theft and
> force FAR beyond anything imaginable in a pure capitalist society. We will
> still have crime, but it will be by individuals who can be punished. Your
> society will make theft legal, and will use FORCE to uphold that law.
What Law?
Serious
> flaw in your idealogy, there -- I thought it was based on freedom. So far,
> you have me working on toilets once a month, whether I like it or not, and you
> can steal almost all of my money, legally. And this is freedom?
You have quite an imagination! Where did this come from? This is funny.
You put words in my mouth and try and argue against it.
STRAWMAN ALERT! STRAWMAN ALERT! CONDITION RED!
What is even more funny is that you get pissed off when others do this to
you. I guess, what comes around, goes around, aye?
> >> Prices are communication of value.
>
> >Yes. One type of communication among many types.
>
> For instance? How will you communicate value if not in terms of prices? Any
> other subjective construct you use to replace prices becomes a price.
Fruit does not equal an apple, even though an apple is a type of fruit.
Your arguement is a tautology: Price = Value. This is simply false. Price
is a *type* of value -- one, among many, ways of communicating value.
For example, in a barter economy, price is irrelavant. I can trade my
stereo for your car. We have established value without monetary prices
and they have been communicated (they must be for the exchange to occur).
Jason Wehling
<ja...@ee.pdx.edu>
JASON Wehling
On Mon, 19 Dec 1994, Frank R. Ahlgren wrote:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.94121...@flotsam.ee.pdx.edu> JASON Wehling <ja...@ee.pdx.edu> writes:
>
> >Franks logic is flawed. With terms like "subjective value" and money he
> >is essentially arguing that apples are fruit (money is a "subjective
> >value") and, at the smae time the reverse: fruit are apples ("subjective
> >value" is money). Certainly money is one form of "subjective value", but
> >Frank is ignorant of other forms (like apples are not the only fruit).
> Please show me where I said that money is the only subjective value. You are
> SO good at creating my argument for me, yet so unable to solve the calculation
> argument.
Well you keep arguing that if we accept the notion of subjective value,
then we must accept "prices". This is often interchanged, especially by
you, with money.
Are you now saying that subjective value can be communicated by means
other than money (ie prices)? Normally, you seem to lup all these terms
together.
Jason Wehling
<ja...@ee.pdx.edu>
JASON Wehling
On Mon, 19 Dec 1994, Frank R. Ahlgren wrote:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.94121...@flotsam.ee.pdx.edu> JASON Wehling <ja...@ee.pdx.edu> writes:
>
> >On Sat, 17 Dec 1994, Frank R. Ahlgren wrote:
>
> >> In article <3cs3u5$7...@flotsam.ee.pdx.edu> ja...@ee.pdx.edu (Jason Wehling) writes:
> >>
> >> >No. This is complete nonsense. Capitalism is an economic system. Technology
> >> >is a human construct. To be precise, technolgy advances because of -- as
> >> >a result of -- human *creativity*. Capitalism didn't *create* the wheel --
> >> >sorry, but that is just absurd. A person created the wheel because she or
> >> >he felt that it was needed.
> >> But WHY did they think it was needed? They just built it "because"? That
> >> truly IS asurd.
> >Your arguement is a non-sequitar.
> What "doesn't follow"? You haven't answered the question. I appreciate your
> knowledge of Latin, but you must either show the leap or answer the question.
You said, and I quote: "They just built it 'because'... that is truly
absurd". This is a non-sequitar. I said that they built it BECAUSE they
needed it. Your arguement DOES NOT follow.
And "why did they think they needed it?"? This is funny. Do I really need
to answer this? How do you know you need toothpaste? Food? I think this
is fairly obvious, but if I must, I'll explain to you, Frank, why YOU
need toothpaste and food. I hope I won't, though.
> >> And how will they know the most efficient means of, say, building a tunnel
> >> under the English channel, or if it should be done at all?
> >Well just think about it. How? First of all, is the tunnel needed? By
> >whom? How badly is it needed?
> I don't know without prices.
This is ridiculous. When you walk through a store (by some freak of
nature you happen to end up in one) and see that sign and it says:
"$1.95". And right above the sign is a tube of toothpaste -- suddenly at
that exact moment YOU know that you NEED toothpaste. Not before and not
after, but at that exact moment the PRICE told you you were out ot
toothpaste, aye? This is silly. Prices DO NOT communicate need directly
like this.
If a tunnel is needed, the cost of it will not tell anyone whether or not
it is needed -- that is a subjective, human choice. "Cost" comes into
play only after the need has been established. At this point, "cost" is
weighed against the level of need.
That is what I am trying to tell you. How will
> you KNOW how badly it is needed if you can't express it in terms of cost? And
> if you DO express it in terms of cost, you are using prices. Thank you.
But cost doesn't do this. Only humans can determine need -- by definition
it is subjective. Once humans determine their own need, then and only
then does cost come into the equation.
> >If it is needed by a significant portion of the population, then they
> >will be willing to "pay" the "cost" of all the work-hours involved and
> >the used resources that could have gone to other things.
> "Pay" the "cost"? So you WILL be using prices. Thank you.
Again, it depends on the definition of "price" -- that's why I put it in
quote-marks. If Price = Value, then yes. If Price = Money, then no. Cost
does not imply money. Working out in the garden can "cost" me time.
Fucking over my friends can "cost" me a relationship. Etc, etc.
> Again, this is a
> >democratic process. All that the decision affects will have a say in the
> >matter. If only 100 people want the tunnel -- it is up to them to figure
> >out how to build it.
> And they will determine this by? Prices.
They will determine this by their subjective needs and wants.
> Is there enough of them to do the work themselves?
> >If yes, then they can proceed. If not, then they must convince others to
> >join them. Perhaps the tunnel-wanters will help the helpers with a
> >project that the helpers want completed. From there -- they need to find
> >available resources -- steel, electricity, earth-movers, etc., etc. These
> >resources are "controlled by the community as a whole". Perhaps many
> >communities will benefit from such a tunnel. Then it is up to the people
> >that wnat it to convince these communities to give up the necessary
> >resources to build the thing. Perhaps they will make their case before
> >the citizen's assembly. Perhaps the communities will go for it -- perhaps
> >not. But it's not up to a single person or insitution, like a government
> >or a corporation -- it's up to the people that will be affected by such a
> >project.
> Citizen's assembly. That is a bureacracy.
No it is not. Not even by your won definition. A citizen's assembly is
not a government, period. People come together in an assembly to
coordinate joint action. There is no authority telling them what to do --
that would be government, or bureacracy.
So now a bureaucracy will "vote"
> on how to allocate resources. How can a bureaucracy POSSIBLY know what people
> need better than people themselves?
You ignorance is showing, once again. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY
THIS? A citizen's assembly is the people -- get it?
[snip..]
> > The man-hours are easy, but how do you
> >> compare those man-hours to machine efficiency?
> >I don't follow this. Machines will also produce -- in fact the more the
> >merrier -- people will have less work hours. I'm all for that.
> But how do you know it is more EFFICIENT to use the machines? There is still
> work that is done by hand because it is less COSTLY to do it that way than
> with machines. How would you KNOW that without prices?
This is silly. You ask, how will people know? Well if my community has
automated machines, then I will know that I work less hours at the jobs I
dislike, but do out of necessity. I will know this and like this and
there will be no money (or "price" definition #2).
> How will we know how much it >> will "cost" per hour to run those machines?
> >Again, its a question that the community as a whole -- perhaps through a
> >citizen's assembly -- would answer.
> So every time an allocative question comes up, the assembly has to vote on it?
> This is the PERFECT example of bureaucratic inefficiency. What if I want a
> new car? What if EVERYONE wants a new car? What if I want to go to the
> grocery store? What if I want a bigger house? How do I know whether or not
> it is economically feasible? Socialism is an overcomplication of an already
> efficient process.
Well the same could be said for dictatorships. Hell, democracies are SO
inefficient compared to autocracies. Why one earth would people want
democracies? Answer: they are more just. The same holds for
anarcho-socialism.
But to answer your question more specifically, no, every car would not be
voted on. That's ridiculous. The car-making syndicate would figure out
how many cars it could produce with the available resources. They figure
this out by getting information from the other syndicates: the steel
syndicate, the plastics syndicate, etc., etc. They produce those cars.
Then those cars are distributed based on needs expressed in the
assemblies -- ie. democratically.
> How much electricity does the
> >community have? In what way is this resource best used? Well that's up to
> >the community to decide. If there is a surplus after necessities are
> >taken care up (again, defined by the community), then perhaps they have
> >extra for such a tunnel project. Perhaps they have extra but want to run
> >a 1,000,000 VCR's instead. It's up to the community to decide.
> But the market already "decides" this without bureaucratic intervention. Why
> would you want to waste part of the resources on an "assembly" when the market
> already allocates these resources for free.
This doesn't make any sense. What resources are wasted by an assembly?
Furthermore, what if I DID invent
> something that EVERYONE wanted? Am I allowed to keep the proceeds that my
> invention creates?
Proceeds? There's no money. You benefit the community and the community
benefits you -- it's called mutual aid.
> > What about building the machines?
> >> Do we use steel or aluminum?
> >What's available? Both? Then the community must figure out which is a
> >better use versus "cost". Does the stronger material take more communtiy
> >resources to produce? If so, what is the trade off? Then they decide.
> So you WILL use prices. Thank you.
Nope. Anarcho-socialism uses "value", not prices in the sense of money.
The word "cost" does not mean money -- there is a reason why there are
two words -- there are two separate ideas.
> > Do we use glass or plastic? Do we use rubber
> >> or plastic? What do we use to build those machines? What is the least
> >> "expensive"? What will cost the most in terms of human value? Do we use
> >> unleaded gasoline, alcohol, diesel fuel, coal, or wood to run the machines?
> >> Can it be done more efficiently with electricity?
> >Great questions. I say let the community "as a whole" decide -- not just
> >a government bureaucrat or a capitalist manager. Let the people whom it
> >will affect all have a say.
> That's what markets DO -- they let society decide how resources are to be
> allocated. You are advocating capitalism.
Nope. Under Capitalism, one corporation decides that it would be
profitable to build a tunnel. They buy the land and the resources
necessary and they build it. The owner decides, or his managers do, what
will be used and how. The community has no say. Capitalism means private
ownership of the means of production -- that means that decisions over
these matters are private: one person decides these questions. This is
autocratic -- not democratic. When the tunnel is completed, the community
is then forced to pay to use it -- so that the Capitalist can profit from
his investment. The Community has no say over these matters -- either pay
or find another way. Throughout this process, the community had NO say
over the matter. I think this is wrong.
Jason Wehling
<ja...@ee.pdx.edu>
JASON Wehling
On Mon, 19 Dec 1994, Frank R. Ahlgren wrote:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.94121...@flotsam.ee.pdx.edu> JASON Wehling <ja...@ee.pdx.edu> writes:
>
> >> >>And who makes the decisions for these shops?
>
> >> >The people who make up these shops.
>
> >> Bureaucracy.
>
> >No, you are wrong once again. You use terms without any thought as to
> >their proper meaning.
> bureaucracy n. the concentration of authority in administrative bureaus
> (Webster's New World)
>
> Unless you allow for COMPETING bureaucracies, they will be UNABLE to maximize
> efficiency. This is the definition of bureaucracy to which I refer. I have
> been using it consistently, and you offer no evidence to the contrary.
> >Again, it's back to the BIG dictionary (you really should get one of
> >these, they are quite helpful).
>
> >Bureacracy: "government by many bureaus, administrators, and petty
> >officials".
> That is another defintion. I accept it as viable, but YOU are late. If you
> are using "bureaucracy" to mean "government", then you have created a
> tautology, and I have no response.
No, I have not created a taulology. Bureaucracy is a *type* of government
-- the words are not interchangable. It's like my example of apples and
fruit. In this case, bureaucracy is to apples as fruit is to government.
But any dictionary you'll find, bureaucracy IS a type of government. Even
your own definition implies this, both by using the words "authority" and
"bureaus".
I am (and have been) using the definition
> I posted above SPECIFICALLY to avoid this sort of sophistry.
What sophistry? The truth?
Jason Wehling
<ja...@ee.pdx.edu>
JASON Wehling
On 20 Dec 1994, Wayne Dawson wrote:
> JASON Wehling (ja...@ee.pdx.edu) wrote:
> : > Leap of logic? How will a socialist society allocate resources without
> : > prices?
> : As we have said many times: democratically. People in a given community
> : will come together and figure out how many resources are available and
> *********
> : what is the best way to produce with them and allocate them so that
> ****
> : everyone that participates will be happy.
> ********
> *Everyone* that participates will be happy? The only way I'll be happy
> is if I'm allowed to accumulate private property as reward for my
> efforts. How will your system make *me* happy? And if I am excluded
> because of this, then what resources will I be allowed to have for my
> one-man "collective"?
Okay Wayne -- haven't we had this exact arguement over three or four
months ago. If I remember correctly, we jointly concluded that we would
both be happy if you joined the anarcho-capitalist community and I joined
the anarcho-socialist community. I don't see why this couldn't be viable
as long as each community didn't mess with the other. Hell, I bet they
could even trade some items, based on mutual aid, of course! :)
Jason Wehling
<ja...@ee.pdx.edu>
craig bolton
writes:
>
>
>By the way, folks, the word "libertarian" was first used
>by socialist anarchists around 1880 to describe their
>ideas.
>
>Hence the term "libertarian socialist" is the one with
>the longest hostorical existance. For anarchists the
>term "libertarian capitalist" is a contradiction in
>terms with capitalist being the opposite to everything
>that capitalism is about.
>
>Iain
>
>
An interesting observation. Unfortunately the term "socialist" has been used to
cover such a variety of positions, truly "libertarian" to truly "totalitarian",
that your observation doesn't tell us much without identifying the particular
socialists to whom you are referring.
i.m.mckay
In article 1...@everest.pinn.net, jon...@pinn.net (Wayne Dawson) writes:
<snip>
>
> *Everyone* that participates will be happy?
Well. obviously, not *everyone* to equal degrees, but hey
thats life.
> The only way I'll be happy
> is if I'm allowed to accumulate private property as reward for my
> efforts.
So property makes you happy? You live to get property? Thats very
interesting.
And are we talking about personal possession of the stuff others
use? (eg a workplace).
If the later, then you will have *power* over the people who
work there. Does giving orders make you happy?
> How will your system make *me* happy?
Assuming you desire to be so un-selfish that you desire to
work by yourself, then you can. In the collectives in Spain
people who did not want to join worked their own land.
Its a basic anarchist-socialist idea that those who do
not want to live collectively can live their own lives.
You can expect people to work with you, not for you.
> And if I am excluded
> because of this, then what resources will I be allowed to have for my
> one-man "collective"?
>
Whatever you need to survive, eg land, artisan equipment, etc.
Often collectives helped out individualists in Spain by letting
them use their machinery or helping them gather their crop, etc.
> : Since these people are the same ones that both consume and produce the
> : products, they know what the "costs" involved are. So they are well
> : equiped to make the necessary decisions about resource allocation.
>
> The *same* ones that both consume and produce the products? Do you mean I
> cannot use *anything* that I didn't make for myself? Or that I didn't
> make at least one of for someone else?
Strawman, Wayne. Please. You *know* what Jason meant, namely that all
who are part of the federation of collectives are both producers and
consumers of that society.
Iain : Saorsa, Ionannachd, Dluthachd!
: Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
/***************************************************************************
**** Organisation, far from creating authority, is the only cure for it ****
** and the only means whereby each of us will get used to taking an **
** active and conscious part in collective work, and cease being **
**** passive instruments in the hands of leaders. ****
***************************************************************************/
JASON Wehling
On Wed, 21 Dec 1994, Frank R. Ahlgren wrote:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.94122...@flotsam.ee.pdx.edu> JASON Wehling <ja...@ee.pdx.edu> writes:
>
> >> >> But WHY did they think it was needed? They just built it "because"? That
> >> >> truly IS asurd.
> >> >Your arguement is a non-sequitar.
> >> What "doesn't follow"? You haven't answered the question. I appreciate your
> >> knowledge of Latin, but you must either show the leap or answer the question.
> >You said, and I quote: "They just built it 'because'... that is truly
> >absurd". This is a non-sequitar. I said that they built it BECAUSE they
> >needed it. Your arguement DOES NOT follow.
> Why did they need it?
Need is subjective Frank. You should know this. I can't answe *why*
people need what they do -- I can guess. I need food. This is obvious --
I need to survive. Perhaps a better word to use is "want". I can want a
CD player, I can want a car. And those theoretical people can "want" a
tunnel. Perhaps it is "needed" in the sense that it will greatly improve
the distribution of goods. How do they know that is it needed? Well
people are stupid -- if they know what the current costs of distribution
are and can figure out roughly what the costs are after the tunnel is
built and in use -- they can figure it out. That's pretty simple.
For looks? It was your statement that was non
> sequitur, not mine.
I said they might build your hypothetical tunnel because they needed it.
Where the hell it the non-sequitor? Please explain.
> Explain why these inventors "needed" the products they
> created if it wasn't for economic advancement (which means more money).
If it requires less resources to distribute goods after the tunnel is
built, then it is needed. Yes, the tunnel would be an "advancement" --
but not more "money". Remember, money doesn't exist in anarcho-socialism.
> >And "why did they think they needed it?"? This is funny. Do I really need
> >to answer this? How do you know you need toothpaste? Food? I think this
> >is fairly obvious, but if I must, I'll explain to you, Frank, why YOU
> >need toothpaste and food. I hope I won't, though.
> To improve the quality of my life.
Oh my god, give that man a brownie point!
[snip..]
> >> >> And how will they know the most efficient means of, say, building a
> tunnel >> >> under the English channel, or if it should be done at all?
> >> >Well just think about it. How? First of all, is the tunnel needed? By
> >> >whom? How badly is it needed?
> >> I don't know without prices.
> >This is ridiculous. When you walk through a store (by some freak of
> >nature you happen to end up in one) and see that sign and it says:
> >"$1.95". And right above the sign is a tube of toothpaste -- suddenly at
> >that exact moment YOU know that you NEED toothpaste. Not before and not
> >after, but at that exact moment the PRICE told you you were out ot
> >toothpaste, aye? This is silly. Prices DO NOT communicate need directly
> >like this.
> It's SILLY?
Yes it is. Personally, and I would bet most people, know what they want
BEFORE they go to the store. "Shit, I'm out of toothpaste. Better go to
the store and get more". This is painfully obvious.
Then if it is so silly, or meaningless, and it communicates
> nothing, why doesn't toothpaste cost $10 million? Apparently price DOES
> communicate something . . .
Obviously. I never said it didn't. But you said that price communicates
need. I think this is false. Price communicates whether or not a person
can buy it, and subsequently have use of it.
> >If a tunnel is needed, the cost of it will not tell anyone whether or not
> >it is needed -- that is a subjective, human choice. "Cost" comes into
> >play only after the need has been established. At this point, "cost" is
> >weighed against the level of need.
> No, cost DETERMINES need.
Not in all cases. Even if bread (or any other type of food) costs $5
zillion, we still NEED to eat. Cost does not ALWAYS determine *need*.
What are we losing, in terms of human cost
> (subjective value) by NOT having the tunnel.
Yes, in this sense it does. I agree.
> > That is what I am trying to tell you. How will
> >> you KNOW how badly it is needed if you can't express it in terms of cost? And
> >> if you DO express it in terms of cost, you are using prices. Thank you.
> >But cost doesn't do this. Only humans can determine need -- by definition
> >it is subjective. Once humans determine their own need, then and only
> >then does cost come into the equation.
>
> ROF,L! Then how the hell do we know we need the tunnel in the first place?
> NEED is COST,
Again, not always as I have demonstrated.
> and COST is defined by prices. Get it?
Cost may be defined by prices -- in which "price" is defined by Frank as
synonymous with "value", but not defined by my fun new word:
"Frankenchrist".
Frankenchrist: (n) "the sum or amount of money or its equivalent
for which anything is bought, sold, or offered for sale"
Also popularly known as "price".
> >> >If it is needed by a significant portion of the population, then they
> >> >will be willing to "pay" the "cost" of all the work-hours involved and
> >> >the used resources that could have gone to other things.
> >> "Pay" the "cost"? So you WILL be using prices. Thank you.
> >Again, it depends on the definition of "price" -- that's why I put it in
> >quote-marks. If Price = Value, then yes. If Price = Money, then no. Cost
> >does not imply money. Working out in the garden can "cost" me time.
> >Fucking over my friends can "cost" me a relationship. Etc, etc.
> You can do whatever you like to your friends -- it will have little to do with
> cost (depending on how they look, which is ALSO a subjective value).
Exactly my point. Subjective value means something and "price" is one *type*
of subjective value. But there are many *types* besides "price" (or
Frankenchrist if you will).
[snip... Frank's definition of price -- yet again...]
> >> Again, this is a
> >> >democratic process. All that the decision affects will have a say in the
> >> >matter. If only 100 people want the tunnel -- it is up to them to figure
> >> >out how to build it.
> >> And they will determine this by? Prices.
> >They will determine this by their subjective needs and wants.
> Thank you again.
>
> price n. value; worth. The cost , as in life, labor, etc., of obtaining
> some benefit (Webster's New World)
No Frank -- thank you. You just aren't getting this at all.
> >> Citizen's assembly. That is a bureacracy.
> >No it is not. Not even by your won definition. A citizen's assembly is
> >not a government, period. People come together in an assembly to
> >coordinate joint action. There is no authority telling them what to do --
> >that would be government, or bureacracy.
> Thanks yet again.
>
> bureaucracy n. the concentration of authority in administrative bureaus
> (Webster's New World)
No authority -- no bureaucracy. Yes Frank, thanks for pointing that out to
us all. Now you know that a citizen's assembly is NOT a bureaucracy.
> Why the hell do I have to keep going on about this? I have admitted that
> "bureacracy" CAN mean "government", but I have SPECIFICALLY avoided this
> particular connotation because it can ALSO mean what I have printed above. If
> you mean "government", say GOVERNMENT. Bureaucracy, in the sense that I am
> using it DOES NOT mean "government".
Well, by your definition of bureaucracy, we have just established it here
in the Usenet. Is any group of people, who come together to jointly do
something a bureaucracy? If so, we are participating in one, defined by
you, right at this moment. This is an absurd and ridiculous definition of
"bureaucracy".
Once again, you have attempted to employ
> a tautological argument to defend your position, and I have obviated it. We
> can stop this anytime you are ready.
I'm ready when you are. I have said in the past that my arguement is NOT
a tautology. I have pointed out that bureaucracy is not equal to
government. If I said that, then it would be a tautology. But I have not.
I said that bureaucracy is a *type* of government. There are many *types*
of government, bureaucracy is one form it can take. This is NOT a
tautology. Or do I have to explain this as well?
I have been VERY consistent in my use of
> THIS connotation because I SPECIFICALLY sought to avoid using the term
> "government".
Again Frank, you can define words however you like. You tend to define
things in a way that distorts reality so that it backs up your
arguements. You define words so that there is no way to describe
anarcho-socialism. Fine. If you continue, I will continue to make up new
words that you have altered so that I can desscribe MY opinions.
Fine, if "bureaucracy" means any association or group of more than one
person who act jointly, then anarcho-socialism and any other social,
political or economic system is INHERENTLY "bureaucratic" (Frank's
definition). I think this is useless.
But you included the word "authority" in YOUR definition -- that is why I
continue to argue that "bureaucracy" will not exist in anarcho-socialism.
There is no "authority" of any kind. Assemblies exist to coordinate joint
act -- not to impose (through "authority) a set plan that others must
follow. Do you get it yet?
> >You ignorance is showing, once again. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY
> >THIS? A citizen's assembly is the people -- get it?
> bureaucracy n. the concentration of authority in administrative bureaus
> (Webster's New World)
I guess this means you don't get it. But this also means that you don't
have any arguements against it either. You might as well have said "I'm
right, your wrong" and stuck out your tongue.
> >> But how do you know it is more EFFICIENT to use the machines? There is
> still >> work that is done by hand because it is less COSTLY to do it that way
> than >> with machines. How would you KNOW that without prices?
> >This is silly. You ask, how will people know? Well if my community has
> >automated machines, then I will know that I work less hours at the jobs I
> >dislike, but do out of necessity. I will know this and like this and
> >there will be no money (or "price" definition #2).
> But is it more efficient for you to work less? I mean, I KNOW you don't like
> it, but is it more efficient in terms of allocation of scarce resources?
Well if you want the most efficient resource allocation, I would suggest
a dictatorship with slavery. Just breed the shit out the slaves and work
them to death -- maximum efficiency. But I don't want that. I think that
quality of life is the most important factor and so for me, "efficiency"
means maximizing quality of life.
So working less hours is more "efficient" in this context.
I
> don't like carrying garbage, but in your society I would be forced to do so.
STRAWMAN ALERT! STRAWMAN ALERT! CONDITION RED!
This is ridiculous. There is no coersion of any kind.
> According to your logic above, it would be MORE efficient for me simply to
> refuse because I don't like doing the work.
Well in this context, it would be more "efficient" for a given football
player to just sit on the field and do nothing. Hell, s/he's team might
win and the person didn't even have to break a sweat! But that doesn't
happen, does it? Why? Because they are a team, with a joint goal: winning
the game. If a person were to do what I describe, they might be kicked
off the team. Why? Because they were not upholding there part of the
bargin: all will do their best to help out the others in their collective
goal (winning the football game).
If you refuse to play along and help your community, they will probably
get annoyed at you for being lazy. If you go into the community resturant
and order your favorite meal, perhaps the cook will burn it. Prehaps the
waitor will deliver it after it's cold. I think that you get the idea.
People will do the necessary tasks -- not because they like to, but
because it needs to be done and everyone should help to achieve the
collective goal: survival.
I mean, define "necessity" --
> other than in terms of prices.
That's easy: food. Food is a necessity. I don't care how much it costs --
it is necessary for survival.
Why is it "necessary" to dig some ditches by
> hand yet others with machines (this is still practiced).
Because in some instances, digging a 1 foot cubic whole with a bulldozer
is a waste of resources. Resources that could have been used for more
"necessary" or more wanted endeavors. These needs and wants are
communicated in the community assemblies -- not with money or
"Frankenchrist".
Why don't I just put
> a conveyor belt from my kitchen to my alley to carry garbage? According to
> your theory, that will be MORE efficient because "I will know that I work
> less hours at the jobs I dislike".
Well it depends on the availability of resources -- doesn't it? If
tomorrow, someone develops a way to harness electricity from fusion
(unlikely, but possible), and elecricity is almost infinite -- then such
a conveyor belt is not "inefficient". In most cases, though, it would be
inefficient.
> Thank you YET again. You cannot solve the calculation argument . .
Huh. What are you talking about Frank. We solved it at least a day ago.
Where have you been? Value is communicated by the people, directly,
through community assemblies -- no authority, no bureaucracy, and no
money is involved. Done. Finished.
Jason Wehling
<ja...@ee.pdx.edu>
i.m.mckay
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.94122...@flotsam.ee.pdx.edu> JASON Wehling <ja...@ee.pdx.edu> writes:
>
>
> >> But how do you know it is more EFFICIENT to use the machines? There is
> still >> work that is done by hand because it is less COSTLY to do it that way
> than >> with machines. How would you KNOW that without prices?
>
> >This is silly. You ask, how will people know? Well if my community has
> >automated machines, then I will know that I work less hours at the jobs I
> >dislike, but do out of necessity. I will know this and like this and
> >there will be no money (or "price" definition #2).
>
> But is it more efficient for you to work less?
Yeh, I have one life. I perfer not to spend it working all the time.
Time is the one commodity you cannot buy back.
And "efficient" for who, exactly? We shall see later....
> I mean, I KNOW you don't like
> it, but is it more efficient in terms of allocation of scarce resources?
There is nothing more scarce than an individual. They are *unique*.
> I
> don't like carrying garbage, but in your society I would be forced to do so.
Nope, in our society nobody would do it for you if you did not do it for
them. A slight difference.
> According to your logic above, it would be MORE efficient for me simply to
> refuse because I don't like doing the work.
Only if you were totally stupid and/or unselfish.
> I mean, define "necessity" -- other than in terms of prices.
Because the individuals in question *need* it. And do you
mean prices as in "subjective values" or as in money prices?
> Why is it "necessary" to dig some ditches by
> hand yet others with machines (this is still practiced).
If the people digging the ditch felt that they needed the
exercise, then they would use shovels. If not, a machine.
Quite simple.
> Why don't I just put
> a conveyor belt from my kitchen to my alley to carry garbage?
If you so desired, although I expect your neighbours would not
talk to you because of the mess that would make in the backyard.
> According to
> your theory, that will be MORE efficient because "I will know that I work
> less hours at the jobs I dislike".
Sounds fine, its exactly what people might do. Who knows, it could
start a trend....
Many has been the innovation that has started in someone's backyard...
> Thank you YET again. You cannot solve the calculation argument . .
Nope, we have. Oh, "efficient" allocation of resources? based on
what criteria? That of "prices", money prices. Therefore prices
must represent something *other* than subjective values.
The criteria of "prices", not my and your needs. Not subjective
values. In other words, prices must indicate "objective" values.
Therefore "efficiency" is an "objective value, of which we are
not aware". Goods and services must be consumed not on the
basis of need (ie "subjective value") but on the basis of efficiency
(whose efficiency? The markets? Not mine and thine, anyway).
Efficiency is an "objective value of which we are not aware".
Therefore, capitalism makes us consume not as *we* desire, but
in order for us to allow the market to "allocate resources"
to make the great god "efficiency" happy.
"Efficiency" is the "objective value" which is more important
than our own subjective values. Looks like capitalism is based
on goods and services having some sort of objective value of
which we are not aware. And we are all aware of how that turns
out.
Do you want to scarifice your time and creativity to the
great god "efficiency"? The great god "market"? Do you
want to see scarce resources "inefficiently" allocated because
of the "objective value" associated with the market?
Frank has just argued that "subjective values" do not allocate
resources "efficiently". We socialists disagree. We can solve
the allocation problem, capitalists cannot.
You have one life, are you going to scarifice it to the god
"efficiency"?
The individual is the most scarce resource there is. Why scarfice
it to the the "objective value" efficiency or the great god
"the market"?
Thank you Frank, you have just proved that capitalism cannot
solve the calculation argument. Only socialism can :)
i.m.mckay
> But is it more efficient for you to work less? I mean, I KNOW you don't like
> it, but is it more efficient in terms of allocation of scarce resources?
Please note, "you don't like it" (ie working longer) but "efficiency"
comes first. Lets hear it for self-scarifice.
So, the question turns into, "efficiency" as required by "allocation"
of scarce resources. Now, how are resources allocated in a socialist
system? By recording consumption data and feeding it back to the
producers.
What happens in the case of "scarce resources"? Obviously, if a resource
*is* scarce then alternatives would be found to replace it. How would
we know it was scarce? Because scarce resources take a lot of human
time and effort to gather. The less available a resource gets, the
harder it is to produce it. Therefore there comes a time when the
producers say "this is becoming *far* too time consuming lets start
looking for alternatives".
For example, a bridge over a river divides two towns, the hassle of
going round the river is pretty great, therefore the towns agree
to build a bridge. The materials used would depend on the supply,
eg gold would not be used as gold supplies are low as indicated
by the miners syndicate production figures. Therefore, the choice
would be based on the material which was available in the right
quantities and was suitable for the job. Quantity being easily
determined by keeping record of production/consumption figures.
As they do under capitalism.
A new bridge would be built once the present bridge was over used,
as indicated by traffic jams when crossing it. Use determines
production and resource allocation. It does not require prices.
> I don't like carrying garbage, but in your society I would be forced to do so.
Again, nope. Lets assume you agree to join the collective. There are
200 people in the collective. You would carry garbage once every 100
weeks, ie carrying garbage once every two years.
Lets assume you do not, twice a week every week all the way to the tip,
by yourself.
Whats the "most efficient"?
> According to your logic above, it would be MORE efficient for me simply to
> refuse because I don't like doing the work.
Nope. If you won't carry your own garbage why expect others to?
<snip>
> Why don't I just put
> a conveyor belt from my kitchen to my alley to carry garbage? According to
> your theory, that will be MORE efficient because "I will know that I work
> less hours at the jobs I dislike".
Lets think about this, lets assume you do that, you invent a conveyor
belt to move your garbage to the local tip (and lets assume the
neighbours don't rip it down as an eye-sore, a health hazard and
a traffic disruptor, which it would be). A few people doing
strange things is *not* a strain on "scarce resources".
But you would have to build alot of conveyor belt, by yourself.
Alot of work, time and energy. Makes the carrying the garbage
once every two years sound great.....
> Thank you YET again. You cannot solve the calculation argument . .
We can, its just you refuse to understand.
Now, any economic system is based on subjective values, which will
be used to allocate resources. These criteria change and flow
as society changes and flows. The decisions will be based on
*many* factors, one being availability, work required to
produce, danger involved, need for creative work, pollution, etc.
However, capitalism reduces all values to one, namely the great
god money. Its *price* which determines "efficient" allocation
of scarce resources. If price (ie profits) indicate that it is
more "efficient" to mine gold than produce food for the starving
then gold *will* be produced, "scarce resources" will be allocated
to pleasing the rich, not feeding the poor. If "scarce resources"
would be best allocated to creating factories with terrible safety
regimes, with machinery which de-skills labour and reduces people
to a machine-like level for 12 hours aday, then they will be
allocated thus.
Now, socialism bases itself on numerous subjective values,
trusting that people will make the best decisions based on
their *own* values, not the values forced upon them by
the market. For that is what Frank is urging, that people
reject their values, deny their feelings, in order to
embrace *one* set of values, the values of money.
Frank is asking for self-denial, for us to embrace not
our own feelings and values, but another one. One that
is *not* human, money.
Money does not feel, think, love, hate, care, empathise,
get tried, die. Frank is asking us to spend our lives
to ensure that capital accumulates, that money increases.
To turn ourselves into *commodities*, objects, to deny
ourselves *as* individuals.
He is asking us to sell our time on this planet so
that "scarce resources" are "allocated efficiently"
The most "scarce resource" is the individual. Prices do not
indicate the cost to that "resource" of a system whose
values are based on bits of paper, not human ones.
Frank is asking us to spend our lives working longer,
for less, in boring McJobs. We waste our time on this
planet, but hay, we get cheap cellular phones!
bab
An "assembly" isn't a bureau. While I have doubts about "assemblies"
being able to actually coordinate business, they are the result of the
problems of democratic decisionmaking in a large group rather than the
problems of bureaucracy. A lot of these problems can be handled by
decentralization, which both left- and right-libertarians tend to support.
Interestingly enough, I have seen an assembly type process used in a
Fortune 500 company. There's a meeting weekly of people from all around
the company. It's open to anyone and departments are encouraged to make
sure someone is there who can speak for them. It's not an assembly in the
sense that it owns the company -- that's still in the hands of capital.
But issues are presented and the various departments involved hash out
what the problem is and what is to be done about it. It's an interesting
process, with usually over 100 people attending. Cuts out a lot of the
bureaucratic back-and-forth because everyone is right there in front of
the group and the group has little tolerance for such tactics. Top level
executives attend, but since they don't really know anything about the
actual workings of the company they don't have a lot to contribute. They
do lend authority to the decisions of the group, in that managers who
don't attend can't just ignore it. (Of course in a real assembly the
group would own the authority itself.)
There are definite limits to the kinds of issues the meeting will deal
with, but it seems to be a worthwhile model for decentralized and
assembly-style management.
bab
"Libertarian" refers to a political system or philosophy. "Socialist" and
"capitalist" refer to economic systems or philosophies. Either one can be
libertarian or authoritarian.
Wayne Dawson
: > one-man "collective"?
JASON Wehling (ja...@ee.pdx.edu) wrote:
: Okay Wayne -- haven't we had this exact arguement over three or four
: months ago. If I remember correctly, we jointly concluded that we would
: both be happy if you joined the anarcho-capitalist community and I joined
: the anarcho-socialist community. I don't see why this couldn't be viable
: as long as each community didn't mess with the other. Hell, I bet they
: could even trade some items, based on mutual aid, of course! :)
But of course Jason, *all* voluntary trades are based on mutual aid. ;-)
Yes you do remember correctly.
You know, there is a very interesting science fiction book based exactly
on this scenario. No I take it back. The book is called _Pallas_ and
the two societies are a statist-socialist community and an
anarcho-capitalist one. Not anarcho-socialist and anarcho-capitalist.
Still quite an interesting story, and of course the anarchists "win".
Also there's a section of Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ which I liked so
much I typed it into my computer. It describes (in past tense - this is
fiction I'm talking about) what happened to a company that tried to
implement the socialist ideal "from each according to his ability, to
each according to his need". It is quite long (480 lines, 29Kbytes), but I
think it will give socialists some insight into the capitalist viewpoint
here in the anarchy newsgroup.
If anybody wants it, let me know and I'll e-mail it to you.
Gordon Fitch
| "Libertarian" refers to a political system or philosophy. "Socialist" and
| "capitalist" refer to economic systems or philosophies. Either one can be
| libertarian or authoritarian.
Not, however, as the term is widely used on the Net, where
it denotes an admiration of classical liberalism and
capitalism.
--
>< Gordon Fitch >< g...@panix.com ><
Wayne Dawson
: > : By the way, folks, the word "libertarian" was first used
: > : by socialist anarchists around 1880 to describe their
: > : ideas.
In article 1...@everest.pinn.net, jon...@pinn.net (Wayne Dawson) writes:
: > Yes, and your antique meaning is not sufficient any more. Free
: > enterprise anarchism is an improvement over the old ideas. The modern
: > meaning is much more tolerant than you are, Iain.
i.m.mckay (cll...@ccsun.strath.ac.uk) wrote:
: Nope, how often have I heard "libertarian capitalists" saying that
: libertarian socialism is a meaningless term, contradictory, etc?
: Really, Wayne, get your facts right.
The fact that *other* "libertarian capitalists" say that "libertarian
socialism" is a meaningless term does not obligate me to hold the same
opinion. What fact(s) are you claiming I did not get right?
: > : Hence the term "libertarian socialist" is the one with
: > : the longest hostorical existance. For anarchists the
: > : term "libertarian capitalist" is a contradiction in
: > : terms with capitalist being the opposite to everything
: > : that capitalism is about.
: >
: > And since Homo Erectus was around long before Homo Sapiens, we cannot
: > call ourselves man. They were the true men, and we must pick some other
: > term for ourselves. ;-)
: In other words, this "more tolerant" meaning is nothing of the kind,
: ie it says that only libertarian capitalism is the correct term.
:
: Really, if you are going to argue about "tolerence" please show some
: yourself.
Poor Iain. Doesn't even recognize satire.
: > For *this* anarchist, the term "libertarian capitalist" is *not* a
: > contradiction in terms.
: "subjective values" strike again, but the original post I responded to
: said that the term "libertarian socialist" "is* a contradiction in terms.
I have no problem with your arguing against that statement.
: Therefore my reply. As far as "tolerence" goes, lib caps have none.
Do you recognize that "lib caps" are separate individuals? You don't
seem to.
: As proved by Wayne in this reply to me pointing out a few facts
: concerning the use of the word "libertarian".
: > "...capitalist being the opposite to everything
: > that capitalism is about"??? Was that a typo?
: So "libertarian" now means "capitalism" does it Wayne?
: *Very* "tolerant".
I copied your words exactly: "...capitalist being the opposite to
everything that capitalism is about...". So how am I being intolerant?
: Really, Wayne, I have no problem with capitalists calling themselves
: libertarians as long as they recognise that the word does not
: mean "capitalist/capitalism/etc" but "less government".
Wow, Iain! You and I seem to be in agreement on something. The word
"libertarian" does not mean "capitalist" and in fact to some people the
words seem contradictory. I learned this about five years ago, and it was
a big surprise to me at the time.
Now I have broadened my working definition of "libertarian".
Frank R. Ahlgren
alt.society.anarchy,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.philosophy.objectivism
>On Mon, 19 Dec 1994, Frank R. Ahlgren wrote:
>> >> But WHY did they think it was needed? They just built it "because"? That
>> >> truly IS asurd.
>> >Your arguement is a non-sequitar.
>> What "doesn't follow"? You haven't answered the question. I appreciate your
>> knowledge of Latin, but you must either show the leap or answer the question.
>You said, and I quote: "They just built it 'because'... that is truly
>absurd". This is a non-sequitar. I said that they built it BECAUSE they
>needed it. Your arguement DOES NOT follow.
Why did they need it? For looks? It was your statement that was non
sequitur, not mine. Explain why these inventors "needed" the products they
created if it wasn't for economic advancement (which means more money).
>And "why did they think they needed it?"? This is funny. Do I really need
>to answer this? How do you know you need toothpaste? Food? I think this
>is fairly obvious, but if I must, I'll explain to you, Frank, why YOU
>need toothpaste and food. I hope I won't, though.
To improve the quality of my life. These are commodities that I value, which
is why they "cost" more than sea water, which is worth next to nothing to me.
Thank you.
>> >> And how will they know the most efficient means of, say, building a
tunnel >> >> under the English channel, or if it should be done at all?
>> >Well just think about it. How? First of all, is the tunnel needed? By
>> >whom? How badly is it needed?
>> I don't know without prices.
>This is ridiculous. When you walk through a store (by some freak of
>nature you happen to end up in one) and see that sign and it says:
>"$1.95". And right above the sign is a tube of toothpaste -- suddenly at
>that exact moment YOU know that you NEED toothpaste. Not before and not
>after, but at that exact moment the PRICE told you you were out ot
>toothpaste, aye? This is silly. Prices DO NOT communicate need directly
>like this.
It's SILLY? Then if it is so silly, or meaningless, and it communicates
nothing, why doesn't toothpaste cost $10 million? Apparently price DOES
communicate something . . .
>If a tunnel is needed, the cost of it will not tell anyone whether or not
>it is needed -- that is a subjective, human choice. "Cost" comes into
>play only after the need has been established. At this point, "cost" is
>weighed against the level of need.
No, cost DETERMINES need. What are we losing, in terms of human cost
(subjective value) by NOT having the tunnel.
> That is what I am trying to tell you. How will
>> you KNOW how badly it is needed if you can't express it in terms of cost? And
>> if you DO express it in terms of cost, you are using prices. Thank you.
>But cost doesn't do this. Only humans can determine need -- by definition
>it is subjective. Once humans determine their own need, then and only
>then does cost come into the equation.
ROF,L! Then how the hell do we know we need the tunnel in the first place?
NEED is COST, and COST is defined by prices. Get it?
>> >If it is needed by a significant portion of the population, then they
>> >will be willing to "pay" the "cost" of all the work-hours involved and
>> >the used resources that could have gone to other things.
>> "Pay" the "cost"? So you WILL be using prices. Thank you.
>Again, it depends on the definition of "price" -- that's why I put it in
>quote-marks. If Price = Value, then yes. If Price = Money, then no. Cost
>does not imply money. Working out in the garden can "cost" me time.
>Fucking over my friends can "cost" me a relationship. Etc, etc.
You can do whatever you like to your friends -- it will have little to do with
cost (depending on how they look, which is ALSO a subjective value).
price n. value; worth. The cost, as in life, labor, etc., of obtaining
some benefit (Webster's New World)
>> Again, this is a
>> >democratic process. All that the decision affects will have a say in the
>> >matter. If only 100 people want the tunnel -- it is up to them to figure
>> >out how to build it.
>> And they will determine this by? Prices.
>They will determine this by their subjective needs and wants.
Thank you again.
price n. value; worth. The cost , as in life, labor, etc., of obtaining
some benefit (Webster's New World)
>> Citizen's assembly. That is a bureacracy.
>No it is not. Not even by your won definition. A citizen's assembly is
>not a government, period. People come together in an assembly to
>coordinate joint action. There is no authority telling them what to do --
>that would be government, or bureacracy.
Thanks yet again.
bureaucracy n. the concentration of authority in administrative bureaus
(Webster's New World)
Why the hell do I have to keep going on about this? I have admitted that
"bureacracy" CAN mean "government", but I have SPECIFICALLY avoided this
particular connotation because it can ALSO mean what I have printed above. If
you mean "government", say GOVERNMENT. Bureaucracy, in the sense that I am
using it DOES NOT mean "government". Once again, you have attempted to employ
a tautological argument to defend your position, and I have obviated it. We
can stop this anytime you are ready. I have been VERY consistent in my use of
THIS connotation because I SPECIFICALLY sought to avoid using the term
"government".
>You ignorance is showing, once again. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY
>THIS? A citizen's assembly is the people -- get it?
bureaucracy n. the concentration of authority in administrative bureaus
(Webster's New World)
>> But how do you know it is more EFFICIENT to use the machines? There is
still >> work that is done by hand because it is less COSTLY to do it that way
than >> with machines. How would you KNOW that without prices?
>This is silly. You ask, how will people know? Well if my community has
>automated machines, then I will know that I work less hours at the jobs I
>dislike, but do out of necessity. I will know this and like this and
>there will be no money (or "price" definition #2).
But is it more efficient for you to work less? I mean, I KNOW you don't like
it, but is it more efficient in terms of allocation of scarce resources? I
don't like carrying garbage, but in your society I would be forced to do so.
According to your logic above, it would be MORE efficient for me simply to
refuse because I don't like doing the work. I mean, define "necessity" --
other than in terms of prices. Why is it "necessary" to dig some ditches by
hand yet others with machines (this is still practiced). Why don't I just put
a conveyor belt from my kitchen to my alley to carry garbage? According to
your theory, that will be MORE efficient because "I will know that I work
less hours at the jobs I dislike".
Thank you YET again. You cannot solve the calculation argument . .
Frank R. Ahlgren
>No, I have not created a taulology. Bureaucracy is a *type* of government
>-- the words are not interchangable.
ROF,L! What? Which one is it? Are they interchangeable or not? The words
ARE interchangeable according to one connotation, but they are NOT synonymous
according to another. I PAINSTAKINGLY attempted to use the connotation that
was NOT synonymous with government to avoid YOUR use of a tautology.
Apparently, it was to no avail. Let me post the definition to which I have
been referring yet AGAIN.
bureaucracy n. the concentration of authorities in administrative bureaus
(Webster's New World)
Now, can you tell me where it says "government" in there? I acknowledge that
there are other definitions of the word "bureaucracy" that employ the word
government, but this PARTICULAR connotation SPECIFICALLY neglects to include
the word "government". Why do you think that is? Furthermore, I have been
posting THIS PARTICULAR definition since I started using the word in this
thread. Why do you think that is? TO ESTABLISH THAT YOUR SOCIETY WILL EMPLOY
THE USE OF BUREAUCRACY IN THE ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENT.
Ah-hem. This bureaucracy will be uncompetitive, and therefore
inefficient.
>What sophistry? The truth?
Heh, heh. The truth? You better look "truth" up in your "big" dictionary.
Peter Jackson
" ---
" Peter Jackson writes:
" >Tom, you're the first leftist poster I've read that's had the balls to
" >actually expose a vision of socialist society for all the world to
" >critique and I believe you really should be commended for that.
" >
" >So far at least, it still comes up short I'm afraid. The premise on which
" >your entire exposition above is still predicated wholly upon is the notion
" >that for human beings, the deed is merely the will to achieve it. This
" >entire reliance on democracy to facilitate "fair" outcomes implies that
" >worker syndicates will successfully produce goods and services for society
" >and incomes for their workers merely because the workers want to succeed
" >and make their wants real with their votes.
"
" Wrong. Social efficiency in the production of *collective* values absolutely
" *depends* on -- is a function of -- the degree of *democraty* in social
decision-making
" power. The issue is *power*, not "good intentions." As long as the working
" class -- that is, the workforce as a whole -- does not have collective power
" over production, it will be exploited by those who do. And that's a fact.
Doooop!--- let's stop a second.
If you reread my paragraph above, you'll notice that nowhere do I say
anything about "_good_ intentions"--- I'm talking about core assumptions
concerning human beings' ability to *EFFECT* their intentions regardless
of whether they are good, bad or otherwise. Your contention that social
efficiency depends upon the degree of democracy ASSUMES that economic
efficiency is to be had by workers simply WANTING it and that any other
COSTS incurred in producing efficiently are inconsequential. Likewise,
your contention that "power" is the only real issue ASSUMES the same
thing: that the deed is the will to do it and little or nothing more.
MY issue is not with "power," but with your ASSUMPTIONS about "power." My
argument is this:
1. That the belief that human WILL is the most imortant, if not the only
cause of human effects is the central premise implicit in EVERY statement
you have made thus far and is, in fact, the central premise of your ALL of
your arguments, and
2. This premise is an incorrect assumption on your part and thus renders
your argument that syndacalist socialism is a workable human social
construct unsound and unconvincing.
" Continuing (quoting me):
" >" The market
" >" causes better conditions " to be replaced by worse ones, because each firm
" >" must minimize its market " costs to compete, and thus if one firm is
" >" prepared to screw its workers in " some way to lower costs, other firms
" >" must follow suit to survive.
" >
" >
" >This is a classic example of the leftist flawed assumption that the market
" >for labor is somehow uniformly infinite in supply for evil capitalist
" >overlords to dip into whenever they have to, ie, that firms don't compete
" >for labor.
"
" Wrong. No such assumption of "infinity" is made. Given that the "logic"
of capitalism is
" to replace labor with capital, that is, to continually eliminate labor from
" the production process (to lower labor costs), the tendency is to augment
" the pool of unemployed. As long as this pool exists, and workers do not
" own/control the economy, labor is a mere "commodity" to be controlled and
" exploited. Individual workers are
" *forced* to accept the conditions "offered" by employers in order to
have a job
" (mitigated only by legal and community constraints). This is also a fact.
I think you know quite well that I didn't mean "infinite" literally. But
if the "pool of unemployed" is "augmented" to the point that employers can
force employees to accept poor wages/working conditions, than the pool
_might as well_ be infinite and that *IS* your assumption; you even do me
the favor of restating it.
The fact that over 80% of the US population is middle-class, that the vast
majority of jobs available pay above and beyond "legal and community
constraints" (with only one in ten US workers organized), that fewer than
14% of the "poor" are still poor at every census are just a few capitalist
realities that fly directly in the face of your assertions, realities you
can't account for.
It's your MAIN premise, Tom--- that workers can *vote* themselves
prosperity, that employers enrich themselves *at will* by screwing
employees, that the socialist dream was wrecked in the USSR because
Bolsheviks *wanted* to wreck it, in short, that the will is the deed thus
making the deed simply the will--- that fails. It causes you to grossly
overestimate the actual weight of human "power" consistently, in every
context you address it.
Your logic, per se, is consistent; I take no issue with it. But humans
don't have the intellectual or moral capacity to simply "vote" justice,
plenty, evil, poverty or anything else into being. In reality, the world
is much as Frederich Engels noted in _Basic Writings on Politics and
Philosophy_:
"what each individual wills is obstructed by everyone else, and what
emerges is something that no one willed."
" Tom Wetzel
" :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Thanks for Playing,
Peter.
____________________________________________
Di-lem-ma: (Greek) Two premises.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Q: What is Socialism?
A: The longest road from Capitalism to Capitalism.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jayasinghe Karunaratne
>
>>Just a few quick points I would like Frank Ahlgren and his backers to
>>respond to;
>> a)Why is all evil the result of socialism and all good the result of
>>capitalism? This cannot be proven a priori, as you have attempted to do.
>
>Because socialism is a bureaucratic condition that involves the redistribution
>of wealth, and it is inherently inefficient. Capitalism is an economic system
>that involves the exchange of goods and services. It is responsible for
>almost all of the innovations of this planet that account for our current
>standard of living, which is the highest ever. I am not defending capitalism,
>I am attacking socialism. I am not saying that capitalism is the ONLY system
>by which to efficiently allocate resources, nor am I saying that it is
>perfect. I am saying that it has never existed in the absence of bureacratic,
>socialistic intervention, and that it very likely IS the best and most
>efficient means of resource allocation. I am asserting that it IS more
>efficient and more productive than socialism.
>
Your discussion about socialism and capitalism reminds me the Five Blind
men who went to discribe the elephant.
You talk of socialism and refer to the political system that prevailed
among others in the Soviet Union. Then when you talk about capitalism,
I understand you actually refer to the market economic system.
Capitalism and the market economic system are not definitionally
synonyms.
I shall not dwell further on this matter.
j.a. karunaratne
--
J. A. Karunaratne
Department of Economic Geography, University of Vaasa,
P.O. Box 700, FIN-65101 Vaasa, FINLAND, Tel:+358 61 385 0727,
Fax : +358 61 385 2227
JASON Wehling
On Wed, 21 Dec 1994, Frank R. Ahlgren wrote:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.94122...@flotsam.ee.pdx.edu> JASON Wehling <ja...@ee.pdx.edu> writes:
>
> >No, I have not created a taulology. Bureaucracy is a *type* of government
> >-- the words are not interchangable.
> ROF,L! What? Which one is it? Are they interchangeable or not?
As I said -- they are NOT interchangable. Government means (among other
things) a system of control, in which power is concentrated at the top of
the structure and power flows downward. A Monarchy is a government, a
Fascist dictatorship is a government. A Bureaucracy is a *type* of
government. A Monarchy is not necessarily a bureaucracy, but it is a
government. This is NOT a tautology. I am not saying that bureaucracy =
government. A bureaucracy is one way to manage that flow of power from
top to bottom.
But a system in which power flows upward, from bottom to top, is
incompatable with bureaucracy AND government. As you say, bureaucracy
incorporates "authority". I say that there is no "authority" in an
assembly as we have been describing it.
The words
> ARE interchangeable according to one connotation, but they are NOT synonymous
> according to another. I PAINSTAKINGLY attempted to use the connotation that
> was NOT synonymous with government to avoid YOUR use of a tautology.
> Apparently, it was to no avail. Let me post the definition to which I have
> been referring yet AGAIN.
>
> bureaucracy n. the concentration of authorities in administrative bureaus
> (Webster's New World)
> Now, can you tell me where it says "government" in there?
Well what is that referrence to "authorities". Authorities of what? A
piece of cheese? What is it if it is not a government?
I acknowledge that
> there are other definitions of the word "bureaucracy" that employ the word
> government
Almost all, in fact, do. That's because that is what the word is
describing: a way to administer authority (government).
, but this PARTICULAR connotation SPECIFICALLY neglects to include
> the word "government". Why do you think that is?
Because you like to errect strawmen instead of reasoned logical debates
of ideas. You are looking for the easy out -- the strawman.
Furthermore, I have been
> posting THIS PARTICULAR definition since I started using the word in this
> thread. Why do you think that is? TO ESTABLISH THAT YOUR SOCIETY WILL EMPLOY
> THE USE OF BUREAUCRACY IN THE ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENT.
What does this mean? Bureaucracy without government? Where's the
authority that is doing the administering?
> Ah-hem. This bureaucracy will be uncompetitive, and therefore
> inefficient.
Please tell me where the "authority" is first.
> >What sophistry? The truth?
>
> Heh, heh. The truth? You better look "truth" up in your "big" dictionary.
Yeah, well my dictionary is *bigger* than yours! :)
net universal for sarcasm -----------> ^^
Jason Wehling
<ja...@ee.pdx.edu>
i.m.mckay
>
> : By the way, folks, the word "libertarian" was first used
> : by socialist anarchists around 1880 to describe their
> : ideas.
>
> Yes, and your antique meaning is not sufficient any more. Free
> enterprise anarchism is an improvement over the old ideas. The modern
> meaning is much more tolerant than you are, Iain.
>
Nope, how often have I heard "libertarian capitalists" saying that
libertarian socialism is a meaningless term, contradictory, etc?
Really, Wayne, get your facts right.
> : Hence the term "libertarian socialist" is the one with
> : the longest hostorical existance. For anarchists the
> : term "libertarian capitalist" is a contradiction in
> : terms with capitalist being the opposite to everything
> : that capitalism is about.
>
> And since Homo Erectus was around long before Homo Sapiens, we cannot
> call ourselves man. They were the true men, and we must pick some other
> term for ourselves. ;-)
In other words, this "more tolerant" meaning is nothing of the kind,
ie it says that only libertarian capitalism is the correct term.
Really, if you are going to argue about "tolerence" please show some
yourself.
>
> For *this* anarchist, the term "libertarian capitalist" is *not* a
> contradiction in terms.
"subjective values" strike again, but the original post I responded to
said that the term "libertarian socialist" "is* a contradiction in terms.
Therefore my reply. As far as "tolerence" goes, lib caps have none.
As proved by Wayne in this reply to me pointing out a few facts
concerning the use of the word "libertarian".
> "...capitalist being the opposite to everything
> that capitalism is about"??? Was that a typo?
>
So "libertarian" now means "capitalism" does it Wayne?
*Very* "tolerant".
Obviously, "tolerent" has a meaning by Wayne which is not commonly used
by the rest of the planet.
Really, Wayne, I have no problem with capitalists calling themselves
libertarians as long as they recognise that the word does not
mean "capitalist/capitalism/etc" but "less government".
Thank you.
Iain
JASON Wehling
I just wanted to reinforcee my position as opposed to Franks. This is
largely the result of a point Iain made to me -- so he should get at
least
some of the credit for this post.
On Wed, 21 Dec 1994, Frank R. Ahlgren wrote:
> Are you saying that I can "become 'wealthy' ", but if
> I try to hire ("exploit") someone to, say, take my place in the garbage
duty
> for a month, I will be FORCED not to practice this "exploitation"? Whoo,
> this argument gets weaker by the paragraph. How will you prevent me
> from hiring ("exploiting") people? Will you use a police force?
> That sounds like both FORCE AND uncompetitive bureaucracy . . .
and later in another post, Frank says.....
> I don't like carrying garbage, but in your society I would be forced to
> do so... it would be MORE efficient for me simply to refuse because
> I don't like doing the work.
This is very interesting. First question Frank, do you admit that taking
out the garbage is a necessary task to be performed? If so, do you
agree that most people dislike this type of work (I assume you agree
because you picked a job that nobody likes to illustrate your point).
And if this is all true, then why shouldn't everyone pitch in and do
some of it, so that no one is stuck with doing it full-time? I wouldn't
want to haul garbage for 9 hours a day -- I wouldn't imagine that most
people would. So why do you assume that you can bribe (hire)
someone to do *your* portion of the work? Do you think that people
will do it for you out of the goodness of their hearts (read altruism)?
Are you advocating a system based on altruism, Frank? Because
otherwise, no one would do it.
Under anarcho-socialism, there is no government compelling people
to do things they dislike. There is also no economic coersion -- where
a person must get a job, loose their personality as they must become
an obiedient servant to their new master (the boss) -- all because in
order to survive they must acquire money. Without this coresion,
no one wants to take the "shitty" jobs, like garbage hauling. But it
is necessary. So everyone must agree to all help out so it gets done.
There's no coersion -- everyone knows it MUST be done. So it is
done equitably, because everyone is autonomous and demands that
they don't get stuck with all the work (or more than anyone else).
Are you trying to coerce others to do your jobs Frank?
Jason Wehling
<ja...@ee.pdx.edu>
Jayasinghe Karunaratne
>
>>Here's another two cents worth: If socialism didn't fail, can
>>anyone tell me what it succeeded at?
>
>Misallocation of resources, and the resultant starvation, poverty,
>totalitarianism, and inefficiency in general.
>
>
>Frank R. Ahlgren, III
I think it succeeded in a number of things. One of them is the
more or less equitable resource distribution during NEP period and
First Development Plan period. In my view, it failed this during
the years to follow.
There were also other areas where it succeeded. But failures were
many too.
The point is this: If you are a student or a scholar, show it in
your attitude and approach to study. If you have pre-conceived
ideas of one type or the other, you lose the integrity of a
scholar.
Merry X-mas
bab
> b...@io.com (bab):
> | "Libertarian" refers to a political system or philosophy. "Socialist" and
> | "capitalist" refer to economic systems or philosophies. Either one can be
> | libertarian or authoritarian.
> Not, however, as the term is widely used on the Net, where
> it denotes an admiration of classical liberalism and
> capitalism.
Only on parts of the net. Right-libertarians, being generally ignorant of
the left-libertarian tradition, tend to think libertarianism began with
Rand. The term "libertarian" is widely used by left-libertarians as well.
Check out alt.fan.noam-chomsky, for example.
bab
> Also there's a section of Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ which I liked so
> much I typed it into my computer. It describes (in past tense - this is
> fiction I'm talking about) what happened to a company that tried to
> implement the socialist ideal "from each according to his ability, to
> each according to his need". It is quite long (480 lines, 29Kbytes), but I
> think it will give socialists some insight into the capitalist viewpoint
> here in the anarchy newsgroup.
Are you talking about the automobile company where some rich liberals
took over and made it a paternalistic liberal company? This is a far cry
from the real life worker owned and managed companies. It convinced me
that Rand had absolutely no experience with real-world libertarian
socialism, and was just imagining how it might be and setting up strawmen
to boost her preconceived notions.
Instead of Rand's ignorant accounts, why don't you look at some real world
examples, such as the successful worker owned businesses in Mondragon,
Spain? This is a complex of businesses, worker owned and controlled, which
includes a bank and, if memory serves me, the largest stove manufacturer
in Spain. Or look at the worker owned plywood factories on the west coast,
where the only non-owner there is the general manager. There are many
other examples.
Michael Ballard
R. Beach <rbe...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>I just read this thread, and I don't get this anarcho-socialist,
>"syndicalism" idea. If I have followed it correctly, the socialist here
>wants to abolish private property. A noble goal, I suppose, but
>how would new machines and so on be purchased to improve productivity?
The economic basis of socialism IMO is the aboliton of the wages system.
Under the wages system, the producer is paid according to what her/his
skill will fetch in the marketplace of commodities, not what s/he is
creating in goods and services. Wages are therefore less than the product
of labor and profits are made through this transaction. Taxes are the
part of labor's product which go towards maintaining political stability
for the ruling, capitalist class.
In a socialist society, a democratic society, machines could be purchased
with wampum, if that was what was decided by the producer/consumers. The
key difference is that the producers would be in control of their product
and would enjoy the full benefits thereof.
>How would goods be allocated to consumers if there were no money?
If you would participate in the necessary work of society, you would
be compensated for that labor and could take from the social store of
goods and services the same as what you put in to it. Deductions would
only be made for research and development, care for the aged and infirm
and the environment in all liklihood. These decsions would, of course,
have to be made by those who actually live in such a democratic society,
so I can only hint at what I, personally, would put forward as legitimate
deductions from the social product of labor.
Mike B)
--
Don't just criticize; organize.
Join the Wobblies!
e-mail i...@igc.apc.org for info and application blank
Gordon Fitch
| > | "Libertarian" refers to a political system or philosophy. "Socialist" and
| > | "capitalist" refer to economic systems or philosophies. Either one can be
| > | libertarian or authoritarian.
Gordon Fitch (g...@panix.com) wrote:
| > Not, however, as the term is widely used on the Net, where
| > it denotes an admiration of classical liberalism and
| > capitalism.
b...@io.com (bab):
| Only on parts of the net. Right-libertarians, being generally ignorant of
| the left-libertarian tradition, tend to think libertarianism began with
| Rand. The term "libertarian" is widely used by left-libertarians as well.
| Check out alt.fan.noam-chomsky, for example.
With _Rand_??? They're not _that_ dumb! Believe me, some
of them have heard of Locke! Really!
--
>< Gordon Fitch >< g...@panix.com ><