Communism is dying

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 8, 2006

It is an ideology which arouse in the mid 19th century in response to a kind of society which we no longer have in the west.

Though it still hold relevance in other parts of the world which have not advanced as much it is neither a practical solution as we nowadays have better solutions.

As a modern socialist and economist I prefer to express myself in terms of social democracies and CIVIL societies.

I despise the use of terms as "proletarian" as it does not respond to the realities of the problems and situations we are facing. Nor do I give any credit to the class struggle ideas, as I dont see such rigid structures anymore.

My ancestors fought a bitter war, the Spanish Civil war, something which makes me proud to be Spanish as the ideals and issues of the time where forefront. It also makes me proud to see the country we have today, its liberties, tolerance and welfare.

Dont you think that it is time to move?

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 8, 2006

bienvenido carlos

i think the proletariat/working class has changed massively since '36, but class struggle still exists, even if the kind of classical proletarian revolutions like in Spain are a thing of the past (not least because of modern weaponry).

i don't think the spain of today is the spain that millions fought and thousands died for on the barricades in the civil war - we still have a lot to do if we want the liberty your ancestors fought for.

Lazlo_Woodbine

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazlo_Woodbine on October 8, 2006

Social democracy is also dying - the PSOE is now merely a neo-liberal hatchet force, imposing the desires of the coporations. Say goodbye to the welfare states across Europe as well, if social democrats have their way.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 8, 2006

Dear Joseph, thanks for the welcom,I disagree when you say:

i don't think the spain of today is the spain that millions fought and thousands died for on the barricades in the civil war

That is what anarquist or comunists of the time would say today but you have to bear in mind tha anaquists where limited to Catalunya and that comunists where a very small minority party when the conflict arouse, thought it grew considerably thanks to the rusian support and their militarist profesionalism.

The militaris uprising was against the democratically elected socialist government who did not intend to carry out a revolution as such but to introduce new "revolutionary" laws that would have seriously affected the staturs quo of the church, the army officers and the land owners, and by extension, the conservative middle / rural classes of the day.

In that sense the Spain we have today is very similar to the Spain of the day, Democratic, Secular and Progressive. And I am sure that many of those who fought would be very proud of what we have today.

Joseph, what more libyerty do you need? I for one do not feel my rights to be coerced by anyone...

------------

Dear lazlo, you wrote

Social democracy is also dying - the PSOE is now merely a neo-liberal hatchet force, imposing the desires of the coporations. Say goodbye to the welfare states across Europe as well, if social democrats have their way.

You maybe right, but then call me a neo-liberal hatchet if you please as I am not willing to stand up and fight for socialist dogmas. I am first and foremost a CYNICAL, I dont belive in fighting for what is not attainable, in particular following our history in the past 100 years where people have masascred each others for ideas that proved worthless.

Though I know where u are coming from regarding social democracies and the welfare state and I agree with you that they are pulling back on their comitment, I also have my experience as an economist to understand why, though one does not need to be an economist to see the problems in the system.

However, though the generous German welfare states has received some cutbacks, that has not been the case with the spanish one and I am particularly proud of our health system, specially since I have already had 3 small operations myself. Furthermore there is an agreement between all parties to secure the health of our pension system which came under threat due to demografic fall in the birth rate. In a great part thanks to immigration.

I asure you that the spanish Welfare systems is very solid in its current form and that neither PSOE nor PP are planning any major changes besides guaranteeing its continuity.

It maybe interesting for you to know that our welfare systems was introduced by PP during Francos regime. I know from other boards that it is a troublesome topic, but fascists where socialists in much of their ideology, (Nazi - NSDAP - Nationaliste Socialiste Deutsche Arbeits Party)

Let me finnish by saying that I am very sadened by the way left wing movements have disagreed and fought, often to death, in the past. I find American politics extremely confusing, with all that neo-con and neo-lib talk, but I would appreciate if you stood up for one of the most important socialist partys in europe instead of critizise it. Lets not follow in the steps of the comunist(Stalin)-Poum(Trotsky)divide.

Lazlo_Woodbine

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazlo_Woodbine on October 8, 2006

carlosgonzalez

I would appreciate if you stood up for one of the most important socialist partys in europe instead of critizise it. Lets not follow in the steps of the comunist(Stalin)-Poum(Trotsky)divide.

The PSOE has alrready declared war on anarchists in Spain a lon time ago. I think you need to look at your socialists' record of represson against workers, immigrants and nationalists before askin for 'peace'. Like you point out, in many cases sate-socialists are similar to fascists - they only favour welfare as a way to head off greater change.

Ed

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Ed on October 8, 2006

I asure you that the spanish Welfare systems is very solid in its current form and that neither PSOE nor PP are planning any major changes besides guaranteeing its continuity.

tut tut carlos, I thought you said you were a cynic. Are you telling me that in the face of big business pressure and the need to remain competative with other countries in Europe that the PSOE would continue to bolster welfare in Spain. Why? Coz they're nice? That doesn't sound like cynicism mate, that sounds like naivety.

I mean, one of the biggest post-Franco strikes in Spain happened when the PSOE tried to shut down shipyards in Puerto Real. And I think you've only got to look at the British Labour Party to see how far social democracy can degenerate. What makes you think it'll be different in Spain?

It maybe interesting for you to know that our welfare systems was introduced by PP during Francos regime. I know from other boards that it is a troublesome topic, but fascists where socialists in much of their ideology, (Nazi - NSDAP - Nationaliste Socialiste Deutsche Arbeits Party)

Sorry mate but we can all play this game. I mean, history is full of regime's which called themselves democratic but at no point would I ever draw parallels between your ideas and that of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Its intellectually dishonest and just a little bit rubbish.

Though I know where u are coming from regarding social democracies and the welfare state and I agree with you that they are pulling back on their comitment, I also have my experience as an economist to understand why

I'm not sure what you want us to say to that. I mean, their reason is that they want to maximise/increase their profit so giving less to state welfare/marketising it seems a good move on their part. Rubbish for us though. Could they not just keep paying into social welfare? No, that's not how capitalism works.

Which is a shame.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 8, 2006

. I think you need to look at your socialists' record of represson against workers, immigrants and nationalists before askin for 'peace'.

Lazlo, that is the kind of bullshit I associate with religious style communism. Who are you to talk of "repression"? For one in 8 years of PP government not one immigrant got his papers, it took a PSOE government to legalize one million people.

I for one had a russian girlfriend and came close to marrying her just so she could get her papers and have some peace of mind to live and work like a human being. I was under the PP government and with the help of the Union I searched for all possibilities, but found none. Fortunately PSOE won and I avoided getting married to her, all the better because we are no longer together...

---------------------------------------

Dear Ed, when asked, spaniards are not worried about any possible demise of the welfare state. I mentioned that the welfare state was created by PP to highlight that both parties are interested in maintaining it.

their reason is that they want to maximise/increase their profit so giving less to state welfare/marketising it seems a good move on their part

That is over simplistic. The main reason is that it has been statistically obseved that countries with more moderate welfare systems have better economies with more activity and more responsive to change.

The story goes like this: government spends by virtue of taxes, taxes which it mainly gets from workers. If government spend less on welfare it will not need to tax as much. This leads to more expenditure from workers wich leads to more economic activity.

You have to stop working under the premise that there is a class struggle. Why are central banks independent nowadays? Why are all governemnts vouching for cero deficit budgets? It got nothing to do with class struggle but with being more efficient, of working better.

By the way, this is not captalism, this is economics, the same principles that have existed since the moment life was created and was faced with making choices. What you call capitalism died with the industrial revolution, to continue to use the same terminology is not only simplistic but demeaning to your valid leftwing points of view.

----------------------------

p.d. I know this is too long, but you mentiong the shipyard strikes in Puerto Real. As a worker and tax payer I do not want to maintain industries that are loosing money, I rather have that money spent in schools or health provision. It is not our fault that Corea subsidiezed its shipbuilding industry, just as it was not Margaret Thatchers fault that the UK found oil in the NOrth Sea and there was no longer a need for coal.

Another similar issue nowadays is subsidies given to farmers and barrier placed on food imports from developing countries, those same countries to whom we are giving aid to... We cannot have it both ways and i'd rather eat carrots from Etiopia instead of Badajoz, that way I save the subsidies to the farmers in badajoz to make a decent living growing carrots and the aid sent to etiopia because they have noone to sell their carrots to...

Mike Harman

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Mike Harman on October 8, 2006

carlosgonzalez

Besides a government spends by virtue of taxes, taxes which it mainly gets from workers. If government spend less on welfare it will not need to tax as much. This leads to more expenditure from workers wich leads to more economic activity, and more responsive.

That's a non-sequitor. Welfare and social provision cuts in the UK have been associated with spiralling taxes and cost of living increases. The only additional "economic activity" it generates is the massive asset stripping that goes with it, as things are sold off at a fraction of their value, prices are hiked, workers' conditions are cut, and "investment" is redirected into shareholder dividends, whilst the government continues to subsidise at massive cost via PFI interest payments and 30-year service agreements etc.

Ed

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Ed on October 8, 2006

You have to stop working under the premise that there is a class struggle. Why are central banks independent nowadays? Why are all governemnts vouching for cero deficit budgets? It got nothing to do with class struggle but with being more efficient, of working better.

Don't stop now mate, keep going! Working better for who? And to who's detriment?

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 8, 2006

Dear Catch, you have a point, but the idea is not limited to one country but rather it is an statistical obsevation from many, atleast 50. Hence discussing the situation of the UK alone does not support or contradict the overall conclusion.

I dont want to go into full fledge economics because what I have seen is rather simplistic and would rather take it a step at a time. In any case what you describe sounds closer to Argentina than the UK. I also find it too short.

Lets see,

Welfare and social provision cuts in the UK have been associated with spiralling taxes and cost of living increases

In my time the main welfare cuts I saw was in the NHS. What spiralling taxes? Has VAT changed in the past few years? Life was dam expensive when I was studying in London...

The only additional "economic activity" it generates is the massive asset stripping

Masssive? I can believe that of Argentinas National Monopolies, but not of the UK's welfare system... What is there, or was there so massive to be stripped down?

"investment" is redirected into shareholder dividends

Were we not talking about the welfare state? what do shareholders got to do with it?

In any case, in an economy Investment = Savings. Those shareholders you speak of, which in modern economies is much of the population, will use the extra dividends to spend or save. This decision grants a good analysis, but we would need to go into more complex issues, probably where the heart of the matter lies.

whilst the government continues to subsidise at massive cost via PFI interest payments and 30-year service agreements etc.

Here is where I got lost, what are these PFI and 30-year service agreements?...

------------------------------------------

One simple conclusion generally accepted in the past 20 years is that individuals are better at spending money than government.

You may find this obvious but for a long time it wasnt and governments where seen as responsible for its citizens as parents to children.

This in part led in the 60's and 70's to increasing expenditures by running considerable deficits. The idea was that it would boost economies whose full potential had not been realised. The problem was that most economies where realizing their full potential and after the money was spent countries were left with the same economy but highly in debt. Italy's government in 1990 owed 134% of its GDP, i.e. about 20.000 pounds per citizen...

Things have changed a lot lately, for one we have not suffered a serious crisis in 15 years. Remember those boom and bust economies? Remember the "economic cycles"? They have dissappeared thanks to economists, who have identified the problems and provided working solutions. For example through Independent central banks who decide on interest rates and monetary policy.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 8, 2006

Working better for who? And to who's detriment?

Dear ed, my grandmother has arthritis in her hands because she could not afford a washing machine.

In the past most people rented accomodation because they could not pay for it.

Ed, you have a computer, so I suppose you have a house and possibly a car among other goods... Where did all that come from, to who's detriment is it that you have all this wealth???

p.d. Captialism doesnt exist, it died with the industrial revolution and dickensian working conditions. You must be referring to something else, I hope we could agree on the vocabulary, after all we are trying to communicate.

sam sanchez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by sam sanchez on October 8, 2006

I don't see what has changed.

We are still exploited.

We are still forced to cell command over out bodies and minds - our freedom - to those who control the means of production

Our interests are still opposed to those of the bosses who have power over us and make money from our work.

The ruling classes are still hugely class conscious, and there are huge schemes afoot to get rid of the rights workers have gained, casualisation etc. P.S. this is not more efficient - indeed, research unusually strong for any area of the social sciences, that more profit share, worker participation and job security are more efficient, not less. The reason they are being rolled back are because they reduce the power management and shareholders have over workers.

So in summary, the problems are the same at a basic level as they were in 1936, and they will be until we have things such as workers' self-management and community direct democracy.

sam sanchez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by sam sanchez on October 8, 2006

carlosgonzalez

D Those shareholders you speak of, which in modern economies is much of the population

Wrong. Around 90% of shares are owned by 5% of the population. Even if shares were equally distributed, it would not make the capitalist workplaces any less undemocratic, hierarchical and alienating. Stability or mere monetary equality is not the only issue in an economy, you know.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 8, 2006

I am not being exploited, as a matter of fact I have not worked in the last 3 years, I dont need to, it is not that expensive to live nowaday, I am very happy with 300pounds a month and I have plenty more saved up.

The issue is that I dont have a girfriend, wife / family to maintain and I am not falling to my peer pressure to work, from my family and some friends.

Ofcourse the interest of bosses are different to those of workers, just as a plumbers job is different to a salesman, and just a two competitors have different interests.

Look, the richest guy I have worked for barely knew how to read and write, but he was a great deales and a very hard working man that build up his business, so please dont give the that rulling class crap because Ive seen plenty of those stupid kids fucking around in uni and their contacts didnt take them very far.

I think that there is a fundamental difference between some of you guys and I, in that you think there is something mistical about the working class. Whereas 100 years ago class structures were rigid, nowadays someone who has the right values of hard work, constancy and dedication can easily succeed either studying, through job promotion or becoming an entrepeneur themselves. I for one had a relatively unhappy teenhood because I had to study hard to get to university.

So in summary, the problems are the same at a basic level as they were in 1936, and they will be until we have things such as workers' self-management and community direct democracy.

Yeah, and now tell me that you dont like taking your girlfriend to the cinema to watch a hollywood block buster, that you dont enjoy driving a german car and that you never go McDonalds... And next please explain how all this fits in self-management and community direct democracy.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS, IF YOU CAN DO IT BETTER, WHAT IS STOPPING YOU???

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 8, 2006

Bullshit sam, the biggest shareholders nowadays are pension funds, where did you get that crap about 5% holdign 90%?

Stability or mere monetary equality is not the only issue in an economy, you know.

There is a ranking of living standards which compares countries, It has 30 different categories to rate... so dont come with childish argument to me man, just because I did not mention all the other 28 doesnt mean that I do not value them.

sam sanchez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by sam sanchez on October 8, 2006

I got it from the lastest government surveys, showing that the gap between rich and poor is increasing. Its a commonly acknowledged fact.

What's stopping us? Mostly the fact that our ideas aren't out there. Most people I have talked to still think anarchy = chaos and communism = the USSR.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 8, 2006

Id like to check out those figures, can you give me a link?

I'll also try to find aternative ones myself.

By the way, there are some people like Bill Gates who have enormous fortunes, but most of these are in shares of companies because they want to control them and not necessarily and primarily as a store of wealth. So I would be weary of including that in my figures just as I would not include the shares which are held by other companies.

By the way, you may be pleased to know that it only takes 3 generations for a multibillion fortune to be wasted. Vanderbilt which was a early american trains mogul, had 50 descendants by the third generation, and most of them were profesional who lived on their salaries, one of them writting this grandfather biografy...

This is important because 100 years ago wealth tended to stay in the family and class structures where rather solid, but that is not so nowadays.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 8, 2006

but a fluid class system is still a class system. ruling and being ruled is degrading, and the only 'choice' we have is how far to scramble up the ladder with the resources we have. thats bullshit.

and as others have said, where there is social democracy without a decent level of class struggle for it to contain, it is being dismantled as superfluous to the requirements of accumulation. capitalism isn't all top hats and smokestacks anymore (in the first world at least), but it still very much exists.

jason

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jason on October 9, 2006

Firstly, big ups to everyone for the quality of the debate on this thread and not degenerating coz of the diametricaly opposed views.

Carlos, I think most people in the country where I live would agree with you that we live in an unparralled era of wealth and freedom, and consequently working-class consciousness is currently extremely low. However, to think that we are seeing the end of history and a new era of stability is pretty naive. The fact is that no capitalist economy can maintain social spending without becoming inflationary, then there's liberalisation, then people get upset and demand social spending, etc, etc ... hence the cycles of capitalism. In my country we're currently seeing huge roll backs in worker's rights and social welfare, probably even class mobility. All this is coupled with rising wages in Asia, so global financiers have less to throw around. Thus, I can't see how wages and social conditions here won't be forced backwards on the whole, or in the first world more generally. On top of all this the thirst for profits demands wars to protect oil reserves, destroys the planet, etc.

Don't forget the critiques of capitalism were also based on an admiration of its organisational and productive capacities to increase human standards of living, but only until a point when things can't get better. The early philosphers also never predicted things like nuclear war and ecological catastrophe. How long do you think the current economic arrangement can persist? Do you think things are getting better or worse in your country for working people? Do you make a conection between profit-seeking and wars in the mid-East? Why do you think the US and its allies are militarising the globe - to protect us against terrorism, or to protect markets? I think you should pratice a bit of that cynicism you claim to have.

daniel

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by daniel on October 9, 2006

I dunno, I gotta say you're fucking hilarious Carlos Gonzalez. A real comic. You don't seem totally stupid and yet everything you are saying is shite. Funny old thing that.
Anyone who denies the reality of class struggle is an idiot or a liar.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 9, 2006

I also value the level of the debate, it is what I was expecting and I have learnt a lot about your points of view.

My first criticism is that you seem to think that it is only "capitalists", or rahter what I would probably refer to corporations, that indulge in accumulation of wealth. But I look at my granmother for one and I see a teacher who has spent her entire life saving and hardly indulging in any pleasure, for one, my grandfather never owned a car. Now she is a relatively rich old woman and continues to save i.e. spend less than her pension. Another example of accumulation by everyone is the desire to own more than one car or apartment. Statistics say that 30% of properties in spain are un-inhabited, people own them as a store of wealth.

So please stop deluding yourself with the idea that accumulation is unique to capitalism. Accumulation of wealth is as rational and human as the simple desire to enjoy life.

The fact is that no capitalist economy can maintain social spending without becoming inflationary,

You have a point, but you are mixing two separate concepts. In particular you relate to the practices of the 60s-80s where economic theory of the time, mainly keynesian, argued that if the economy was not at its full potential, then governments would do well by borrowing and running budget deficits to incentivate it. However this was flawed and as a side effect led to serious miss management of monetary policy (interest rates). Politicians where tempted to seek short term gains by lowering interest rates incentivating investment and reducing the cost of government borrowing, but this led to increased money supply and inflation in the long ran. One can either control the money supply or the interest rate, and missmanagement led to the high inflations of the 70s and 80s.

The solution to this problem has been to set up independent central banks, which is a very recent development i.e. very late 80's. Taking the interest rate decision out of the government is equivalent to taking away monetary policy from them and into the hands of independent Central Banks, people like Greenspan or like my monetary economics teacher. Since then inflationary preassures have been tamed wherever independent central banks exist. This is a success story of economist and economic theory, i.e. what many call tecnocrats.

The initial problem with your statement is that the level of social spending you want to maintain is in excess of the taxes received. The solution requires that as any reasonable household or individual, governements do not attempt to spend more than they earn, and that they do not attempt to cover this expenditure gap with borrowing.

So now we arrive to modern economies such as the spanish one, where a level of social spending is maintained without inflationary pressures, and year by year spending is incresed in education, health and other areas in accordance to the higher tax revenue. In particular education expenditure was increased 5% last year.

hence the cycles of capitalism

This is something you have to reasses, the US and Europe have seen constant economic growth since 1990, that is more than 15 years, something totally unprecedented. Ofcourse economic growth sometimes slowsdown, but nothing like the recessions of the past.

-----------------------

Now, another term which I would prefer to discuss other than capitalism is Globalisation, the globalisation of corporations that is. whereas I see positive effects, world wide growth rates are at their hieghst point in human history (5%) and conflicts at a minimum, I see resonable criticism in the exploitation of corruption in less developed countries i.e. Argentina.

Another aspect of this globalisation is that as you comment, it bring millions of consumers and workers into the global economy, people who demand houses, cars and ultimately scarce resources like oil. Hence it is expected that as our limited resource are shared among more people the price of these will rise and we in the west being the current high earners ones, will see part of our wealth decline at the same time as asians wealth incrases.

-------------------------------

War for Oil.

This is a very interesting topic, particularly because I am convinced that the war in Iraq has been engineered and used by the Bush administration as an excuse to justify 300billion US dollars worth of government expenditure which as we all know has been channeled towards companies owned directly or by friend of people in the administration.

Hence I see this more in terms of horrible corruption and abuse of the confidence and innocence of the American public than a war for Oil resources, particularly because as we have seen it had the opposite effect, leading to a doubling of oil prices.

Ofcourse Bush and friends argued that they would use Iraqui oil revenues to pay for the 300billion spent, but that has just not happened and the whole operation in iraq, besides killing thousands of people and throwing a country into a defacto civil war and the hands of Iranian simpathisers.

The real politics of the fight for energy resources is played by energy companies from each country with big fat bank accounts to compete and buy energy resources. For example, 9 of the 10 most important foreign companies in Sudan are Chinese, and they are buying all of Sudan's oil production, something that the US is not pleased about and is fighting by highlighting and bringing into the media the dafur conflict.

Infact, it is stupid for the US to keep such as expensive imperialistic army as it is only good against second rate countries, and too expensive to implement anyway. It is obvious that the US is not going to fight China, or Rusia, or Europe, or Latin America and that makes up 75% of the world population and 95% of its wealth.

----------------------------------------

I have read early philosophers, the earliest being Plato and Aristototeles and in particular I found Plato hilarioius to read because in hindsight most of his ideas are extremely stupid. Rather than a philosopher he was a very early scientist, albeight one who thought that thinking could provide the answers, whereas modern science rellies on the scientific method of hypothesis testing and empirical observation.

Similarly I feel that "early" left wing philosophers such as Proudon, Marx, or Engels are an early breed or economist, who studied the system and saw the problems it had and proposed solutions. Hence I am inclined to feel that it is economists who are their true inheritance and the language of economics the one needed for dialectic discourse, rather than comunist or anarchist thinkers who are still anchored in obsolete points of view and terminology.

At this point I will say that I have a B.Sc in Economics from the LSE and that I am very proud of the impact my university, founded by Sidney and Patrice Webb, has had on the UK and world socialism through the development and expansion of WELFARE ECONOMICS. Without understanding modern economic development you guys are crippled to provide practical and relevant solutions to the problems posed by modern realities.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 9, 2006

Dear daniel, Early revolutionaries saw the working class as the rightfull leaders of the economy by virtue that they carried the burden of the physical labor involved.

Now we saw with Stalin, that workers remained being workers and that the Bourgueous where replaiced by and ideological elite. I despise those who take ideology as a sacred religion and consider themselves their holy priests, with a licences to make normative decisions about other peoples lives.

Class struggle exists but I wouldn't call it that, I would rather say that we are all different types of economic agents, faced with a world in which resoruces are limited and hence allocated by a market system with the use of prices. This system has problems which justify the existance of a central authority to regulate and reduce these inefficiencies.

Workers are face with competition from other workers and with the inefficiency associated when there is a limited number of employers who then have monopolistic control on the job market. Employers themselves are face with competition among themselves for labour, resources and clients, and they too have to face inneficiencies i.e. comeptitors using monopolistic practices.

Focusing on the "class struggle" is a very limited way to analize the economy. In particular there used to be a say in Spain that "no employee is fundamental to the running of the company", to which I have added that "no one company is fundamental to the life of the employee". With a dinamic job market where a new job is not difficult to get, the worker can change very easily. Whereas in the past workers dreamt of a life long job, nowadays this rarely happens and most of the people I know change job every few years in other to get better working conditions, be it a better salary, more recognition or maybe just being closer to home.

Furthermore, there has been a drastic change, particularly in spain, whereby the working class are earning more than the traditionally educated middle class. Spain is an exceptional country because nearly 50% of the people get university degrees and this leads to a average salary for degree holders between 800€ and 1200€ i.e. in administration, banks, etc. However a good carpenter soon earns 1500€ a month, and some construction workers make in excess of 2000€. The reason is simple, parents dont want their children do do manual labour and as a result the price and salaries of manual labour have risen considerably.

So please stop thinking exclusively of the working class and start to show a little more pity on the middle class - professionals.

By the way, is there any working class in this forum? Does anybody work in a factory? Construction? Driving a bus?

EdmontonWobbly

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by EdmontonWobbly on October 9, 2006

So please stop deluding yourself with the idea that accumulation is unique to capitalism. Accumulation of wealth is as rational and human as the simple desire to enjoy life.

Who claimed that?

By the way I'm a postal worker thank you very much. Most of my comrades work in places like the railroads, oil drilling in western canada, and the public education system and I think they are just as capable of running their own workplaces as anyone else.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 9, 2006

Joseph K did, but it has also been mentioned in other threatds.

Oil drilling, public education, postal service, railroads... How working class are these? for I come from a family of teachers and we are not working class, it even states in their contract that their category is as middle class profesionals. Oil drilling is a risky job but it pays terribly well. And the postal and railroads service used to be public in spain and had extremely good working conditions, for one most jobs were for life...

I would have thought that the difference between working and middle / profesional classes lies in the level of education required. I see the working class more along the lines of Ken Loach's "Bread and Roses", those jobs immigrants are doing and where they are extremely vulnerable.

they are just as capable of running their own workplaces as anyone else

That is a very interesting idea and if it where true it would mean that the company could save a lot of money by reducing managerial positions. Im sure that you have a point and also that many business structures have responded to this, in part by lowering the salary difference between different categories of employess.

I worked for one of the main spanish banks and the salary difference between a newbie and the branch director was only 60%, taking into account that there were 3 intermediary categories, i.e. a 15% increase in salary everytime one improved in category.

The way we run the office was very indepedent, everyone knew their job and we hardly interfered with each other. We were all "compañeros" and treated ourselves on a first name basis even though we showed respect towards our peers... It was a nice working atmosphere and the only problem came from a couple of big mouthed back stabbing coleagues, fortunately nothing serious as there wasnt a real "boss" figure. This bank by the way, has repeatedly proven to be the most profitablle of spanish banks.

My conclusion is that if your friends are not running their workplaces it must be because it has been tried and it didnt work as well as the current system.

Please note that in the spanish civil war, CNT-FAI proved successfull thanks to their organisational bureocracy.

jason

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jason on October 9, 2006

So please stop deluding yourself with the idea that accumulation is unique to capitalism. Accumulation of wealth is as rational and human as the simple desire to enjoy life.

Of course it is natural to try and save for a rainy day if you live under an insecure economic arrangement. I would much prefer to pay off a mortgage than piss money away as rent. I don't see how this translates into some claim about humanity's propensity to accumulate stuff. If school's and hospitals were free and family's had the means and time to look after their aged, would people still accumulate wealth? I suggest you look into the anthropological literature on material accumulation in different times and places. Maurice Bloch is from LSE, he might be of help to you.

The initial problem with your statement is that the level of social spending you want to maintain is in excess of the taxes received.

Exactly my point. People's needs are at odds with what the current economic arrangement can provide.

The solution to this problem has been to set up independent central banks, which is a very recent development i.e. very late 80's. Taking the interest rate decision out of the government is equivalent to taking away monetary policy from them and into the hands of independent Central Banks, people like Greenspan or like my monetary economics teacher. Since then inflationary preassures have been tamed wherever independent central banks exist. This is a success story of economist and economic theory, i.e. what many call tecnocrats.

Except that the independent banks aren't very independent at all in practice being appointed by the government. The inflationary success story you are referring to is nothing less then the roll back of public spending characteristic of the neo-liberal era ('80s-'90s) and the concommitant roll back of working-class quality of life.

So now we arrive to modern economies such as the spanish one, where a level of social spending is maintained without inflationary pressures, and year by year spending is incresed in education, health and other areas in accordance to the higher tax revenue. In particular education expenditure was increased 5% last year.

I think you'll find that every other advanced economy is feeling the burden of what residual social expenditure exists and is rolling it back. Don't worry you'll see in Spain in a few years, which only now is playing a little catch-up. You still have to address my point from my initial post though that the only way for the advanced economies is backwards, and what does this say about capitalism?

the US and Europe have seen constant economic growth since 1990, that is more than 15 years, something totally unprecedented. Ofcourse economic growth sometimes slowsdown, but nothing like the recessions of the past.

er...the steadiest growth was between the '60s and '70s with heightened fluctuations in the late '80s/early '90s. And now of course economists are predicting a recession in the US given the current budget deficit and rising oil prices, which of course will translate into a world recession...

jason

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jason on October 9, 2006

Now, another term which I would prefer to discuss other than capitalism is Globalisation, the globalisation of corporations that is. whereas I see positive effects, world wide growth rates are at their hieghst point in human history (5%) and conflicts at a minimum

Of course the well documented problem with growth rates are that they take the average and ignore growing inequality. Like Mexico where billionaires are growing but the country is festering with poverty and unrest. And conflicts are unambiguously NOT at a minimum.

War for Oil.

You just provided a pretty decent critique of capitalism yourself. How could this situation be any different under capitalism?

I have a B.Sc in Economics from the LSE

You poor thing. You must be horribly indoctrinated. My commiserations. :wink:

Khawaga

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Khawaga on October 9, 2006

My first criticism is that you seem to think that it is only "capitalists", or rahter what I would probably refer to corporations, that indulge in accumulation of wealth. But I look at my granmother for one and I see a teacher who has spent her entire life saving and hardly indulging in any pleasure, for one, my grandfather never owned a car. Now she is a relatively rich old woman and continues to save i.e. spend less than her pension.

Anyway, when people here on the board talk about accumulation they usually refer to capital accumulation of surplus value which results from the explotation of labour. This is the so-called labour theory of value. Capitalists need to (or they're rather forced to) accumulate profit in order to saty afloat, re-invest etc etc. Capitalists can accumulate because of their power of employing wage-labour.

Your grandmother on the ohter hand is not accumulating wealth in the Marxist sense (though semantically it is of course correct), she is simply saving.

I think the problem here is that you operate with mainstream economic categories, whereas quite a few others use Marxist concepts. We might use the same words but we are talking about very different things.

Another problem with your arguments (though they are well argued) carlos is that they are very ahistorical (for a Marxist anyway) and because of this you take a lot of things that are specific to capitalism (which is a unique historical phenomneon) and take them for being eternally valid and natural (at best it is "end of history" all over again). That is a problem of reification.

Did they teach you Marxian economics at LSE? Probably not is my guess. Or were you taught TINA?

Vaneigemapprec…

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Vaneigemapprec… on October 9, 2006

So please stop deluding yourself with the idea that accumulation is unique to capitalism. Accumulation of wealth is as rational and human as the simple desire to enjoy life.

the comparisons you are making are just silly. people in general attempt to gather wealth, through wages, as a means of survival, we need to sell our labour in order to receive a wage and thus survive. The reason we need to sell our labour in order to survive is because the means of subsistence and production are privately owned by a capitalist class. This capitalist class gather their wealth from our labour and by selling us backs the things we need to survive at a price that is much greater than the price other workers have been paid to produce it. The way they accumulate capital is buy imposing work and the imperative of work on society and by ensuring this state of events is perpetuated through the private ownership of the means of production, ensuring we are forced to accumulate what we can by working for them.

and yes capitalism has advanced since the industrial revolution, capitalism is not a scene from a Warbutton's advert its a set of social relations, if you are suggesting that capitalism was simply coal mines, wool looms and factories then are you suggesting that capitalism still exists independently in areas but not as a system?

I think youre probably on the wrong boards mate, try going here http://www.libdems.org.uk/

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 9, 2006

At this point let me thank you for your posts, it is helping me understand thing from your point of view, and though I may not be 100% there and may even disagree with some of your positions, I do respect them.

I once tried reading Marx and Proudon, but they were too thick for my taste, they were talking in terms that did not relate to me just as I find "El Quixote" or "Great Expectations" to be rather thick...

War for oil

You just provided a pretty decent critique of capitalism yourself. How could this situation be any different under capitalism?

By all means no!!! That the Bush administration is corrupt has very little to do with capitalism, it is just plain'ol CORRUPTION.

It has much more to do with the way the American public has been militarised all these years, under constant propaganda of the nuclear threath (when it seems that the Rusians were far more scared of the USA). They exhibit certain christian and patriotic fundamentalis traits that makes a humanist like me want to puke.

I do hope that the US is the last Military/Imperialistic regime. I find that conflict fought economically leave much less blood on the carpet...

Capitalists need to (or they're rather forced to) accumulate profit in order to saty afloat, re-invest etc etc

The 80 and 90 saw a lot of action in Wall Street because powerfull individual players were using junk bonds to purchase entire corporations. They would then used all their "accumulated" wealth to pay of the junk bond and make millions of dollars for themselves.

Soon big corporations learnt that under threat of a buyout the best thing they could do is get rid of all that excess wealth that was not fundamental to their business, i.e. by giving extraordinary dividends... That way there was no incentive for the sharks to carry out a hostile buyout.

The size of companies varies and it is a very interesting part of industrial economics, some are huge natural monopolies such as most utilities and others are family business. I like to think of it in terms of organisational efficiency, if you run a steel mill you need to compete with economies of scale, if you run a restaurant it is a question of quality and personal touch.

Thanks to that "capitalist" urge to accumulate nowadays we have cargo ships capable of carrying 16.000 TU, that is 20" steel containers, whereas at the time of Marx and Engels most transport was in crates and sacks which had to be ofloaded manually. But it is not a question of accumulation, it is a question of making the best of economies of scale to keep profit margins as wide as possible, and this is possible because a boat carrying twice the load requires less than twice the energy.

Another problem with your arguments (though they are well argued) carlos is that they are very ahistorical (for a Marxist anyway) and because of this you take a lot of things that are specific to capitalism (which is a unique historical phenomneon) and take them for being eternally valid and natural (at best it is "end of history" all over again). That is a problem of reification.

Im not quite sure atlemmk, but I think you are agreeing with me. Indeed I find that capitalism is something of the past, Im not implying that what we have is better or worse, but definitely it is different and a new vocabulary is needed.

---------------------------

As I final note I have been reflection on Anarchism and FAI-CNT. I find that it is a wonderfull sincicalist movement, a trade union ideology, a pressure group to defend the rights and strengthen the position of workers.

What I dont see it is as an ideology capable of running a country. You will probably say that you dont want to either, which is fair enough and I understand it. I just find it a little sad to be constantly surrounded by a persecution sindrome in that there is an oppresion of the working classes, a class struggle and that they will never let an ideal state be realised.

I prefer to be more realistic and stick with the success of trade unions, the development of cooperatives, specially in agriculture, and basically working withing the frame work of a regulated market economy and a modern legal structure.

Vaneigemapprec…

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Vaneigemapprec… on October 9, 2006

I prefer to be more realistic and stick with the success of trade unions, the development of cooperatives, specially in agriculture, and basically working withing the frame work of a regulated market economy and a modern legal structure.

that would be the "failure" not the "success" of the trade unions!

Black Flag

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Black Flag on October 9, 2006

Economists are capitalst arseholes!Fuck! politicians listen to economists all the time, thats whats wrong with the world!fuck your liberal ,conformist, fascist econonomics!

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 9, 2006

Fuck you! Your are the violent fascist dickhead.

Now that we are even is there anything you want to say, or are you just pissed because you have an inability to think and express yourself.

Fortunatelly I have the police to protect me if any of these days you decide to actually do something! ha ha ha :-)

Here boy!! Stay... Stay... Attack!!!! Go, Go, Go!!! bitte'em!! Go for'em bollocks!!!.... Good police, good police!!!

Black Flag

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Black Flag on October 9, 2006

And I'll tell you what else pisses me off,fucking hippies yapping on about peace and yet participating in authoritarianism and sectarianism.They are too fucking stoned to realise that they are talking shit.And don't get me started on social democrats coz they are scum.It was them that fucked up every thing with the left and also got the nazis in power in germany.

Black Flag

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Black Flag on October 9, 2006

fucking sanctamonious arseholes!

petey

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by petey on October 9, 2006

atlemk

I think the problem here is that you operate with mainstream economic categories, whereas quite a few others use Marxist concepts. We might use the same words but we are talking about very different things.

indeed. are all these terms (like 'accumulation') in the libcom glosary?

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 9, 2006

What do you think is keeping the economy afloat? cheap chinese commodities, and why do you think they are soo cheap?

Well I for one have visited china and talked to workers there. They are quite oppresed, management is quite ruthless, but they confess that they earn far more in the export industry than in the farms at home.

I was reading about china and the situation of its people well before I even went to university. In the 50s they dreamt of a bike and a watch. In the 70s it was a motorbike and a radio. Now they have their sites on a car and an apartment.

But what do you care about it anyway when you can string together a monologue about your infinite knowledge of the spanish civil war and how the comunist party swallowed your revolution.

Ah, yeah! and about how we live in a police state that is defending the capitalist structures from the attacks of workers.

Got anything else to say or are you going back to building bombs and blowing up McDonald outlets?

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 9, 2006

carlosgonzales

Got anything else to say or are you going back to building bombs and blowing up McDonald outlets?

well if your arguments let you down there's always misplaced stereotypes :roll:

the increasing standards of living of china's population are not unconnected to their potential/propensity to revolt, the party officials have known that to stave off revolt constantly improving material conditions must be delivered. but the very choice of rural poverty versus sweatshop tyranny is exactly the problem with capitalism. the question is, who is going to make the cheap commodities to satisfy the chinese working class? - africans? and what about their demands for a higher standard of living? capitalism can't go on indefinitely buying off one bunch of workers demands for decent standards of living with the hyperexploitation of another bunch - so far all we have seen is the expansion of the model of victorian england to the world stage. what happens after that is uncharted territory ...

odd

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by odd on October 9, 2006

carlos you are showing your true colors,methinks you are losing the argument

Jason Cortez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Jason Cortez on October 9, 2006

Daniel and Tim, no flaming please. If you find Carlos annoying just ignore this thread it isn't worth getting pissed off about. Unfortunately there's alot of people with this sort of viewpoint, and for some it's construtive and stimulating to argue with someone like and for others it's just boring. Shouting insults is boring for others most of the time (expect occassionally in LibCommunity).

Jason Cortez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Jason Cortez on October 9, 2006

Look two weeks away and i come back as Mr reasonable :);)

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 9, 2006

Yep, you guys are not the only ones who know a few misplace stereotypes :-) Im all for being civilized, but I'm not going to be mobbed into submission.

The main problem I see in china is the wide economic gaps that are being created and how the government is willing to tolerate the abuse of worker conditions and the possible failure to provide a workable welfare state. Schools for one, are highly underfunded.

On the other hand China has exhibited incredible economic growth for the last 30 years, bringing more than 1billion people out of rural misery, some would call it poverty. Whatever problems follow, they will be less important in comparison.

I would like to see Africa and Central Asia being brought into the Global community, maybe this way the poverty and misery of the subsaharan continent will be takled once and for all. chinese companies already account for 9 of the 10 most importoant foreign companies in Sudan.

Surprisingly I do agree that what we have seen is the expansion of the model of victorian england, though I call it Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations. However I would also like to see free trade of people, not just goods and services, and ultimately the demise of nations in favour of a world organisation to deal with world wide issues.

-------------------

Regarding china, it is crazy just how many chinese there are... The UK or Spain look like deserts in comparison, I saw hundreds of people just walking between two villages that didnt even have a paved road... Also it is coastal reagions that are seeing most of the economic growth and it will take more than a few years for it to creep inwards. In the meantime there will be a constant supply of unskilled labour for the export manufacturing sector.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 9, 2006

it's interesting you agree on the expansion of the victorian model to the global scale, because this precludes the repetition of the development path of the industrial first-movers as there is already a highly developed 'first world' which wasn't the case then. it's also interesting you bring up Smith, he stressed the necessary state violence of his "system of natural liberty", there's a great quote i can dig out if you like ...

Even marx acknowledged that capitalism sets in motion vast productive forces, in fact he based his hopes for communism on it. It's not as simple as libertarian communists seeing capitalism as just 'bad', it has relatively good and relatively bad aspects, progressive and regressive aspects at the same time. compared to previous systems, capitalism indeed appears progressive even during the traumas of mass urbanisation. however, compared to the society we want to create - and of which we have seen glimpses in spain '36, ukraine '17-21, russia '17 (briefly), france '68, argentina 2001 - capitalism is regressive, violent and a limit to human potentials and desires.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 9, 2006

capitalism is regressive, violent and a limit to human potentials and desires.

I see market economies as essentially progressive in nature. As I argue in my post about labour and technology, an economy base on mas production needs a market for its products so eventually the beneficiaries of a more efficient economy are workers who get more wages to consume the increased production.

The violence I would agree with you about the past, but I think modern societies are well beyond violence and into damage control. I also think that in the past the percieved class struggle and class confrontation was two ways, and consevatives were very scared of what labour movements could do.

What I dont see is capitalism as limiting human potential. I see people exploiting their potential when they enjoy their hobies, create a family, meet with their friends an family, read a book, watch a movie, enjoy sport, climb a mountain.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 9, 2006

well, the violent truth of capitalist peace is only revealed when workers act in their own interests directly, just like a rapist has no need to actually be violent so long as his victim is passive. i don't know if you were in britain during the miners' strike in '84/5, or the evictions during the poll tax rebellion around 1990, but they were a prime example of this 'invisble fist' revealing itself.

carlosgonzalez

What I dont see is capitalism as limiting human potential. I see people exploiting their potential when they enjoy their hobies, create a family, meet with their friends an family, read a book, watch a movie, enjoy sport, climb a mountain.

we'd be much more able to pursue our potentials and desires if we weren't forced to produce profits for others for half our waking lives. like i say, so many of my friends are stressed out from work, even after switching jobs, and work puts a strain on the various relationsships i'm involved in (friends/family/partner).

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 9, 2006

Dear Joseph, I still sense a tinge of envy, envy for generating profits for others... I dont agree with that and I dont agree with your perception that all work related stress is due to worker-employer relations. In my experience I have had just as much stress from backstabbing envious colleages.

Are you trying to tell me that if my father beat me up as a kid it is because he was stressed by work? Hell no, he beat me up because he was a stupid dick who had to learn to control his emotions.

Life is full of stress, you are picking on just one aspect, you are abstracting yourself from the complexities of reality and life. It is all too easy to blame the system and the employer for your own failings.

I am individualistic in that sense, I feel that if life is not going the way u want it it is YOUR problem. Finding excuses outside yourself is cowardly. If your are not happy about your job do something about it, get a life man, come to spain, do something, but stop being complacent and blaming the system, take responsibility.

Khawaga

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Khawaga on October 9, 2006

Im not quite sure atlemmk, but I think you are agreeing with me. Indeed I find that capitalism is something of the past, Im not implying that what we have is better or worse, but definitely it is different and a new vocabulary is needed.

Actually we are not in agreement at all. Capitalism is still the issue in the present, it is just that is has transformed somewhat, though only on a phenomenlogical level. As some others have mentioned capitalism is about social relationships, which IMO has not changed fundamentally. The working class and the capitalist class are still very much alive, though the terrain of class struggle in the form of the industrial proletariat and mass parties is over. At the same time capital's ability to extract surplus value is more clever, ingenious and unabashed today in our current neoliberal era. We're just trying to figure out how to conduct the class struggle, and as we have learnt from history it will not (well hopefully) take the Leninist lead.

You keep harping about mass production and critizing people using words like proletarian because it is "old". Well mass production (Fordism) is of the past, it is all about post-fordist just-in-time and "long tail" production and consumption now.

Another thing I'd like to comment on is the title of the thread "Communism is dying". Well, I will agree with you in the state-capitalist form of what we know as communism. But as an idea it is very much alive. I usually take a cue from Marx when discussing communism. It is the real movement away from capitalism, i.e. communism is a process in the making not a defined condition or state of affairs.

Anyhoo, don't mind the flames. I'd actually like for you to shed your bourgeoisie economics, you seem like a sensible guy.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 9, 2006

I ve been reading about bourgueouse in Wikipedia and it seems that it is a sinonim for the evil in society i.e. there are bourgeoise element in the working class who will be traitors....

So "bourgeoisie economics" come to mean something along the lines of "traitor economics" :-) Oh well, I dont expect to convince you otherwise, though i have studied and learnt economics from as scientific and positiv standpoint. I am not making normative statements, at least I try not to, so you will find it very difficult to criticize the formal exposition.

I think that by negating the reality, that economics is a science and failling to embrace its framework for expressing and developing your own ideas you are failing to move on.

The unique language and concepts you use are reminiscent of an esoteric religion, of which you present yourself as priest to understanding the holy texts.

By the way, I like u too, but Im not gay :-)

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 9, 2006

carlosgonzales

Are you trying to tell me that if my father beat me up as a kid it is because he was stressed by work? Hell no, he beat me up because he was a stupid dick who had to learn to control his emotions.

Life is full of stress, you are picking on just one aspect, you are abstracting yourself from the complexities of reality and life. It is all too easy to blame the system and the employer for your own failings.

look that's pretty patronising. it's not envious to be pissed off about working to enrich others, it's justified loving rage :bb: the envy card is the same straw man nietszche played to attack the anarchists of his day he so poorly understood.

I understand very well, believe me, that i have all sorts of personal failings that would still exist post-capitalism (if anything i have a tendency to blame myself for personal failings, not 'the system'). but that doesn't mean we shouldn't address systematic problems, and in fact the process of changing our situation together is also a process of collective self-transformation (the neccessary social aspect missing from nietzsche's self-overcoming, that ultimately left him lonely and insane). Marx said something like "socialism will solve our animal problems, and free us to deal with our human ones", we could translate that from victorian english to say that the meeting of all physiological needs is a precondition for the meeting of our psychological needs.

I'm all for taking responsibility, and although i'm a communist i have a lot of time for nietzsche (3rd mention this post!) and his individualist philosophy of 'say YES! to life' and the need (sometimes) for amor fati (love what you cannot change) and self-overcoming. but self-overcoming is a social process that cannot be done alone. we are social beings, and our pyschology and freedom and material conditions are all bound up with each others'. taking responsibility for me means getting organised and transforming our lives together, not using the skills and strengths i have to duck out of the class struggle and live a simple life in the woods, for example.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 9, 2006

Dear Joseph, ok granted that work is a form of modern slavery, but failing as it is what you suggest is theoretical alternative untested in the real world.

Ok, granted that anarchism was very succesfull in Catalunya, but that was only a brief period of time. It took 70 years of comunism in Rusia to convince people that it was a failure.

But I have read the history books and I know that communism initially was extremely successfull, that its quiquenal planned economy lead to a fast industrialisation and that it reached peaks of scientific development unprecedent in human history. But then at some point, social democracies continued to evolve and grow and comunism became outdated and obsolite, a simbor of represion instead of liberation.

And look at Cuba, wonderfull health and education system, probably the best in latin america, but then the city is full of prostitutes just as in the time of Batista. If you watch Oliver Stone's Comandante you will see Fidel saying that when he came to power there were 300.000 prostitutes in Habana. I suppose he means that nowadays prostitutes have university degrees.

........

I need to pay more attention to nietzche...

Im all for social coalescence and building a future together I just find it totally unrealistic that you have an all or nothing stance. Again look at the Amish or Kibutz in Israel. Those people have their own philosophies and are putting them into practice within the framework of a modern democracy. Setting up and working in cooperatives is another example. But I find prepotent to expect the whole society to fit to your ideals.

Furthermore, you can set up working environments where your ideals are true and say to people, look you can work with us, you are not going to earn as much but you are going to have a decent work place, or you can go work for that bastard of the corporation and lead a stressfull life.

Posibly those who are longing to buy a new car, better and larger than theirn neighbours, or their inlaws, will opt for the big corporation, and those who are more self conscious will opt for your model. There is nothing stoping you from putting your ideas into practice now, but perhaps you are much more materialistic than you claim...

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 9, 2006

carlosgonzalez

Im all for social coalescence and building a future together I just find it totally unrealistic that you have an all or nothing stance.

i'm not one of these 'revolutionaries' who sits around waiting for 'the revolution'. but i think reforms are only ever granted when there is revolutionary potential to appease, so pushing for revolutionary change ('demanding the impossible'), is often the best way to win reforms anyway.

i don't have an all or nothing approach, whatever organisation we can do is work in the right direction, and though i can be critical/cynical i always try to see the positives or moments of truth in struggles and try and bring those to the fore. I'm not claiming not to be materialistic - the fact i want to benefit from social wealth and social production is why i haven't just set up an agrarian commune to live out my days in. I do not accept i must be forced to reject the benefits of social production simply because it's owners have a rather large stash of guns. and i don't want to be forced to compete down my own conditions against established capitalists with all the force of the law and the state on their side, when they have no right to the privelege they enjoy off the work of others. the idea it comes down to consumer lifestyle choices oncemore ignores the real relations of alienation and domination that underpin capitalist society.

Mikhail Bakunin

Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 9, 2006

If soviet rusia was still running today and we were to live there we would not have internet or a computer...

My point is that you are asuming that your ideals can provide identical levels of wealth and modernisation that the current system provides.

I dont think that is a realistic assumption, your way of devolving power to the workers is set to work in the face of a steady state economy, a theoretical paradigm.

As I have commented, soviet rusia did not fail because it did not provide for its citizens, it failed because it could not provide as much wealth as market economies. I sincerely doubt that you could do better that communism, in particular because they were extremely successfull.

martinh

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by martinh on October 9, 2006

carlosgonzalez

p.d. I know this is too long, but you mentiong the shipyard strikes in Puerto Real. As a worker and tax payer I do not want to maintain industries that are loosing money, I rather have that money spent in schools or health provision. It is not our fault that Corea subsidiezed its shipbuilding industry, just as it was not Margaret Thatchers fault that the UK found oil in the NOrth Sea and there was no longer a need for coal.

Thatcher's attack on the miners had nothing to do with North Sea oil. It was planned as an attack on organised labour, this is well documented in the memoirs of people like MacGregor and Ridley. THe former mining areas are full of heroin and have the highest unemployment rates in the country. This isn't an accident. The gap between rich and poor in this country has been growing ever since, under both Tories and Carlos' friends. The "money saved" by closing mines and so on wasn't of course spent on hospitals and schools but on arms and subsidising big business. Even now, when money is spent on the NHS Or education it is done via PFI, which guarantees a huge subsidy from taxpayers to the lucky private companies. Class struggle exists, and a vital weapon in the ruling classes' armoury is to convince so many of us that they don't exist, that class struggle doesn't happen, and that class barriers are permeable. Most Americans don't support the social democractic scenario you paint because, no matter how poor they are, they think one day they'll be rich, and when they are they're not interested in paying taxes for the feckless.

Are you familiar with the poster Lazy Riser? You'd like him.

Carlos Gonzalez

Another similar issue nowadays is subsidies given to farmers and barrier placed on food imports from developing countries, those same countries to whom we are giving aid to... We cannot have it both ways and i'd rather eat carrots from Etiopia instead of Badajoz, that way I save the subsidies to the farmers in badajoz to make a decent living growing carrots and the aid sent to etiopia because they have noone to sell their carrots to...

Of course, you don't tell us why the farmers in Ethiopia have noo one to sell their carrots to, because no one in Ethiopia has any money (or if they do they are buying MiGs and Rolls Royces).
Personally I'd rather eat carrots from Kent, so long as they were grown well, as they generally taste better the sooner they're eaten. If they had to come all the way from Ethiopia they'd be airfreighted (bad for the environment) or shrivelled and tasteless. Are carrots from Badajoz good?

regards

Martin

jason

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jason on October 9, 2006

If soviet rusia was still running today and we were to live there we would not have internet or a computer...

er.. Carlos, a little tip: this is an anarchist forum, I'll think you'll find most people here are extremely critical of Bolshevik Russia, which moved very quickly to dismantle anything resembling socialism, i.e public control of production. I'm not sure what you are getting at with this reference.

And another thing you keep bringing up, market economies are not some natural human condition. I suggested above that you engage the anthropological literature.

By all means no!!! That the Bush administration is corrupt has very little to do with capitalism, it is just plain'ol CORRUPTION.

It has much more to do with the way the American public has been militarised all these years, under constant propaganda of the nuclear threath (when it seems that the Rusians were far more scared of the USA). They exhibit certain christian and patriotic fundamentalis traits that makes a humanist like me want to puke.

But this is exactly the point that the classical liberals, like Adam Smith, made (although I guess they don't teach it as part of economic degrees nowadays) that the logical conclusion of markets is that force is needed to protect them. There is no such thing as "plain ol' corruption", militarisation and propaganda exist for a clear reason: to protect and expand markets.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 10, 2006

You guys have to keep in mind that Market economies are NOT infallible, quite the opposite, lots can go wrong. The issue lies in that you pertain to think that all that goes wrong is due to a capital related issue whereas the matter is far more complicated and there are many other issues. For example that diferent economic theories have evolved which were inappropiate i.e. Keyninesianism or Friedman Liberalism.

North sea oil for one led to an economic crisis in the UK because its exports appreciated the pound and made it more expensive for the UK to export. Thatcher may have had a personal vendetta against miners and she may have ruined the NHS, but under a democracy you are free to vote in the opposition. Just as spaniards voted out Aznar after he suck up to George Bush.

You maynot like living in a predominantly tory society, but you are the first to exalt the wonerfull qualities of democracy. Thatcher was voted for three consecutive terms by a MAJORITY of the brittish people. You may not like it but that very much ties down your hands unless you want to move out of a sindicalist fight into a more revolutionary, and ilegal, activities.

---

Now as a social democrat I am an internationalist, you may not like the taste of Ethiopian carrots, but in the heart of winter I doubt you are going to get much production from kent. Im against being a nationalistic protective fool, I want to live in a world economy where ther rights and freedoms of ALL humans beings are enforced withouth having second rate citizens. You are against class structure, but seem just to happy to ignore the struggle and suffering of workers and peoples in other less developed nations.

---

Soviet Rusia may have been far from your desires but atleast they put their own anticapitalist ideas into practice. They didnt start with a preconcieved plan of turning it into a stalinist soviet empire, but for all their good workers intentions that is what happened and you ought not blind yourself to that reality.

Look man, so far it seems to me that so far you have had it up the ass twice, first in 1917 Russia from the Bolsheviks and then in 1936 Spain from the Stalinists. Everytime the capitalist structures have fallen someone else has moved in and taken the pie from under your eyes, and it wasn`t the corporate managers, landowners and burgueoise, but fellow WORKER IDEALISTS.

the logical conclusion of markets is that force is needed to protect them.

That is IMPERIALISM, and is not a prerrogative of the Market.

In todays global economy I do not see the Chinesee, Indian or European armys going out to secure their markets, only american ones, and thats because they are imperialists.

You are deluding yourself if you think that private property and trading/exchange, the basis of the market, is not an anthropological reality of the evolution of humanity. Just as prostitution is the oldest profesion.
These concepts, like the idea of Nations, are time tested solutions to society and the way the different agents interact.

Please tell me, in your ideological theories about devolving the means of production to workers, do you have a Market? Do you have a price system to transmit the necessary information for the optimum economical decisions to be taken?

Such a price system is crucial, Adam Smiths "invisible hand" and leading to the best possible resource allocation provided externalities and public good issues are tamed appropriately. Comunists theoricians tried to do away with prices, only to find that their matrices for resource allocation where not responsive the the economy.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 10, 2006

carlosgonzalez

You are against class structure, but seem just to happy to ignore the struggle and suffering of workers and peoples in other less developed nations.

just because we don't purport to speak for others does not mean that we are parochial, we're all internationalists here afaik.

carlosgonzalez

You are deluding yourself if you think that private property and trading/exchange, the basis of the market, is not an anthropological reality of the evolution of humanity. Just as prostitution is the oldest profesion.
These concepts, like the idea of Nations, are time tested solutions to society and the way the different agents interact.

well i think you'll find "the idea of Nations" is a lot more recent and historically contingent than you are assuming. I haven't read much anthropological literature on markets/gift exchange, so i'll leave the answers to someone who has, save to make a couple of quick points. You're making several related fallacies here - the naturalistic fallacy, 'it is, so it must be' and the historical fallacy, 'it has been, so it must go on'.

carlosgonzalez

Please tell me, in your ideological theories about devolving the means of production to workers, do you have a Market? Do you have a price system to transmit the necessary information for the optimum economical decisions to be taken?

well markets are very poor informationally, as you concede (i think), and they also have a rationing function based on ability to pay not need, which i think you concede too. The point of libertarian communism would be to avoid the need for coercive moderations of markets by making markets uneccessary, rather than supressing them per se. various informational means have been proposed; Michael Albert's Parecon uses informational 'guide prices' which are set by mediation between workers and consumers councils, some people have been working on linking p2p networks and open source software development to real-world gift economics (all sorts of non-market informational means have been developed in IT, and even though software is post-scarcity, the very real labour of programmers etc still requires them to eat etc, so there is real labour-power being expended outside of market relations), classically a combination of quantitive measures (man hours, units demand) and qualitative measures (preferences, suggestions) have been used by workers councils etc to co-ordinate production. I want to write something short on this topic in future because the informational aspects of a large-scale gift economy are really under-theorised imho.

I mean even if my communistic gift economy hunch is wrong, my fall-back is mutualism: open markets (regulated by directly democratic federations if you like), but personal not private property, i.e. only collectives and self-employment, no enforceable relations of wage-labour. this isn't the suppression of private property, but simply the ending of the violence neccessary to sustain it. still no justification for private property (i.e. the right to retain control of something beyond your use of it, absentee ownership.)

As to your celebration of capitalist democracy, what interest do i have in choosing my master, even assuming i'm allowed to do so (elected communists tend to get CIA'd quicker than an out-of-luck afghan cabbie - allende, gladio ...)? I have no interest in masters or choosing between various bourgeois factions; supposed social democrats have screwed the working class when capital requires it, and supposed tories have supported the welfare state when neccessary to appease class struggle - you call yourself a cynic but seem willing to accept capitalist economics and election manifestos at face value!

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 10, 2006

My point is that you desire to substitute time tested concepts with completely different systems. I would not have a problem if it was gradual, but you advocate for revolutionary change and I find that more violent than the violence you have showd me exists in "capitalist" systems (Market system, social democracy...)

well markets are very poor informationally, as you concede (i think), and they also have a rationing function based on ability to pay not need

I concede on the second point but no on the first. The information bearing of prices is HUGE, ENORMOUS, and grows exponentialy with the number of products to be produced/consumed and the consecuential resource allocation decisions to be made.

If you have done mathematics imagine a matrix with one row for each final product and one column for each resource, the numbers of terms in the matrix is equal to Number or rows times number of columnst i.e. into trillions!!! Well, the market subtitutes this huge matrix with one price for each final good and one price for each resource, and leads to optimal solution if the externalities and public good effects are considered. And together with progressive taxation leads to the best outcome, the second best.

Infact that is the great and most impresive success of the Market and I think that as anarchists you should appreciate it, as market and prices relate millions of economic agents, facing hundreds of economic decisions, without the violent capitalist relations you despise.

I would seriously doubt the ability of any other system to coordinate the activities of so many million agents and decision. The only situation as I have mentioned before, is when everything stays the same and allocation can be planned. However reality is ever changing and economies are marked by technological growth.

How would you have dealt with the miners? Would you have closed the mines or would you have continued to run your economy on coal? And how would have the citizens in your society have reacted when they saw that others in capitalist countries had gas powered and cheaper electrical energy? Would you have closed some of the mines and asked the miners to relocate voluntarily?

Currently in Spain there are still a few coal mines whos unions are being paid of to quietly dissappear, but then they are very small in number. The economic reality is that it costs 100pounds to produce one ton, whereas south african coal is delivered at 50pounds a ton.

How would you deal with changes in your society?

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 10, 2006

carlostrolzalez

they earn far more in the export industry than in the farms at home

yes, it's called combined and uneven development - and is central to the operation of capitalism

carlostrolzalez

The main problem I see in china is the wide economic gaps that are being created and how the government is willing to tolerate the abuse of worker conditions and the possible failure to provide a workable welfare state.

yes, but this is most likely the reason why Chinese capitalism is doing so well - so your plan is to unleash a torrent of government regulation on the Chinese miracle and stifle its innovative capacity - shame on you

carlostrolzalez

I would like to see Africa and Central Asia being brought into the Global community, maybe this way the poverty and misery of the subsaharan continent will be takled once and for all.

highly unlikely

carlostrolzalez

I see market economies as essentially progressive in nature.

how sweet

carlostrolzalez

I think modern societies are well beyond violence and into damage control.

oh, right - have you watched the news in the last 5 years?

carlostrolzalez

If soviet rusia was still running today and we were to live there we would not have internet or a computer...

well spotted

carlostrolzalez

You guys have to keep in mind that Market economies are NOT infallible

at last, something useful - I'm so glad you told me this - I thought something just didn't quite feel right, but now I can really put my finger on it - sometimes the market does fail - Eureka!

carlostrolzalez

Please tell me, in your ideological theories about devolving the means of production to workers, do you have a Market?

no

carlostrolzalez

Do you have a price system to transmit the necessary information for the optimum economical decisions to be taken?

no

carlostrolzalez

I would seriously doubt the ability of any system to coordinate the activities of so many million agents and decision.

I agree, I mean look at the way capitalism distributes unprecedented wealth to a few people and then forgets to feed or house millions of others

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 10, 2006

carlosgonzalez

I would seriously doubt the ability of any other system to coordinate the activities of so many million agents and decision. The only situation as I have mentioned before, is when everything stays the same and allocation can be planned. However reality is ever changing and economies are marked by technological growth.

which is an argument for decentralised allocation and control not central planning, i think you'll find 'managing change' is a major pain in the arse for capitalists and a big topic in business schools - worker control and direct democracy is far more adaptive than hierarchic alienated ownership, for all the same reasons as markets vs central planning - empowering of agents closest to the reality on the ground, removal of bureaucracy etc. why do you think lean management and toyotism tries to get as close as possible to flat hierarchies without giving up control of the profits?

carlosgonzalez

Well, the market subtitutes this huge matrix with one price for each final good and one price for each resource, and leads to optimal solution if the externalities and public good effects are considered.

look, as i told you i went to business school, i know what markets are supposed to do, i've read my Smith, Ricardo, Friedman ... but it's become just pure ideology. I might as well just state that workers councils incorporate the aggregated wills of multiple agents and so lead to optimum solutions, but i doubt that would be enough to pursuade you would it?

carlosgonzalez

I concede on the second point but no on the first. The information bearing of prices is HUGE, ENORMOUS, and grows exponentialy with the number of products to be produced/consumed and the consecuential resource allocation decisions to be made.

no, markets conceal real social relations with a single quantitative figure which may or may not approximate to the effort expended to produce something, its scarcity, the conditions of the producers, the ecological damage incurred by it's production, the competitiveness of the market, the barriers to entry etc etc. Production is a social process, markets present it as simply a relation between money and things. this is called commodity fetishism, and you sir, are a fetishist par excellance.

there has been talk of 'full cost accounting' for several decades at least, but it never gets implemented. this is not a coincidence - constant externalities like ecological pillage ('primitive accumulation' in marxist terms) are a fundamental part of capital's need for constant growth. It's not just a technical matter of implementing some regulation to incorporate social and ecological costs into market prices - doing so would undermine capitalist accumulation, and so would either not be allowed to happen without serious resistance, or would simply lead to new means of externalisation, most obviously the taking from workers' conditions what is lost in profits to full-cost pricing. the fundamental problems (of externalities etc) do not lie in the marketplace, but in "the hidden abode of production". Any such regulations would also presuppose a state that was at best class-neutral to implement and enforce them, but a state is neccessarily, tautologically even, an instrument of minority, class, rule.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 10, 2006

I agree, I mean look at the way capitalism distributes unprecedented wealth to a few people and then forgets to feed or house millions of others

You are right! I cant leave the house without stumbling with homeless beggers.

I suppose therer is a capitalist ogre out there accumulating the millions of cars and consumer goods produced.

By the way, I meant a system "other than" market price system.

Feighnt

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Feighnt on October 10, 2006

this may sound naive of me, but...

if the coal workers are guaranteed the necessities and such of society, and will not be penalized for simply having a spot of bad luck by working in an industry which becomes no longer necessary (ie: in the current, non-Anarcho system, they get fired, which means no money, which means no food/etc)...

why would the coal workers be so upset to find out they wont be spending long and dangerous hours in coal mines? they may be expected to take up some other job, sure enough, but it's not the same as the current system.

but, something i dont think you're seeing is the democratic aspect of Anarchism. you're looking at the economic system as if it's something imposed upon the populace by an elite which has hierarchical, coercive powers over them. but, the Anarchist ideal is one of thorough democracy - a democracy which deals with not choosing individuals who will run your life, but one which involves people convening in assemblies, discussing the issues, proposing initiatives, and passing resolutions. should the people in the society find out that some of their old industries are outdated, and they could be better off with a new industry to replace it, they would get together to discuss the issue and plan on how to properly make the transition to the new industry. this process would undoubtedly involve the people who were working in the old industry, who have just as much reason to want useful industrial advances as anybody else... the only reason they'd oppose such changes in our CURRENT society is because, like i mentioned above, they are NOT rulers of their society along with the rest of the people, and, as such, while the rest of society would advance, it would be genuinely at their loss. this is completely unnecessary in an Anarchist system, because products in society would be divided up based on need and availability, which would not only make it easier for people to tough out unemployment, but also easier to become employed again, since workplaces could afford over-staffing (which, of course, helps to reduce hours to each individual with no material loss). and, is the society having difficulty filling in positions for certain jobs? the populace assembles to discuss how to address the problem and vote on a resolution.

it's kind of incorrect for people to go up to an Anarchist and say "how would you deal with this"... a major aspect of Anarchism is that Anarchists ARENT going to be deciding everything for everyone (they'll have as much voice as the next guy). rather, it would be more accurate to think; "if i was in an Anarchist society, how would *i* deal with this? how would *we* deal with this?"

and when you sit down for a bit and try to think of the various ways to deal with various situations in an Anarchist society, which would not eliminate the groundwork for that society, you'll likely see a fair number of ideas popping up. and if you have none? dont worry too much - you'll be deciding this with tons of other people, and one of them'll have a good, workable idea or two.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 10, 2006

some good points Feighnt :P

something i've forgot to mention is that planning also happens in capitalism, and it's part of my job infact (being trained up at the moment). in the factory i work in, since nobody knows the future, we work off estimated volumes demand and try to plan production around it. this is relatively decentralised planning, but it is planning in the shareholders' interests and not in the workers' or consumers'. anarchism would mean decentral planning in our own interests, taking into account what hours we want to work as well as how much we want to produce/consume etc instead of just the shareholders' profits and those of our customers (other corporations), which is what so disturbs supporters of private property who dream of never having to work because the state enforces wage slavery on others.

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 10, 2006

carlosgonzalez

I cant leave the house without stumbling with homeless beggers.

well, I doubt this is true, because you sound like you live in a middle class area of the developed world, so you probably live in a residential area that has successfully excluded the more harsh side-effects of capitalism.

I'm presuming you don't live here:

or, at least, not on the near-side of the river

Convert

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Convert on October 10, 2006

I do hope that the US is the last Military/Imperialistic regime. I find that conflict fought economically leave much less blood on the carpet...

I would say more. Look at the millions of people who starve to death each year as a result of capitalist ideology. World bank/IMF forcing free market reforms on Africa, devastating local food economies and inflicting famines.

The market is being hideously distorted by western subsidies. You may argue that in a perfect free market all would be well but thats as much of a pipe dream as worldwide anarchism, the powerful elite have always organised production to preserve their wealth/power and always will. Its called capitalism.

odd

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by odd on October 10, 2006

carlos i ve followed this thread from the start,and is it that you just like to argue.i mean you start on one issue,then when that is beaten you throw in another obtuse issue,its like listening to a jerry springer show.

davethemagicweasel

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by davethemagicweasel on October 10, 2006

carlosgonzalez

I would seriously doubt the ability of any other system to coordinate the activities of so many million agents and decision. The only situation as I have mentioned before, is when everything stays the same and allocation can be planned. However reality is ever changing and economies are marked by technological growth.

How would you have dealt with the miners? Would you have closed the mines or would you have continued to run your economy on coal? And how would have the citizens in your society have reacted when they saw that others in capitalist countries had gas powered and cheaper electrical energy? Would you have closed some of the mines and asked the miners to relocate voluntarily?

Currently in Spain there are still a few coal mines whos unions are being paid of to quietly dissappear, but then they are very small in number. The economic reality is that it costs 100pounds to produce one ton, whereas south african coal is delivered at 50pounds a ton.

How would you deal with changes in your society?

Well, for a start there isn't really a need to eliminate coal completely. Its still used today for power generation, and is actually expected to increase in use with increasing oil prices. Furthermore, a lot of people have argued that steam (i.e. coal) powered trains are more efficient than electric ones, as well as burning coal arguably being better for the environment than burning oil.

But assuming that the mines do have to be closed, that isn't going to happen overnight, we can close the mines one at a time. If decisions were made in democratic community assemblies, with control over resources and wealth, rather than by private individuals then the decision-making is decentralised to a greater extent than it is under the current system. The whole point is to co-ordinate the actions of millions of agents by involving millions of agents in teh decision-making process. Surely your economics classes make the case for decentralised planning in a market as preferable to state planning? What we want to do is take that to its logical conclusion.

If the decisions about what to do with the coal mines were being made by the people in the mining communities then they could quite easily have organised training programs for all the people who would soon be losing their jobs so that they can slowly switch into other areas of the economy, and organise for other workplaces in the area to expand or be newly established so as to provide jobs.

I grew up in South Yorkshire, so I know for a fact that had the people in that area been making the decisions then they would have been happy to support the miners by paying for those programs with any collectively controlled wealth. And you only need to look at the effects of the closing down of the mines to come up with an excellent argument in favour of softening the blow - because in the long-run we all would have benefitted.

And yes, a labour market will serve to reallocate the labour of lost jobs into other areas of the economy. But that has been done through years of human misery in these former mining communities (poverty, drugs, family breakdown, depression, increased suicide levels, etc). We don't object to capitalism because we think its inefficient - though we may make that point as well - but because it functions through enforcing these effects onto large sections of the population in order to achieve what efficiency it does.

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 10, 2006

carlostrolzalez on another thread

The reasoning is simple, it asumes that under capitalism true competition is eliminated leading to monopoly practices.

What characterizis a monopoly is that it produces less that is desirable so that it can charge a higher price. Though it is selling less, the higher price leads to bigger profits. Hence the statement that "capitalism held back production".

The decline of this reasoning is not due to "decline in taste for dialectical thought", but rather the reality that market economies foster competition. Competition eroded monopoly practices because it is more profitable for companies to lower their prices and sell more than continue with their monopolistic practices.

For more information visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

how do Microsoft, ExxonMobil, and Walmart fit into this neoliberal textbook view of economic practice?

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 10, 2006

To feighnt: Fair enough, democratic rule of the means of production. However I see many potential caveats, principaly that the system you describe is geared towards having full employment and an equitable society where everyone has as much as the next. I see the system as being satisfied once it has attained its goals and with no further incentives to progress.

You treat workers as interchangeable lego blocks, as if it doesnt matter what job they do, only the time spent. I do not see the incentives for tecnological innovation, for increasing production and raising living standards.

Joseph K:

planning also happens in capitalism

Even though you are full of criticism I am sure that many things happen in market economy that you find desirable, even though you want to improve beyond recognition. For one you want its living standards.

I get the impresion that you guys see workers in 2 different ways, one as those who do the work, manual kinda work, where little training is necessary to shift from one job to the next. The other is as the oppressed, and that is a bigger set and can include not just manual labour but also the managers, engineers, and basically, all people who do any particular job (what you attack is the "capitalistic" structure).

To john: I live in a city, sharing a flat with students. The photo represents some squaler in Latin america. It is those living in the squaler who are desperate for your sindicalist activism and I dont mean to be sarcastic. I have said that I support radical solutions to radical problems. What you show us in the photo is a REAL class struggle. But I am talking as a social democrat and I challenge you to show me a similar photo taken in Spain.

World bank/IMF forcing free market reforms on Africa, devastating local food economies and inflicting famines. The market is being hideously distorted by western subsidies.

I despise the World Bank and IMF as much as the next person, they are being used and abused as instruments of imperialist USA, I am not a free marketeer or a liberal economist. I totally agree that the market is being distorted by western subsidies and I have repeatedly mentioned in this forum that I would like to see some of them removed.

In particular I despise the french led European Union stance on subsidies to agriculture. I have chated with farmers in developing countries who complain that they cannot export their marketable produce to western economies due to the import taxes which is the other side of the coin: subsidies to farmers, barriers to foreigners. Some people here have agreed with me, others feel the opposite, that one has some kind of special allegiance to those workers in your nation. I am an internationalist and do not want willing to substitue a class struggle for a rich country / poor country struggle.

To odd: it is good that you have followed the thread, but please note that I am not the one to direct the discussion alone, it is mutual. Likewise I can say that there are other topics I have raised to which I have not had a response, and that does not mean that I have "beaten" anyone in that respect.

--------------

Davethemagicweasel

What I get from your intervention is that the mining issue would have been handled more smoothly by an anarchist society, that some mines would have been closed earlier, that it could have been more gradual, that sacrifices couldh have been made by miners and the society to maintain the communities, albaight with lower economic levels, but alive and without the social problems that they have suffered.

It sounds trully hopefull and nothing tells me that it could not have been as such. I can only argue that it is true that in modern societies, just as workers are willing to take on a lot of hassle before they slash back, also politicians and policy makers leave problems to snowball instead to tackling them.

For example PSOE last year introduce a bill to reorganize the public television, because its structure had not changed in 30 years! and for one it had failed to account to the reality that most autonomous regions now have their own radios and TV stations and there is no need to continue to provide that service by the central government i.e. one could see the news on andalucia in TV1 or in CanalSur, or listen to them in CanalSur Radio or in RNE...

Would anarchism really have provided the best solution to the mining issues? Maybe, but unfortunately we do not know. One thing is making the hypotheses, and another very different one testing it in the real world.

how do Microsoft, ExxonMobil, and Walmart fit into this neoliberal textbook view of economic practice?

First of all, I am as much a neo-liberal economist as you are a bolschevick, my presentation is a "text book" one. Wallmart and ExxonMobil compete in relatively competitive markets in as far as consumers have several alternatives. In Spain (I do not live in the US) I have about 10 supermarket chains to choose from and six or seven different petrol stations. THe result is that if one of them raised their prices considerably over the others then they would loose a lot of clients so a policy of monopolistic prices is not viable. However wallmart does have monopoly power over its suppliers.

Regarding microsoft, I am glad that you bring it up because we can talk about Linux. Yes!! I know linux exemplifies the kind of "anticapitalistic" ideology you favour, but it is also something that has happened and has been a succes story both within the modern market economies (social democracies in Europe and the american liberal system (which I despise too by the way)).

Microsoft is very much a monopoly though with the paradox that in practice has been distributed free, as piracy has not been deterred. Only business and organisations are really faced with having to pay for it and in Andalucia for one, the autonomous government has introduced its own version of Linux, Guadalinux, for implementation in its administration and schools as well as free distribution. On the other hand Microsoft gains most of its revenues from licensing its software to all those who want to have their programs run on windows and that situation, like wallmart with its suppliers, is quite monopolistic.

I am a firm suppporter of GNU and its philosophy as well as virulently opposed to the current stance of the US on copyrights.

---------------------------------------------------

To finnish this post I would like to bring to your attention that you have not continued to discuss the role of prices and markets in an anarchist society. Granted I have had some answers to my questions but I cannot but note that in the practical examples of anarchism, prices and the markets remain crucial. Money was used in Catalunya during the civil war and cooperatives in Argentina continue to work withing the framework of the market.

The second point is that you have not given any reasonable arguments to why you have to wait for a revolution and cannot start puting into practice your ideals right now. Are you limited to being "Okupas", taking over rundown states and firms? Why not buy some of the mines and put them into production again? Why not get together and start a network of companies that you can operate according to your principles? I am convinced that you can organise yourselves better, why dont you start? Or is it that you are not willing to take risks and possibly earn less in exchange for working under your own precepts?

Third, you guys are fixed in industrial labour, it sounds like the dispute between Staling and Mao Tse Tung regarding who has to head the revolution - industrial workers in the cities v.s. farmers in the counryside. You seem oblivious to the reality that 70% of the workers are in the service sector and not in the industry. Are you addresing their problems too? It doesnt look that way to me.

Finally, there is a say in politics that often your biggest enemy is in your own camp i.e. it is not the opposition you have to worry about but the burgueoise elements in your party. I can understand that you hate comunism so much, but do you hate it as much as capitalism? or more? It is clear that you dont like Social Democrats, so who are your allies?

Overall I have drawn a picuture of anarchism as a glorified sindicalist movement, not even a marketable ideology as by definition you despise formal structures. You guys are the lone rangers of the lone rangers, but atleast YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE MY SYMPATHY AND RESPECT :)

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 10, 2006

carlosgonzalez

I do not see the incentives for tecnological innovation, for increasing production and raising living standards.

a great way to spot an economist is if someone thinks people need 'incentives' to pursue higher living standards :roll: :P

carlosgonzalez

Even though you are full of criticism I am sure that many things happen in market economy that you find desirable, even though you want to improve beyond recognition. For one you want its living standards.

well i want different living standards, where my consumption is not premissed on the exploitation of others and where i (and everyone) has control of production in such a way as we can far better balance our desires to consume with our desires for free time etc. In practice that may mean less hi tech gadgetery etc for me (in the short term at least), as chinese workers reject working in the conditions they are currently forced to to provide cheap commodities to the west, even though it may mean shorter work hours for me too.

the separation between ourselves as producers and ourselves as consumers is one of the main things i want to get rid of by getting rid of capitalism, so that quality of life means just that, and not just an expression of the consumption function or personal disposable income.

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 10, 2006

carlosgonzalez

But I am talking as a social democrat and I challenge you to show me a similar photo taken in Spain.

but I am talking as an un-social democrat, and I challenge you to prove to me why I should limit my analysis of capitalism to national boundaries

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 10, 2006

oh, and here is a nice picture of the impact of Spain's national boundaries, from 2002, Tarifa:

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 10, 2006

John, you self rightous brat, I feel an urge to punch you.

I come from Malaga! I have had immigrants come to my parents house and we have fed them and treated their wounds, and not just my parents and I but all the neighbours!

I have had a Rusian girlfriend for 3 years and was close to marrying her so she could get her papers.

I HAVE REPEATEDLY SPOKEN AGAINS YOUR NATIONAL SECTARIANISM, IN FAVOUR OF A WORLD WERE EVERYONE IS EQUAL, WHERE THERE IS FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS AND PEOPLE.

I have been to the beaches were those fotos are taken and have smelt the tragedy first hand.

And for one the spanish people show solidarity, we do not call the police or organize armed border patrols like the the US. Once in spain they are not expelled (expulsion paper ARE their papers) and have a right to medical treatment. Nor have I seen work inspectors go round hunting ilegal workers like in the UK.

And those people are the ones who died trying not just to arrive to Spain but to EUROPE, the same EUROPE you live in you brat.

So please go and piss off someone else you spoilt brat, and I only hope that you actually pay attention to what I have repeatedly argued in my posts instead of insulting me with the misery of those who risk their lives to enjoy the welfare we take for granted.

----------------------------

I challenge you to prove to me why I should limit my analysis of capitalism to national boundaries

Not "national" boundaries, but lets limit the criticism to our social democracies, which is the system that I defend.

I do not defend neoliberal economics, nor the cut throat US fostered system in Latin America. I despise the US. I dont like Chinese comunism. I dont like fascist, religious, totalitarian, dictatorial or nationalistic governments/sistems. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...

So please, if you are going to get a photo to critizise me let it be about the system I am defending, not about one that I despise. And likewise, if you are going to use someone elses misery to attackme, please do not use the type of misery that I despise.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 10, 2006

john, that was a bit of a random tangent mate ...

carlos, on limiting discussion to social democracies; the problem lib coms would have with this is that social democracies are liable to turn into neoliberal ones or even fascist states whenever capital, or rather the interests if the bourgeoisie (property owners) requires it. social democracy is one mode of the capitalist state, and it is capitalism and the state we reject, because we have seen how social democrat tanks crushed workers movements (germany), or how social democrats were replaced by neoliberals by 'democratic' or covert means when the economy required the weakening of the working class (thatcher/pinochet respectively).

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 10, 2006

I do agree with you Joseph, that democracies pose a danger in as far as they can turn towards the far end of the spectrum.

But I suppose that the bottom line is how much people care. In spain Aznar pissed of a lot of people through his nationalistic speeches and the fuck ups in the year coming up to the election: Prestige, Yakolev incident, backing the US at the UN security council, and last but not least the Madrid bombings. People opted to vote him out and as a result spain has legalized 1million immigrants, has moved out of Iraq, has legalized gay marriages and recognized their rights. And thes are just a few aspects.

If we had not voted Aznar out it would be a different situation, far more towards the neolib spectrum, or like we like to call it in spain, national catholicims.

So in the end we have to relly on the people, we have to relly on democracy to take us were we want to go. If something so basic fails, how do you expect to have the support or the situation to carry out your revolution? i.e. anarchism is not viable in the US at the moment, everyone except a very small minority would reject it.

You mention Thatcher, she was elected three times... And after she left, John Mayor won the elections. I remember, I was ther when John Aschroft created New Labour (he is the LSE director now :)) and when Labour won two elections in a row for the first time in 80(?) years...

P.D. Ive been reading in Wikipedia and I get the impresion that burgueoise is a general term for those intent on defending the "capitalist" system, and that they are elements that exist even in the working classes.

I always asociated the term with "burguesia" the entrepeneurial class that arose to opose the dominance of nobility and cleric in the middle ages.

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 10, 2006

not that weird a tangent

carlos is a self-proclaimed third-way social democrat. the PSOE is currently pushing for help from Brussels in securing Spanish borders (especially from the Canary Islands and the Spanish enclaves in North Africa) - and seeking to police/turn back African immigrants trying to gain entry to Spain. This policy leads directly to the need to take more risks and more covert routes by immigrants sailing from Africa to Europe. Which leads to people dying when the boats capsize.

If in his spare time he attempts to help immigrants, then perhaps this discussion provides an opportunity to smooth out some of the contradictions in his viewpoint/actions.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 10, 2006

people here use bourgeois/burguesia to refer to the private property-owning class, but yes it originally meant 'middle class' in french and referred to the merchants/early industrialists who supplanted the nobility as the ruling class with the emergence of capitalism out of feudal relations.

you have a lot of faith in parliamentary democracy, an oxymoron i don't think i have the energy to deconstruct right now. just a few points ... why do periodic elections of rulers constitute 'rule by the people', and why does the sacred principle of democracy end where private property begins, i.e. why isn't the economy, the source of real power, democratic?

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 10, 2006

carlosgonzalez

If we had not voted Aznar out it would be a different situation, far more towards the neolib spectrum,

nonsense - Gonzalez did more than anyone to introduce a liberal market economy to post-Franco Spain. Your faith in the PSOE is both naive and ill-informed.

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 10, 2006

carlosgonzalez

Not "national" boundaries, but lets limit the criticism to our social democracies, which is the system that I defend.

what, are you stupid? how can you have an "our" social democracy if you don't at the same time have some kind of national boundary policing to make sure you keep out those it doesn't belong to?

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 10, 2006

Hi

It is an ideology which arouse in the mid 19th century in response to a kind of society which we no longer have in the west.

Or indeed anywhere. Moreover, the communists response to the kind of society that actually prevailed, then as now, was of questionable utility.

I despise the use of terms as "proletarian" as it does not respond to the realities of the problems and situations we are facing. Nor do I give any credit to the class struggle ideas, as I dont see such rigid structures anymore.

I’m sure you do. Personally, I have amassed significant wealth by fighting a class war against the bourgeoisie. Your personal mileage may vary, but you have to concede, what you despise and what you see are of little significance to anyone but yourself. That is to say, what you see is not all there is to see.

My ancestors fought a bitter war, the Spanish Civil war, something which makes me proud to be Spanish as the ideals and issues of the time where forefront. It also makes me proud to see the country we have today, its liberties, tolerance and welfare.

You’re advertising your penchant for social justice. I take it you wish to discuss what a fine moralist you are. This demonstrates one of the many ways in which your critique of revolutionary communism is a self-critique.

Dont you think that it is time to move?

Well we’ve got Social Democracy already, and it’s not quite what I ordered. For a start, it’s as dull as ditchwater and very poorly paid.

I suggest communists stick to their guns, even if they’re wrong. I mean, let’s say they all changed their minds. Assuming they’re populous enough to make a difference, their presence is the kiss of death for any social movement. If you succeeded in converting them, they’d only mess up your great liberal vision of the total human exercising the perfect balance of compassion and self-interest. Unless, of course, this is some Machiavellian plan for the destruction of Social Democracy’s credibility, in which case, fair play.

Love

LR

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 10, 2006

Jon, you sound very infantile. The immigration problem is not for Spain alone to solve, we are part of the European Union and cannot be lone crusaders. Spain has gone from 40 to 44 million in a few years alone and social tensions cannot be ignored.

people here use bourgeois/burguesia to refer to the private property-owning class

The we have a problem, because all my working friend own property, in fact, 90% of people in Spain own their housing...

-----------------

I agree that democracy is far from being democratic, a vote every 4 years (National, Autonomous and Local elections in Spain) doesnt seem enough but the beauty that you can vote the standing government out. Alternation of power, that is the revolutionary change of democracy. Power corrupts, and the longer it is held the more it corrupts.

though you guys look at the present with your sights placed in an ideal future, I instead use the oportunity cost concept, that the alternative to democracy is some kind of dictatorship, such as we had with Franco or with the Monarchy previously.

I would say that you are too idealists but you are perfectly conscious of that. Let me add that I think that I am more and more convinced that your biggest failure is the low extent to which you have put your ideas into practice. I look forward watching "The Take", but I find it sad that you need desperate squatters to put your ideology into practice.

And then you critize everyone, social democrats, trade unions, comunists. Dont you feel alienated enough? Isn't it obvious that the revolution in Spain failed because you did not have any allies? The comunists maybe tainted, but you guys sound like the holy virgins of idealism :)

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 10, 2006

Hi

john and carlos seem to deserve each other. Perhaps they are the same poster.

Love

LR

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 10, 2006

carlosgonzalez

The immigration problem is not for Spain alone to solve, we are part of the European Union and cannot be lone crusaders.

what problem? don't you like foreigners or something?

carlostrolzalez

Spain has gone from 40 to 44 million in a few years alone and social tensions cannot be ignored.

lucky you

Lazy Rizer

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Rizer on October 10, 2006

Hi

see? This is exactly what I mean. They just keep going around in circles restating their initial starting points without ever getting to any point.

Personally, I think there is no point in any debate whatsoever. In fact I think this to such an extent that I would like to debate its validity with anyone that cares to listen.

And this is a matter of good taste, not principle.

Love LR

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 10, 2006

Hi

Ha ha. I love it. Quite correct.

Love

LR

Khawaga

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Khawaga on October 10, 2006

Ive been reading in Wikipedia and I get the impresion that burgueoise is a general term for those intent on defending the "capitalist" system, and that they are elements that exist even in the working classes.

I always asociated the term with "burguesia" the entrepeneurial class that arose to opose the dominance of nobility and cleric in the middle ages.

You are somewhat correct, but basically it is used a lot as denoting capitalist ideology as hegemony (in the unconscious or habitus sense of the word). The economics you were taight at LSE would fall in under bourgeoisie ideology (neo-classical and neo-liberal economics, monetarism, supply side economics).

Though as someone pointed out earlier it is also associated to a specific layer of society during the 18th century. Has different connotations in German where it also connotes a certain type of classical education that the nouveux-riche capitalists did not have back in the day.

Feighnt

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Feighnt on October 10, 2006

carlosgonzalez

To feighnt: Fair enough, democratic rule of the means of production. However I see many potential caveats, principaly that the system you describe is geared towards having full employment and an equitable society where everyone has as much as the next. I see the system as being satisfied once it has attained its goals and with no further incentives to progress.

You treat workers as interchangeable lego blocks, as if it doesnt matter what job they do, only the time spent. I do not see the incentives for tecnological innovation, for increasing production and raising living standards.

joseph dealt very nicely with the first point - incentives. i really dont get why people need incentives to raise their standard of living... isnt the raise of the standard of living the incentive?

you think i (and others here) see workers as interchangeable lego blocks... that wasnt quite my point. it's certainly true that not all workers have the skills to do all sorts of work, but it IS true that many people have, or can gain, the ability to work in different occupations. practically nobody is JUST a miner, for example. beside, in the example of the coal mines getting closed, a capitalistic economic system doesnt particularly answer the question of how to benevolently deal with the laid-off workers. at the best, they might get some severance packages, but that'll hardly keep them very secure for very long. in the *current* system, they'd have to go get jobs somewhere else, too. so, what, are YOU saying they're interchangeable lego blocks, as you support this system? or would you just sigh and conclude that those who cant find a new job ought to be consigned to the gutter?

part of the point i mentioned the whole "having a hard time filling certain positions, get the democratic assembly to figure out solutions" thing was because every time i make this sort of argument to people, they go out and say people dont have the incentive to work. the answer is two fold: When people genuinely realize they are running their society, a greater degree of care for their community would arise. this happens much less in our society, as we're expected to leave tons of stuff up to our various bosses (whether political, economic, or whatever). BUT, should this fail, and you still find that people are hesitant to take up necessary jobs, you bring the problem to the community assembly, which would propose various alternatives - perhaps they might decide everyone would be required to do a little of that undesirable work once in a while, or perhaps they might add some small incentives which would not recreate the capitalist system in any strong way. there are undoubtedly a million possible ways to deal with this in an Anarchist society, in a way which even most Anarchists would find agreeable.

by definition you despise formal structures.

i dont really agree with this. while many Anarchists believe in a greater degree of fluidity in their concept of social structures, i dont believe at all that Anarchists are really against formal structures. i mean, how could any Anarchist syndicate exist without formal structures... did not the CNT have them? (does it not still today?) there's a lot of stuff people push on the concept of Anarchism, not so much because they took a careful look at what Anarchists argue for or how they organize, but by preconceived ideas of what an Anarchist is "by definition."

You seem oblivious to the reality that 70% of the workers are in the service sector and not in the industry.

i've read a fair number of things by Anarchists (including in this messageboard) about how the traditional proletariat is practically dead, and that most people are working in the service sector (as Anarchos typically term it: doing non-productive labour). before i quit my job to move over to BC (Canada), i was working as a janitor in a highschool. the job i had before that was working in the fish department of a supermarket. we're a lot less oblivious to such things than you realize, i think.

Finally, there is a say in politics that often your biggest enemy is in your own camp i.e. it is not the opposition you have to worry about but the burgueoise elements in your party. I can understand that you hate comunism so much, but do you hate it as much as capitalism? or more? It is clear that you dont like Social Democrats, so who are your allies?

part of the reason for the existence of websites like this is that many Anarchists are quite fed up with what many here would call bourgeois elements amongst our own. this is also one reason why this is libcom.org rather than an(archist)com.org... part of the realization is the necessity to make an alliance with those of like-mind, such as the free marxists. earlier Social Democrats were often closer to Anarchists, but time has changed that.

you mentioned, in a further post:

And then you critize everyone, social democrats, trade unions, comunists. Dont you feel alienated enough? Isn't it obvious that the revolution in Spain failed because you did not have any allies?

Anarchists, throughout history (and still today) have made tactical alliances with all sorts of people - it's in the history books, you can see for yourself. and, as you've studied the Spanish Civil War, you *should* know quite well that the Anarchists DID have allies in that, and that the revolution failed precisely becasue of this. considering the views of the Anarchists, they practically bent over backwards to try to please their Liberal, Social Democratic, and even Communist "allies" - and you know very well that this only made it easier for the three latter to marginalize the Anarchist movement and crush the remainders of the revolution even before Franco and his lot came in.

so, today, lots of folk like the ones who hang around here are for a more sensible alliance - Anarchists and free Marxists, and perhaps anyone else who fits within our framework. when Anarchists try to ally with people who are aiming for very different goals - even Social Democrats - the results are usually very detrimental to the Anarchists. i mean, Fascists and Anarchists both claim to be anti-Capitalist, so why shouldnt we make an alliance? because, otherwise, our views are drastically different. Social Democrats are leaps and bounds better than Fascists generally, but your views are still drastically different than what Anarchists want.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 11, 2006

carlosgonzalez

Joseph K.

people here use bourgeois/burguesia to refer to the private property-owning class

The we have a problem, because all my working friend own property, in fact, 90% of people in Spain own their housing...

well two things -

1. at any given time the banks own most of those properties
2. unless these are second homes which are rented out, this is not private property at all but personal property because ownership correllates with possession - there is no alienation (unless there's a mortgage, when the house or part of it is the private property of the bank until the loan is paid off and it becomes the personal property of the occupants, unless it's a rented out second home ...)

there's a comment in the Communist Manifesto - 'you are shocked we would do away with private property - but you do not own any!' or something like that

this definition of private property is crucial to understanding the slogan 'property is theft'

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 11, 2006

((this is a response to Joseph in the Muslim thread)))

You are mistaken to think that the decision of an economic agent to sacrifice himself for others cannot be modeled in with utility / indifference curves. It is their shape that lead to particular decisions being taken, any possible decision can be explained in terms of indifference curves with particular patterns.

these curves are the tipical ones associated between choosing consumption between 2 goods. In the case of the granade, take the y axis as your personal utility and x axis as that of your comrade. If you dont give a shit about your comrade, your indiference curves are horizontal. If your comprade is your brother and you only care for his wellbeing, your indiference curves are vertical, given to choose between you and him i.e. choosing between two points in the graph, one where you have 0 utility and one where your comrade has 0 utility, that is are dead....

I do agree that as much as economics endeavours to be positiv it is extremely difficult, particularly in current theories which are not fully tested and where each individual brings his own ideas into it i.e. Keynesianism or Neoliberal Friedman MACROECONOMIC policy.

One aspect of Neoclassical economics wich I dare say you may find quite interesting is consumer surplus and producer surplus (profit)

The shaded areas represent the "pie" associated with the real benefits of market economy, please note that an alternative would be to discriminate between consumers and charge diferent prices to each, which could ultimately be used to reduce consumer surplus to cero and have all surplus as producer surplus (profi). Still discrimination is illegal by law and though there are cases were it exists they are buried deep in industrial economics.

So you would argue that if consumers/workers and workers/firms were one and the same thing, the workers would keep all consumer/producer surplus and since they represent only one economic agent, their decisions on price would be optimum. I totally agree with that, at least in principle becasue the real world is more complicated.

What troubles me is that you want to do away with prices, and I find that criminally irresponsible. Even Robinson crusoe in his island has prices!! Even though he doesnt call them that, but he nevertheless makes allocative decisions with prices in mind.

-----------------------------------------------------------

my point on incentives is that increased living standards are surely their own incentive?

Definitely, but how many different types of incentives are there? We would need a psicologist to tell us. You are assuming that it will be enough, but you are very particular about it because in Soviet rusia they presumiably also had that incentive but it was not sufficient.

I have been wondering why you guys dont discuss the issues of anarchism in a service economy and I think it is becasue you resist to wake up to the reality, that thanks to tecnologies agriculture employs only 3% of the population and industry less than 30%. As sindicalists you are too industry conscious and disregard the realities of a service economy.

For example, in an anarchist society, what if I want to cook delicious french foods, with dishes like lobster and caviar, after all workers have as much a right to enjoy them. Would I be paid (in money or kind) more than someone running a normal cantene, after all being a good cook is like being a good painter. And how would you decide who eats in my restaurant? Would you have rationing cards, i.e. 1 visit per family per year?

I too have seen the films of anarchist running expensive restaurants in Barcelona. But one thing is running something that is already there, and another very building it up from scratch yourselves.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 11, 2006

carlosgonzalez

What troubles me is that you want to do away with prices, and I find that criminally irresponsible. Even Robinson crusoe in his island has prices!! Even though he doesnt call them that, but he nevertheless makes allocative decisions with prices in mind.

I don't want to do away with quantitative informatic indicators, i just don't think they should be set by the aggregated actions of competitng agents in a market. like i say, the informatics of large scale gift economies is (afaik) very under theorised, and i'm hoping to be able to write something on it at some point. And if i'm wrong, like i say my fall-back is mutualism, which retains a market but without private property or the state; so if any communist revolution was leading to insurmountable allocation problems, we could just start trading again (non-state currencies sprung up during the economic collapse in Argentina as part of community trading networks, for example).

On incentives, i was reminded of an important point chatting to a workmate on the train today. Workers need no incentive to innovate to make their jobs eaiser (i.e. less work, more efficient). However, under capitalist conditions, incentives are needed to bribe workers to share such innovations with their bosses against their own interests - this is the class nature of incentives, which always-already imply alienation (i.e. separation of ownership/control from labour - private property in the sense i described above). Specifically, my workmate has designed a combination of database queries and spreadsheets that massively reduce his workload, but he knows if he tells our boss he'll either be out of the job (he's just started) or immediately assigned a whole load more work, but with higher performance expectations. With libertarian communism, such labour-saving could be generalised, with a disproportionate amount going to the immediate innovator if neccessary to recognise/reward the contribution to reducing the neccessary labour of all.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 11, 2006

1. at any given time the banks own most of those properties
2. unless these are second homes which are rented out, this is not private property at all but personal property because ownership correllates with possession - there is no alienation (unless there's a mortgage, when the house or part of it is the private property of the bank until the loan is paid off and it becomes the personal property of the occupants, unless it's a rented out second home ...)

there's a comment in the Communist Manifesto - 'you are shocked we would do away with private property - but you do not own any!' or something like that

this definition of private property is crucial to understanding the slogan 'property is theft'

Why so complicated Joseph? private property is private property, it gives the owner the right to do what it pleases i.e. I can rent out my property and turn into a landlord (firm), for all I know I can employ cleaner and watchmen and I may even set monopoly prices if I dont have much competition...

Banks do not own the property, the law is very clear about it. Having a mortgage only says that the asset, house, is set a collateral for a lone. Now in spain people are taking out mortgages not for buying their home, but because they want to buy a car, take a holiday or refurbish their apartment.

I like to keep things nice an simple. 100 years ago in spain only the rich burgueoise classes owned housing and most of people had to rent or live in squalers like the ones Jon has showed us. In that case I agree with the criticism of anarchism / Marx and I agree with radical solutions. But continue to maintain such ideas today just shows that you havent been able to move with the times and that your ideology is out of touch.

Let me bring it up again the 2 crucial issues I see, that you want to abolish the market/price system in favour of some centralised democratic resource allocation comittee (who will decide how much coal to allocate to each individal and production unit? by logic that it will have to be some centralised comitee as there is only one supply of coal....). Second, that your ideology has total disregard to the Service industry, and think that countries run on industry alone. You probably think that the service sector is there for the enjoyment of the "bourgueoise" (shame on you) and not because thanks to machines workers have been able to move out of the industries just as 150 years ago they moved out of agriculture.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 11, 2006

we talk about the shift to a 70%+ service economy a lot, actually, and how it signals how much pointless work is been created to keep capital going by commodifying all human interaction.

and recently someone uploaded a pretty pamphlet provocatively called 'abolish restaurants' on fine dining and anarchist communism - simply you can't view the consumption as separate from the production it requires; so basically if you're prepared to do your bit of that kind of work (waiting tables, working kitchens - but not neccessarily restaurant work just broadly equivalent tasks), i'd imagine others are too. consumption requires production, and we have no right to demand others produce in conditions that we would/do not accept for ourselves.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 11, 2006

carlosgonzalez

Why so complicated Joseph? private property is private property, it gives the owner the right to do what it pleases i.e. I can rent out my property and turn into a landlord (firm), for all I know I can employ cleaner and watchmen and I may even set monopoly prices if I dont have much competition...

it's not complicated, particularly for someone with an LSE degree in economics. Private property specifically carries the state-enforced right to earn income from your title while others use the asset and you retain ownership. That is a classic, undemocratic, tyrannical relationship where the owner can indeed do whatever they like (moderated by law, in theory at least) - the absolute power of private property. That is fundamentally different to the kind of 'property' owned by most of us which is for personal use (houses, cars computers ...), and conflating the two only serves to deny this fundamental difference, which is in fact the fundamental organising principle of capitalist society.

(yes, banks don't technically own mortgaged property, but they have a greater claim to the mortgaged part than the possessors, squatters' rights aside).

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 11, 2006

Ive just read your latest post...

I have very little knowledge of the price/market systems you propose, but it just sound like the same price/market system. You can use cigarettes or gold backed notes to trade, It doesnt make the price/market(trading) system any different. By the way, the system does not imply that all relations have to be taken at that level, just as family units are more comunal in nature.

Regarding inencives you will be surprised to hear (I hope not :)) that I totally agree with you and with your friend. Those issues are also modeled in economics with analogous conclusions to the ones you get.

The most basic one I suppose is the incentive of firms to where possible charge monopoly prices!!! That is about as old as economics gets...

I am not arguying that social democracies with their regulation of price market systems are the ideal system. I am saying that it is the best we have and that I do not think it can be improved through a revolution. Sure, you would solve many problems, but you would in turn create what I am convinced would be more serious problems of you own.

I know you dont like bolscheviks, but I insist that they were extremely successfull, they scared the US shit of their scientific advancement, they defeated Stalin, the set up possibly the greatest imperialistic power the world has ever seen... But it took 20 years for the US and western world to overtake and leave them behind in terms of living standards.

It is also sad to see how "capitalist" China is. When I was there I asked them what the difference was beetween comunist china and capitalism... they joked that China was the more capitalistic of the two... You guys probably agree with that, but you should be sad that 30 years of incredible growth and what it has represented to the chinese people, has to be thanks to not just the market, but also capitalist practices of the evil type you discuss. Chinese workers are the closest I have seen to slaves, and the saddest thing is that they were happy, accepting the working conditions and dam pleased to be out of the farm and becoming the families highest earner.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 11, 2006

carlosgonzalez

Let me bring it up again the 2 crucial issues I see, that you want to abolish the market/price system in favour of some centralised democratic resource allocation comittee (who will decide how much coal to allocate to each individal and production unit? by logic that it will have to be some centralised comitee as there is only one supply of coal....). Second, that your ideology has total disregard to the Service industry, and think that countries run on industry alone. You probably think that the service sector is there for the enjoyment of the "bourgueoise" (shame on you) and not because thanks to machines workers have been able to move out of the industries just as 150 years ago they moved out of agriculture.

look ffs WE ARE ANARCHISTS we are not advocating central planning. i know economics degrees teach that every economy or industry is somewhere between market-allocation and central planning, but that is exactly the dichotomy i have been arguing against, saying how it ignores fundamental issues which allow other possibilities to emerge.

And we do not ignore the service industry, workers' councils etc are just as valid whatever the activity to be co-ordinated. what we do note however is that no matter how much labour-saving technology is implemented we always have to work at least 40 hours a week to pay the bills, and that all sorts of fairly pointless* service jobs are being created to maintain the wage as the form of social control that rations access to the products of our social labour.

* pointless from the point of view of workers, profitable from the point of view of capitalists

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 11, 2006

carlosgonzalez

I have very little knowledge of the price/market systems you propose, but it just sound like the same price/market system.

a market is when the aggregated of interactions supply and demand set a (theoretically) equilibrium price, yes?

in that case, for example, having prices that were set by negotiation between decentralised local workers'/consumers' councils open to all, regardless of whether it would work or is desirable, would not be a market, correct? (although of course there would be market-like pressure across different localities to buy cheap and sell dear, if someone was so inclined, which is why i'm generally opposed to price rationing an commodity production (not production per se!) altogether, and propose either communism or failing that mutualism, and not any of the hybrid systems in between (Parecon etc).

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 11, 2006

Joseph, I love cooking and I have a very high regard for the service sector, but my impresions are confirmed that you guys do have a problem with it.

we talk about the shift to a 70%+ service economy a lot, actually, and how it signals how much pointless work is been created to keep capital going by commodifying all human interaction

Now, Feighnt wrote:

but also easier to become employed again, since workplaces could afford over-staffing (which, of course, helps to reduce hours to each individual with no material loss).

So I cannot but conclude that you are critizising modern economies for "pointless" jobs such as nice restaurants, tourism, dry cleaning, bars, internet cafes, and instead what you would do is shove all those people into factories, only have them work less and be bored the rest of the day.

That sounds exactly as the cambodian Kamer Rouge, only that they like Mao Tse Tung thought in terms of farmers and not industrial workers. So they emptied the cities and sent everyone to be "reeducated" in the countryside.

I insist that you are ignoring the reality, that just as in the middle ages 80% of the population worked in agriculture apart of a few artesans the ruling nobles and the clerics, we then come to 19th century industrial era were more productive means of production in agriculture lead to population boom and migration to the cities in search for work, which is ofcourse in demeaning industries. It is at that point that ANARCHISM takes shape, with genuine concerns and practical solutions to improve society.

But unfortunately for you history has continued to take its course and now industry is a minority sector thanks to technological advances and the capitalist systems of the 19th century have given way to modern social democracies where the majority of the population is in the service sector, and a vast majority of it enjoys modern living standards:

- privately owned housing
- cars, more than one in most house holds
- consumer goods - telephones, tv, computer, mobiles
- leisure - dining out going on holiday

And this is independent of wether they are hairdressers or crane operators!

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 11, 2006

having prices that were set by negotiation between decentralised local workers'/consumers' councils open to all, regardless of whether it would work or is desirable, would not be a market, correct?

Those "decentralised" local workers would make take economic decisions democratically and hence form what is called an ECONOMIC AGENT.

Lets picture a steel mill, with its corresponding councils, it will need to decide how many labour hours it needs but it will also need to make a demand for raw materials, coal, iron etc. This demand in turn would have to be transmitted to other economic agents i.e. worker councils in coal mines and iron mines, who in turn need to make decision on labour hours...

Well, you have the makings of a market there...

a market is when the aggregated of interactions supply and demand set a (theoretically) equilibrium price, yes?

Exactly, and I personally put the emphasys on THEORETICAL, as the price rarely takes shape. Very few markets are that efficien/competitive i.e. we have coal price, oil prices, orange prices. but still much of economic interactions work through contracts. A hairdresser is not paid per hair cut, just as a big client i.e. shipyard, may make an order to a steel mill that will take several months to serve, the conditions of which are set in a contrac too.

Ofcourse the contractual decisions of the hairdresser and of the shipyard are based on theoretical prices as the hairdresser will be paid with the revenue from the haircuts and the steel mill is going to use the revenues from the shipyard to cover its labour and resurce costs.

Maybe it would be better if you associated price wich cost, and not with burgeourse exploitation, because that is what it represents to the one who has to pay it. Infact, a competitive market is when the price equals the marginal cost:

P=MC(q)

as opposoed to a monopoly situation when when Marginal Revenue equals Marginal Cost

MR(P) = MC(P)

MC(P) and not MC(Q) because the monopoly know what price to set for a given quantity as it knows how the demand of the market works (demand curve)

We could continue to debate the nature of markets and the relevance of the price system, and in the end you would agree with me that there is nothing intrinsically ideological about them. The ideological nature of a given society is given by how it regulates the market, neolibs by deregulating and regressive taxation, left wing ideologies by regulating and progressive taxation.

You are extremely mistaken if you think the market is you enemy, it is your tool. This is parallel to workers and technology, machines are not the enemy, but the tool of the workers. Just as weaving workers vilently opposed the introduction of the spinning Jenny in the early 19th century u oppose the market and its price allocation system.

Instead you should use all the benefits and efficiencies of markets and prices and incorportating it in the working model of your ideology. Just as when the revolution comes you are not going to chuck out the machines, but take over their control.

You see now why I have such a problem with you gusy wanting to do away with markets and prices? You sound like revolutionary nutcrackers who would just as soon start sending everyone who critizised them to siberia... I do hope Joseph that you start to see the market as a tool just as modern workers see their machines as a tool.

--------------------------------------

The problem you face is that under a market system the restrictions of an economy become too real, and it is always better to hide by burying your head in sand like an obstrich than face the music.

For, what would you do when different worker councils start demanding and competing for resources. Maybe one of them is building a rocket and the other an ice breacker, would you get them together to negotiate out their differences? Or would you eventually do like the soviet bolscheviks and put in place a central authority to solve the conflict and eventually becaome moere authoritative than capitalist structures?

For all you blame comunists I dont think you will find their failures in their ideology, but their failures arise for the way they had to adapt to deal with the problems in the REAL world.

Furthermore, comunists are your closest allies, but you fight each other like the worst of enemies. For this alone capitalists deserve to tower over you, because your worker solidarity is so weak. With such rare solidarity among workers how long would it take before tensions would break out among workers councils? How would you deal with that?

Thats why I am a social democrat, because I dont have faith in the working classes, in extreme left wing ideals that fail to comfront reality and are profesional critiques, like religious fundamentalists that thinkeveryone except them is wrong.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 11, 2006

the market as such is not ideological, the emphasis on markets to the exclusion of social relations - 'commodity fetishism' - is ideological.

if you consider any decentralised system that takes into account the wills of multiple agents a market, then you are of course correct. but a market is characterised by the pursuit of the neccessarily very narrow interests of the parties to a transaction (which as you know, gives rise to externalities). as opposed to mitigating externalities with a coercive state apparatus, we'd rather eliminate them at source by including all effected parties as agents in the allocation process itself, an improvement on markets that tackles issues of externalities etc without the after-the-fact need for a coercive state (which brings with it all of its own well known problems of 'who watches the watchers', inevitable nepotism, kleptocracy etc).

siberia? wtf!? i disagree with you on a discussion board and you think you'll be on the train to the gulag? I'm glad i didn't go to LSE afterall (i had the grades ;) ), they seem to instill you with an excellent irrational fear of working class self-organisation that just can't help comparing everything to the USSR :? :P

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 11, 2006

just seen your edit: look, you keep repeating that i'm ideological and out of touch with the real world, which is a bit rich coming from someone who doesn't work and who spouts textbook economics all over the place, especially when i've already said if a large scale gift economy can't deliver the goods (pun intended ;) ), i'd settle for mutualism - which has a market. You're the one advocating a benevolent state, and you call anarchists idealist dreamers!

Statists of whatever variety are not the allies of anarchists (or workers in general), which is not an ideological position but one based on history - in practice pragmatic allegences are possible or even likely, but anarchists have tended to come off worse. Just because someone says they're a communist, anti-capitalist etc doesn't make it so - do you know how many workers (including anarchists) were massacred for the state-capitalist 'success' of the USSR? bolsheviks are as much our allies as bosses (although of course because many bolsheviks think they are pro-worker all it takes is a change of ideas to be an ally, whereas a boss has to reject their materially priveleged position, so in that sense bolsheviks are more likely to become alllies - i think several posters here are ex-Trotskyists for example).

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 11, 2006

can we have some more graphs, please?

It really brightened up my day to have a chuckle at the fact that you actually think these things describe something about reality :grin:

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 11, 2006

Yep, I have been repeating myself and being kind of pungent, Im a bit of a provocateur :)

For me economics is a science and I have tried to argue that it is a tool and not by nature the supporter of any particular ideology. I have not been able to express this better than in my last post.

I need to read on mutualism, I no nothing about it.

do you know how many workers (including anarchists) were massacred for the state-capitalist 'success' of the USSR?

Millions on top of the 4 million ukranian peasants who died of starvation.

But that is the sad reality of it, that what started as a legitimate workers movement turned into an even larger evil than the capitalistic structures.

By the way, do you include Troskites, Leninists and Stalininst in you ide of Bolscheviks? I remember there were the Mencheviks, ill go and read a little and brush up on my rusian revolution.

-----------------------------------

I know I have called you idealists just once too often, but perhaps it is becasue deep inside I am a conservative and do not accept the legitimacy of drastic regime changes. I see the slow forces of history that has shapped our societies and after 200 years of workers struggle we are back to where we started, but with hundreds of million dead as a result of fighting and dying for "ideals".

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 11, 2006

well, as you pointed out earlier, often people haven't been called to the barricades by ideals alone, but by their material conditions. but yes, the history of defeated revolutions is tragic, but to my mind less tragic than the passively accepted status quo that sees thousands worldwide die needlessly everyday, and in the UK 1000 young men kill themselves every year, while depression is rocketing, apparently more so amongst the young. everyday life under capitalism is a tragedy, even in the richest countries in history. thats why i'm a (libertarian) communist

(of course i'm not all oh-so-victimised, i make the most of things and enjoy life as much as i can, but i ain't happy about it ;))

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 11, 2006

I know economics degrees teach that every economy or industry is somewhere between market-allocation and central planning

It doesnt, history does. I havent studied central planning systems and barely heard them mentioned as we dont live in a planned economy and economics, like every science, is very pragmatic in its approach.

irrational fear of working class self-organisation that just can't help comparing everything to the USSR

I've heard Chekas mentioned a couple of times around and it wasnt me :)

On a more philosofical level I am more concerned with facing the problems in my own existance before attempting to help or blame others.

So far you have shown to me that you have an ideology of squatters, being able to successfully address a few failings of society. If you were true to your ideals and had any entrepeneurial spirit then we would be surrounded by successfull cooperatives. The fact that we dont means that you are all great ideologues but lousy entrepeneurs, but ofcourse, in a revolution you would forcefully turn all of society into workers.

You will end up with something similar to Cuba, a country which has been frozen in time, condemned to using the same cars all over again. Cuba could be a paradise if the rest of the world was worse of than it...

You critize the comunists for being capitalistc at heart, but I see that you are full of envy and rage at the oppresors and their system. Rather than provide a real alternative you are seeking REVENGE.

P.S. What is the suicide level in Cuba? How does the suicide level in the UK compare to that of the US and other countries with a greater or lesser degree of capitalism? Does capitalism lead to suicide? You have the makings of an interesting paper there.

--------------------------------------------------------

Who are the "modern capitalist"? I mean, I cannot think of a country that would not come under criticism by your ideas? How would you differentiate them i.e

Neolib governments (USA, Rusia, Latin America)
Social Demorcracies (Europe, Canada, Australia, etc)
Communist countries? China? Vietnam? Cuba?

And I suppose that all other countries would fit somewhere in here. Iran? Indonesia? Morocco?

Do you make allawances for Nationalistic goventments, Dictatorships, Absolutist Monarchies?

Is there any system at the moment which is not capitalist to some degree? Is capitalism a question of degree?

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 11, 2006

carlosgonzalez

You will end up with something similar to Cuba,

I think that's a bit overambitious

a bookfair and a libcom.org seem a lot more reasonable for the foreseeable future

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 11, 2006

how am i to be an entrpreneur? i can only get the capital by accepting the logic of capital i am seeking to reject, i.e. taking a loan, compteting in a capitalist-dominated market, paying myself less to compete. Its like saying i can vote for the 'anarchist party' if i oppose the state; oxymoronic (or maybe just moronic? ;) ). We don't want a world of highly competitive workers co-ops, we want a world based on solidarity, co-operation and mutual aid.

Funnily enough, the bosses over the years have designed the rules of the game to prevent idealistic young upstarts ruining all their fun by simply setting up rival co-ops (which would anyway be self-managed alienation, locked into capitalism as a whole). The sole criterion to succeed as an 'anticapitalist entrepreneur' is the acceptance and internalisation of capitalist logic, other than that, no problem :roll:

carlosgonzalez

You critize the comunists for being capitalistc at heart, but I see that you are full of envy and rage at the oppresors and their system. Rather than provide a real alternative you are seeking REVENGE.

are you quite done with you hysterical pyschoanalysis? ffs where do i advocate vengeance? where is my anger at injustice translated into demands for retribution? Were slaves just 'jealous' or 'envious' of their masters or did they have grounds to be pissed off at the injustice of the situation? What nietzche missed when he made the same accusation a century ago is that the desire not to rule or be ruled is an affirmation born of love, not a ressentimental/envious desire to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator.

and please at least read some of the volumes on anarcho-syndicalism, workers' councils, libertarian communism and even mutualism and parecon before saying 'you don't provide an alternative' - you're the one saying there is no alternative ffs.

to be honest, i'm bored with your circular provocations now, i think i'll waste my boss' time on something else

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 11, 2006

Exactly my point, you dont believe in partys so you dont vote for yourself... :) You didnt want to be part of the republic and got fucked by it... Anarchism will always fight alone because it doesnt want to compromise.

You are more virgin than the virgin Mary :) :) :) :) :)

Come on, dont tell me you cannot stand up to a few "bosses"...

The sole criterion to succeed as an 'anticapitalist entrepreneur' is the acceptance and internalisation of capitalist logic,

Bull..... Look man, I am against guns, but wouldnt think it twice in using one to defend me, my family, friend or fellow anarco ideologues :)

And who said anything about capitalist logic? What does that have to do with setting a cooperative. Even in your revolutionary society, production is going to require investment in means of production. You have already agree that the price system may be desirable, 10 more posts and you will be convinced of the need to setup anarco-banks, lol :) :) :)

Come on, look at the Amish, they have their own society within a society, just as you can have your own anticapitalistic system within a capitalistic system. Stop looking for excuses and petit critiques, you are missing the tree for the forest.

------

P.D have u seen my latest edit above, I would really appreciate a few pointers about todays capitalistic systems.

Feighnt

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Feighnt on October 11, 2006

...

i think a good reason why people didnt start discussing the service industry in their discussions with you, carlos, is simply the fact that it was never really brought up or especially relevant to the specific points people were talking about at the moment. something else we havent said much about is ecology (as it hasnt really come up in the course of the discussion), so perhaps you'll accuse Anarchists of having no concern for the environment? HEY, now that i think of it - nowhere in these discussions have you said anything about the handicapped... therefore, you obviously think that nothing should be done to help them! :\

i really see absolutely no connection to what you quoted me saying to the idea that Anarchists believe service jobs to be pointless. however, i doubt you would even argue that SOME service jobs are genuinely pointless (like, for example, the job i did in the fish department of the supermarket - that was a real waste of time). but, my point was very straightforward: without the wage system, you could afford to overstaff jobs. i dont understand why you would think this wouldnt extend into service jobs - when i was a janitor, it would've been really useful if we got genuinely overstaffed so we could all take off early.

and instead what you would do is shove all those people into factories, only have them work less and be bored the rest of the day.

... huh? i'm terribly bored at work. i'm not bored when i'm at home. what, do you just sit and stare at a wall all day when you're not working?

For all you blame comunists I dont think you will find their failures in their ideology, but their failures arise for the way they had to adapt to deal with the problems in the REAL world.

for a professed Social Democrat, you sure seem pretty clueless about socialism. Anarchists DID make criticisms - very potent, far-seeing criticisms - of their ideology WAY before they ever achieved an inch of power. and it's not really surprising, since these guys generally did come out and say, upfront "yeah, we want dictatorships, where our party will hold those nice dictatorial positions."

Furthermore, comunists are your closest allies, but you fight each other like the worst of enemies.

very well, fair enough. you've made me see the light. so, here's what i'll do: offer an alliance - bolshevik style!

but, in this alliance, you will be completely subservient to me. if you do something which opposes my wishes, you'll be punished. that way, everyone wins! :D what? you saying you wont win that way? nonsense - i'm your wise, benevolant leader, and i know what's best for you, what your interests are. so, you see, if you oppose me, you're really opposing your own interests! and wouldnt that be silly?? now, shush up and be a good little drone.

er...

partner. i mean. yeah. partner.

:\ THIS is the kind of alliance you want us in? because it's what has always happened.

and, by the way, yes, trots, leninists, and stalinists were bolshevists. Leninism was the original form of bolshevism. trotsky was originally a menshevik, but converted early in the revolution. as far as i can see, stalin just decided to take what lenin and trotsky and their bunch did and push it forward.

as a final note: the more i read your messages, the more i'm inclined to think you're not even vaguely interested in learning our side of things at all - because, even when people debate with you in an extremely civilized manner (and nobody is being more civilized than Joseph), you start throwing wild accusations around, like that people are going to go attack you, send you to siberia, or institue a bloody hideous regime like the bloody khmer rouge!

frankly, the more i see what you're saying, i'm thinking you decided it'd be fun to go smash the ideals of a bunch of Anarchists, who you assumed were a bunch of starry-eyed irrational children, and perhaps get them to convert en masse to your views. and i frankly think it's upsetting you considerably that, not only are the people here not collapsing like a house of cards, they're actually heatedly offering counter-arguments to just about anything you say.

i hate to make accusations like this, but, really... i've heard people argue with Anarchists without trying to proselytize them, and i've also seen the typical attempts by people who assume they know tons about Anarchism and decide they're going to use this "knowledge" to crush some ideals.

as i said, i generally hate to make such accusations, but, frankly... when you start spouting crap off about how we sound like religious fundamentalists who are going to beat you up and ship you off to a gulag (when nobody has even suggested an intent to harm you - *certainly* not Joseph)... you kind of lose a lot of credibility, in my eyes.

Feighnt

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Feighnt on October 11, 2006

ugh, and, bloody hell.

yeah, the AMISH are a GREAT example of a successful counter-society??? who the hell is getting converted to THAT lifestyle?

if you're looking for something so small and undramatic as the Amish, then i might point out that, throughout history, Anarchists HAVE made counter institutions. it's not altogether uncommon today to see Anarchist worker's cooperatives involved in various areas (AK Press is an obvious example, but something a bit less obvious i've heard of was a collective which made bicycles). Anarchists have rather often throughout history established alternative schools based on Anarchistic ideals. and, beside that - especially during the hippie era - you'd occasionally see some Anarchists go and try to make an autonomous Anarchist community (or, as close to autonomist as they could get). of course, the latter, at least, Anarchists tend to reject, as it does little but make a tiny little Anarchist ghetto - a "ghetto" in the sense that nobody pays attention to it or is convinced by it, and literally, since they're typically going to be in piss-poor condition, as they're really tiny communities trying to fend for themselves.

stop with your smug demands for Anarchists to do this or do that - if you'd looked a bit more into history, you'd find out that, more often than not, Anarchists HAVE made alternatives when they found it viable.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 11, 2006

What nietzche missed when he made the same accusation a century ago is that the desire not to rule or be ruled is an affirmation born of love, not a ressentimental/envious desire to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator.

Earlier you said that just because comunists say that they are anticapitalistic doesnt make them so. I have quietly beared plenty of insults and attacks and it is clear that in a revolution a majority will be forced to conform.

to be honest, i'm bored with your circular provocations now, i think i'll waste my boss' time on something else

I dont blame you, but be honest, how entrenched are your ideas? If we cannot reach some kind of an agreement through a civilized discussion what right does any one idea have to triumph over another? You are right that the system coerces through violence, but maybe it has a right to do so because no one idea should be predominant and we deserve to live in the cest pool of mediocracy.

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 11, 2006

Hi

The ideological nature of a given society is given by how it regulates the market, neolibs by deregulating and regressive taxation, left wing ideologies by regulating and progressive taxation.

Well that’s one way of looking at it I suppose. Social economic activity, certainly under the above model view, is really an aggregate of individual behaviours across the ideological spectrum. Consequently, successfully “moving” communists rightwards, towards the Social Democrat position, just bolsters neo-liberalism. That is to say, in order for the social democracy you advocate to flourish against the neo-liberal agenda it requires communism’s continued survival, albeit in its current marginalised form.

You see now why I have such a problem with you gusy wanting to do away with markets and prices?

I’m sure, given the adversity they already overcome daily, communists’ ideological totems will survive even your devastating logic.

You’re aware there are even more eloquent critiques of communism on the market, so I’m left wondering what you’re bringing to the party by presenting us with yours. What is it you hope to achieve?

The question of individual objectives is vital. It’s the conflict between what people want and the options availed to them by hierarchical society that sound the death knell for the whole spectrum of bourgeois ideologies from national socialism, through neo-liberalism, social democracy, communism and anarchism.

You may be right when you say there’s no escape from markets and prices in the abstract economic sense. This further mitigates the mistaken view that, in Spain, basking in the generosity of current European monetary policy, the era of class conflict is over, consigned to history’s dustbin by social democratic consensus. But the bourgeoisie’s insatiable need to maintain their privileged social status fuels the implementation of social and economic policies which result in deindustrialisation, inflation, rising differentials between wages and the cost of living, overwork, taxation, debt-slavery, boredom, poverty and war. Problems that social democracy is as incapable of solving as neo-liberalism or communism.

Love

LR

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 11, 2006

carlosgonzalez

what right does any one idea have to triumph over another?

none whatsoever - that's why we reject your neoliberal social democracy and all its bullshit about the importance of the market

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 11, 2006

Hi

what right does any one idea have to triumph over another?

The profit accrued to its advocate.

Love

LR

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 11, 2006

Dear feighnt history shows that whenever idealists had tried to change their societies many things have gone wrong. You are hoping for a revolution and I feel justified by history to bring up parallelisms with the past.

I did not come to the lib com forum to bash anarchists, I didnt even know that this was an anarchist forum, I thought it was communist and hence the title of the post. I came because I wanted to confront marxists political thought with its specialized terminology, like proletarian, working class, burgueouis or capitalism, terms that I do not readily accept. I also wanted to defend economics as a human tool without intrinsic idiological value. Finaly I wanted to face my demons because I have often learnt more about life and people through confrontational dialogue. Preaching to the converted is endogamic and leads to aberrations.

These past few days have been my first and only contact with anarchists. I have been surprised by how coerced you feel by wage labour and realized that I have felt it too myself (though I dont blame the system but the different characters of my employers). I have understood why you consider societies to be violent and corrupt and how you identify the "capitalist" structure as the problem. I only agree with you to a very small extent, but I understand were you are coming from.

I have heard that anarchism is internationalist in nature but also statements to the contrary saying that local farmers and industry should be subsidized at the expense of exports from developing nations.

I have learnt of the history of relations between anarchism and comunism, and heard plenty of understandable criticism.

I have also felt quite reminiscent of the 1936 revolution in Catalunya, falling back to memories of the documentaries, films and video extracts that I have seen, and how all these ideas and attitudes fall into the picture.

And finally I have drawn my own conclusion of the nature and future of anarchism and voiced them, too loudly at times and possibly repeatedly.

However I felt that if I had let it go at that I would have been accused of having been "beaten" and I do not blame Joseph for considering that I have been circular, returning to the same arguments were I did not consider the matter to be settled.

Ultimately we seem to have come to a standstill as we were doomed from a start, though as I have repeatedly mention you have made a considerable impact on my perceptions, albeight not a revolutionary one.

At the end of the day what we have is our mutual respect and some common ground.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 11, 2006

The question of individual objectives is vital. It’s the conflict between what people want and the options availed to them by hierarchical society that sound the death knell for the whole spectrum of bourgeois ideologies from national socialism, through neo-liberalism, social democracy, communism and anarchism.

Hierarchical society... now that is a substitute for capitalism that I am totally happy with, it is a definite characateristic of the systems you mention.

Instead of bourgueoise I think "property holders" is more graphic, even it is limited to that productive property and not personal property (property in itself seem to imply its private). It is just that "bourguoise" is such an ambivolent term that it works rather as an adjective to mean that class of people you identify as the oppresors by virtue of suporting an unjust system, and it probably varies from person to person, let alone if they have different worker ideologies.

The bottom line is that I think that you are alienating yourselves by using such a restrictive terminology that only you can understand. Instead I would like your ideas rewriten into a more accesible language and I am definitely biased towards the language of economics because it is scientific.

which result in deindustrialisation, inflation, rising differentials between wages and the cost of living, overwork, taxation, debt-slavery, boredom, poverty and war.

War? Hellooooooo!!! We were the first to pull out of iraa. Inflation? where? Boredom? You mean at work, because spain is a much nicer place to leave than the UK, I know. Debt-slavery? Yeah, but atleast we own our houses and build up considerable personal wealth in the process.

By the way, the European Union has no monetary policy (interest rate decision in the hands of the ECB) only Fiscal policy which indeed has resulteyd in considerable money transfers to Spain, thank you very much.

Would it surprise you to hear that most of spaniards do not acknowledge the generosity of the European Union and are totally oposed to not receiving these transfers? let alone helping other countries who are worse of...

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 11, 2006

carlosgonzalez

These past few days have been my first and only contact with anarchists. I only agree with you to a very small extent, but I understand where you are coming from.

ok, only a few days more, then, and you'll be ready to become one of us

you have to pass a few initiation tests - but I think you've got what it takes, though, so don't worry unnecessarily

if you want to know the rules before you sign up, I suggest you look here, which is an ancient document that we base our own membership terms on - ANCIENT DOCUMENT ON HOW TO JOIN THE SECRET ANARCHIST SOCIETY

If you can't be bothered to read it, just let me sum up - we will not tolerate immediatism.

OK?

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 11, 2006

oh god don't point him at the ICC he was just starting to think not all communists are nutters!

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 11, 2006

John being funny???

He must feel left out :) :) :)

Are you sure noone has to send out a newsletter, call in a comeittee, discuss the issues and finally vote on whether I am a communist burgueoise or a neolib policy maker?

Or worse!!! I could be an anarcho-primitivist!!! Beware!!!

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 11, 2006

carlosgonzalez

He must feel left out

you're right, of course - how perceptive - ever since you failed to respond to my repeated attempts to irritate you I've been left with an empty void in my life

carlos

Are you sure noone has to send out a newsletter, call in a comeittee, discuss the issues and finally vote on whether I am a communist burgueoise or a neolib policy maker?

don't worry, that all comes after the initiation tests. But like I said, I think you should be fine - you've certainly got what it takes.

once you're in, though, I want you to remember who sponsored your application, as I'll be looking for backers for my own long-term bid to become an admin

Lazlo_Woodbine

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazlo_Woodbine on October 11, 2006

carlosgonzalez

Or worse!!! I could be an anarcho-primitivist!!! Beware!!!

Don't break cover, brother!

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 11, 2006

Actually I quite enjoy the way you criticise bolsheviks :) :) they certainly deserve it, for one, they are monopolising the term "comunist" and slandering it :) :) As joseph would say, havent they killed enough workers already?

(4 pages later... the title of the topic begins to have some relevance...)

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 11, 2006

Hi

Instead of bourgueoise I think "property holders" is more graphic

Graphic but incorrect.

It is just that "bourguoise" is such an ambivolent term that it works rather as an adjective to mean that class of people you identify as the oppresors

I don’t think of them as oppressors, I think of them as inconveniences.

The bottom line is that I think that you are alienating yourselves

Its easy to compensate for one’s alienating politics by maintaining a cheery demeanour, generous nature and ostentatious displays of personal wealth.

I am definitely biased towards the language of economics because it is scientific.

Cheeky. I’m not trying to change your mind, just advertise your ideological bankruptcy to interested third parties.

War? Hellooooooo!!! We were the first to pull out of iraa

By this logic if a bunch of Israeli terrorists start blowing you up, you should go back in.

You mean at work, because spain is a much nicer place to leave than the UK

No doubt. That explains why the UK underclass can afford to buy your houses as winter homes whilst you can’t even drink the water from your own taps.

By the way, the European Union has no monetary policy (interest rate decision in the hands of the ECB) only Fiscal policy which indeed has resulteyd in considerable money transfers to Spain, thank you very much.

I’m surprised a man of your obvious experience doesn’t realise that pedantry indicates a concession that one refuses to acknowledge for fear of losing face.

he was just starting to think not all communists are nutters

JK, this guy should think all communists are nutters. You should be more worried if he didn’t.

Now look, carlos, as an experiment, try making a serious point without telling us how you feel about this or that. The vast majority of people think communism is dead or dying, in what way is your spin on it worthy of special consideration?

Love

LR

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 11, 2006

By this logic if a bunch of Israeli terrorists start blowing you up, you should go back in.

LR, Spain did not pull out of Iraq because of the Madrid Bombing, that is exactly what the neolibs and the national catholics want you to believe.

Aznar started fucking things up a year and a half before the March elections, every few months there was a crisis: Prestige, Yakolev, support for US against Iraq at the UN... The bombings were just the last crisis, they mismanaged it totally trying to make the spanish public believe that it had been ETA. Even today the matter is till front page news as they insist that there is a possible ETA link with the bombings. The last thing they have done is fake a police report which they claim was banned from being published, where infact it was not accepted by the scientific police heads because it was totally speculative and not meeting the scientific criateria. This happened barely 10 days ago.

UK underclass can afford to buy your houses as winter homes whilst you can’t even drink the water from your own taps.

Aren't you just a bit too patronising?

And by the way, I have always drank tap water, I dont like to waste my money with bottled water.

The vast majority of people think communism is dead or dying, in what way is your spin on it worthy of special consideration?

I think that Marx and Engels responded to the realities of their times, they looked at the problem and provied solutions in a rational way.

What saddens me is that 150 years later the same ideas, the same particular vocabulary and the same thinkers are being quoted.

A few days in this forum does not make me an expert, but I bet all my savings that if Marx and Engels would be present today they would identify diferent problems, give diferent solutions and use diferent terminology.

Being an egotistical individual I would like to think that they would side with left wing social democracies.

P.S. Everyone seems to have their own definition of burguoise, private property, working class, etc. I dare say that I prefer those of Joseph K.

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 11, 2006

Hi

LR, Spain did not pull out of Iraq because of the Madrid Bombing, that is exactly what the neolibs and the national catholics want you to believe

Oh nice one. I set ‘em up, you knock ‘em down.

Aren't you just a bit too patronising?

I apologise for hurting your feelings.

What saddens me is that 150 years later the same ideas, the same particular vocabulary and the same thinkers are being quoted.

It might sadden you, but I’m sure it delights the bourgeoisie in general.

A few days in this forum does not make me an expert, but I bet all my savings that if Marx and Engels would be present today they would identify diferent problems, give diferent solutions and use diferent terminology.

That would be true regardless of their utility to the working class. But this is merely more evidence to support your thesis that communism is dying. I ask you, how could anyone not be convinced by now?

Being an egotistical individual I would like to think that they would side with left wing social democracies.

Comrade, not only did they side with left wing social democrats, they were the original left wing social democrats. Good grief, I’d quit whilst I was ahead if I were you.

Love

LR

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 11, 2006

carlos, i do actually agree about the 19th century jargon, it's mostly used 'internally' amongst people who already agree on the basics and not in outward-looking material like flyers or intros to lib com ideas etc; 'bosses' is probably clearer than 'bourgeois' and 'hierarchy' clearer than 'private property' and 'the state', even though these clearer terms aren't as strictly accurate or nuanced.

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 11, 2006

Hi

"Bosses" implies that self-employed people are not working class subject to bourgeois authority. Also some bosses are working class. I think the term you’re looking for is “middle class”.

Or is your boss a member of the ruling class? I bet he doesn't feel like it. (Actually I bet carlos's savings)

Love

LR

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 11, 2006

"what boss does not himself feel bossed"

but yeah, it's problematic, which is why we tend to talk about 'capital' as an agent, covering anyone who acts as it's human personification - quite confusing for economists though for whom capital is not a social relation of accumulated 'dead labour' but simply wealth that 'produces' more wealth; land, labour, buildings, machinery etc.

we could just make everyone read marx on pain of gulag though :P

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 11, 2006

Hi

"what boss does not himself feel bossed"

R. Branson? I don't know, I'm sure I know a few though. It's down to individual psychology I think. I mean, I’m bossed all the time, but I don’t feel bossed at all. I couldn’t give a toss, sometimes I like to be ordered about. (In fact I can imagine paying someone to do it to me. Ho ho, don’t tell knightrose).

Love

LR

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 11, 2006

yeah the quote (vaneigem's i think) doesn't really apply to multi-millionaire entrepreneurs who do business in their sleep. the point being that the few actual proper bosses i know, while generally loving being capitalists, do feel like they can't stop for a minute or their rivals will steal a march on them.

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 11, 2006

Hi

True enough. The thing is though that there is an identifiable social strata with inordinate reactionary influence over social situations, including at the highest level the development of bourgeois political policy. "Professional Management", Entrepreneurs, Teachers, Doctors, Judges, MPs, Lawyers, you know the sort. The kind that vouch for you on your passport application, write supporting letters to your mortgage company and help get you off in court. Some of them can be quite left wing, but they continually and often fully consciously, maintain the hierarchal society that affords them their privileged social status.

Communists, it strikes me, have never really grasped that it not a question of who owns capital, but who is most influential in its deployment. I concede that, in some ways, this is a sociological phenomena.

Having said that, Castoriadis’ early thoughts on this do seem somewhat simplistic. Lately, taking into account lessons from games of strategy and empirical experiments in democracy, I’ve been toying with the idea that the bourgeoisie are a social network who set out the options (or even social-roles) from which proletarians are allowed to select.

Love

LR

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 11, 2006

sounds like class deleuzified :P

(jargon alert: as in gilles deleuze, the philosopher known for his advocacy of networks instead of hierarchies, as well as being an inaccessible post-structuralist nob ;))

Feighnt

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Feighnt on October 12, 2006

carlos: concerning your reply to me -

well, ok, my apologies, then -_-; sorry!

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 12, 2006

I have had to meditate the last posts carefully.

I like LR idea

it not a question of who owns capital, but who is most influential in its deployment.

It seems to go along the lines of (in my own words), "the bourgueouise are those who opress", be it labour (class struggle) or the market (monopoly).

If we take the paradigm of a competitive market, where bosses, by virtue of the competition between them, cannot indulge in monopoly practices, and firms profit is equivalent to a legitimate salary to the boss for his work.

It fits nicely with the idea that self-employed are workers because they generally work in highly competitive markets (plumbers, carpenters, gas instalators, etc) and rather than earning monopoly profits they end up getting an honest living for honest work.

-------------------------------------------------

i do actually agree about the 19th century jargon, it's mostly used 'internally' amongst people who already agree on the basics and not in outward-looking material

Unfortunately anyone that wants to approach an understanding of your ideas has to fight with the jargon. The term "anarchist" relates to anarchy and nothing could be further away from the reality of your postulates: comunism and democratic management and allocation of the means of production and resources by the workforce.

----------------------------------------------------

When I was studying in London I came in contact with a communist student organisation. In their meeting I came in contact with the term "CIVIL SOCIETY"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society

Civil society comprises the totality of voluntary civic and social organizations and institutions that form the basis of a functioning society as opposed to the force-backed structures of a state (regardless of that state's political system).

I like the idea that change can come gradually and through playing out the complexities of the fabric of society: working classes, religions, ethnicities, regionalism, age groups, sexes, ideologies, etc.

I think that this diversity and complexity of interests and relations in society cannot be appropriately acknowledged by abrupt revolutionary change, but should be gradual.

I have read that there are anarchist-feminists and black-anarchists, but our societies have responded effectively to the challenges, in Spain for example, PSOE has 50% women representation in parliament and government. It hence begs the question, why are workers issues still unresolved? Are they?

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 12, 2006

carlosgonzalez

bosses, by virtue of the competition between them, cannot indulge in monopoly practices, and firms profit is equivalent to a legitimate salary to the boss for his work.

you can do better than that! the political economists marx was critiquing didn't even offer that as a defence of capitalism :P
Adam Smith

the profits of stock, it may perhaps be thought, are only a different name for the wages of a particular sort of labour, the labour of inspection and direction. They are, however, altogether different ... and bear no proportion to the quantity, the hardship or the ingenuity of this supposed labour

________

carlosgonzalez

I have read that there are anarchist-feminists and black-anarchists, but our societies have responded effectively to the challenges, in Spain for example, PSOE has 50% women representation in parliament and government. It hence begs the question, why are workers issues still unresolved?

because reforms are never enough, and are always granted solely to stave off fundamental change? 'minority' rulers are still rulers

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 12, 2006

Hi

I like LR idea

Back off, Social Democracy Boy, you don't get to share my analysis.

Love

LR

Lazy Rizer

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Rizer on October 12, 2006

Hi

Lazy Riser

Back off, Social Democracy Boy, you don't get to share my analysis.

Don't listen to what he says - you can have our analysis any time you want it. Provided you don't turn it into some kind of principled statement that is.

Love

LR'

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 12, 2006

hmmm ...

LR - libcom.org - LR'
fig.1 simple circulation of Lazy

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 12, 2006

Joseph, not all that we normally refer to as profits are so in the strict sense. Your definition is much wider than mine. I only accept monopoly profits as such.

Under perfect competition there are no profits. All resources involved in production need to be paid their fair price:
- "manual" labour hours
- profesionnals, i.e.management, organisation, engineers,etc.
- financing and risk taking, i.e. entrepeneurial spirit

I know that we disagree here, but nobody is willing to do or has ever done any of the above for FREE.

Where we do agree is that in the absence of perfect competition firms are making money in excess of what the corresponding resources cost. Those profits, monopoly profits, are not legitimate and damage the economy because production is lower than optimum.

Even if a firm is owned by shareholders who are all working class, it is still producing less than desirable and is an inefficient outcome, i.e. can be improved. Positiv economics is extremely clear about these negative effects.

--------------------------

I have rewriten this post ten times, please read it carefully :)

I hope you see that we can now turn to arguying whether organisation and financing have a "fair" price worth paying.

However I acknowledge that we live in two different worlds, I in one that accepts the reality of hierarchical society and willing to reward that wich is scarce, be it labour, finance or entrepeneurial spirit. You on the other, fighting for a liberal comunist world with deomcratic management of the means of production by worker/consumers and hence do not see any legitimacy in paying someone else for that which workers could do themselves.

I think I understand you correctly, even though I dont agree.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 12, 2006

carlosgonzalez

All resources involved in production need to be paid their fair price:
- "manual" labour hours
- profesionnals, i.e.management, organisation, engineers,etc.
- financing and risk taking, i.e. entrepeneurial spirit

I know that we disagree here, but nobody is willing to do or has ever done any of the above for FREE

yeah, the people who maintain this website only do it for the cash, not to mention the programmers who code the open source software it runs on :roll: This is the generalisation of neoclassical axioms to all of society and history that i warned you about; you're just way off, there's all sorts of examples of non-commodity production or exchange even in present day society where the commodity-form's dominance is maintained by force.

really, all this stuff about 'fair prices' misses the point that labour is a unique 'commodity' in that it creates value - a fair price from the boss' point of view is one that allows the worker to reproduce themselves (food, housing, clothes, necessary education, enough of a social life not to kill yourself from depression etc), but that isn't to say the boss actually does any labour in any proportion to the profits created by the difference between what he pays his workers and the value they produce ('surplus-value'), as Adam Smith himself pointed out.

And perfect competition? Please! you treat it like it's a real thing and not a hypothetical construct, and then label us idealists :roll:

You can argue about 'fair prices' using your LSE economics all day, but i'd still point you at Marx, who dealt with all this the first time around.

and your summary is not incorrect, although we say libertarian communist as opposed to liberal communist because liberalism is a statist ideology (Adam Smith, J.S. Mill, Jeremy Bentham etc). however, of course i accept the reality of hierarchical society, i'm keeping an eye out for my boss as i type this; what i don't accept is the neccessity of hierarchical society, which makes attempts to reform it as an end in itself aount to a cry for 'bigger cages, longer chains!'

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 12, 2006

Open software programers started the movement because they wanted to be able to program without being slave to copyrights. Furthermore open source is not against making money, many enterprises have arisen that make money providing consulting services on adapting and maintaining the services i.e. Redhat.

Similarly libcom.org may not have anyone working full time, but those trade unions and organisations who do pay them a salary.

And perfect competition? Please! you treat it like it's a real thing and not a hypothetical construct, and then label us idealists

The complexity of the real world leads us to focus on certain aspect using models and paradigms to study and comprehend parts of it at a time.

fair price from the boss' point of view is one that allows the worker to reproduce themselves

Your view of the boss is as an agent that does not add value and hence I agree with you.

You have not understood the depth of my previous post, or I failed to get it throught, my point is very close to the one you make:

Surplus value (producer surplus) == MONOPOLY PROFITS.

Under perfect competition there is no surplus value, no producer surplus, no monopoly profit. But then I am talking in term of the general model in its most simple form and we coudl argue how competitive or monopolistic the economy is i.e. close or away from the optimum.

what i don't accept is the neccessity of hierarchical society, which makes attempts to reform it as an end in itself aount to a cry for 'bigger cages, longer chains!'

Fair enough, but class struggle does not mean one class has to triumph. Social democracy is a compromise not meant to satisfy comunist or capitalist.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 12, 2006

carlosgonzalez

Similarly libcom.org may not have anyone working full time, but those trade unions and organisations who do pay them a salary.

but you said
carlosgonzalez

but nobody is willing to do or has ever done any of the above [labour, organise] for FREE

which is obviously bollocks, despite the fact you need money to survive in a capitalist world.
carlosgonzalez

You have not understood the depth of my previous post, or I failed to get it throught, my point is very close to the one you make:

Surplus value (producer surplus) == MONOPOLY PROFITS.

Under perfect competition there is no surplus value, no producer surplus, no monopoly profit.

but given as perfect competition doesn't exist, and if surplus-value is eliminated the very motive power of capitalism is removed, what does that actually mean?

I understand the economists' distinction between ('unfair', inefficient) monopoly profits and 'fair' profits in a competitive market, but none of this justifies capitalism, it just says that in theory competition prevents individual capitalists from becoming too rich too quickly.

carlosgonzalez

Fair enough, but class struggle does not mean one class has to triumph. Social democracy is a compromise not meant to satisfy comunist or capitalist.

which is why it has a tendency to transform itself into fascism if class struggle increases or regress to neoliberalism if it decreases. class struggle, from the point of view of the ruling class, is a perpetual problem that cannot be eliminated (because a ruling class needs a ruled class), and so sometimes compromises are sought. From a workers' point of view however, class struggle is the struggle against classes. In other words, the boss needs us, we don't need the boss; compromise may happen, but if you are aiming for it the point of compromise will be elsewhere (like haggling, for example, you don't start with what you want to pay) - so even if you want reforms, reformism is ineffective except as the 'reasonable' wing of a revolutionary working class, when it de facto takes the side of the ruling class who become willing to negotiate as they fear their abolition (then tear up the compromise once the revolutionary movement has been diffused).

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 12, 2006

In the origins of the state post you quoted:

Law and governments may be considered in this and indeed in every case as a combination of the rich to oppress the poor and preserve to themselves the inequality of the goods which would otherwise soon be destroyed by the attacks of the poor, who if not hindered by the government would soon reduce the others to an equality with themselves by open violence

This is a short term view, a static analysis, it ignores historical materialism, that society can change.

In time the savage system of the early 19th century has been replaced by democracy and the welfare state. "The poor" now relates to shanty towns in latin america or to 19th dickensian squalors.

I like Adam Smith, also see plenty of things wrong in society, some from a positiv economic point of view, and others from a more normative standpoint. For one he speaks in terms of nations and I would like to see a world wide authority to tackle world wide issues.

----------------------------

By the way, I did not choose history of economics :) I have never read Adam Smith, though I have seen his influence in several of the models I have studied, for example how trading and specialisation is desirable.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 12, 2006

Adam Smith

This is a short term view, a static analysis, it ignores historical materialism, that society can change.

well, it is materialist, in that his analysis of the state as the enforcer of private property is rooted in real social relations, but true, in the section quoted, there isn't much historical context. so it is for you to show what fundamental change has taken place in the relationship between the state and private property in the last 200 years (note: universal suffrage hasn't altered this relationship at all, only how politicans acquire state power).

and 'the poor' in that quote obviously refers to those without property/capital, who at the time were neccessarily poor, as opposed to hungry people in particular.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 12, 2006

but none of this justifies capitalism

The key of the analysis is that the optimum level of production is when Marginal Cost is equal to price. That is true under any system and is used as a benchmark.

Capitalism only creeps into this analysis because the firms decision to produce and consumer to consume at given prices / quantities, is taken independently.

For your libertarian system it says that worker councils have to produce until the marginal cost of an extra unit is equal to the price. We would need to model their economic decisions and compare the conclusions with the optimum, we could then identify possible problems in the system.

it just says that in theory competition prevents individual capitalists from becoming too rich too quickly

"Just"???? This is the basic criticism of the producer/consumer system!!! That in the absence of competition it is abused!!!

I think that is a very strong and solid conclusion, and the argumentative basis for alternative systems. Granted that it says nothing about the evils of hierarchy which is your basic ideology as libcom.

Fair enough, but class struggle does not mean one class has to triumph. Social democracy is a compromise not meant to satisfy comunist or capitalist.

which is why it has a tendency to transform itself into fascism if class struggle increases or regress to neoliberalism

Rather than a critique that is a historical observation and we could argue at length over the 20th century, with great pleasure I might add.

like haggling, for example

Ive met people who like haggling and I have met others who dont. Zapatero did not haggle about getting out of Iraq.

Politics is a dirty business, I agree. But my view is that Spain drew its first democratic constitution in 1812 in Cadiz and it only worked from 1976 onwards. Plenty of broken promises, dead comrades and lost oportunities along the way. The UKs first attempts at constituional rule go back to Cromwell...

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 12, 2006

so it is for you to show what fundamental change has taken place in the relationship between the state and private property in the last 200 years

Well, I think in terms of mass production and how the majority of the benefit of technological advance has accrued to the workers who in turn represent the majority of the population.

I will not discuss whether the burgeoise - workers gap is bigger, but rather that both you, I, and the queen of england eat the same brand of cereals and yogurts.

Ultimately workers have been turned into consumers.

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 12, 2006

carlostrolzalez

The key of the analysis is that the optimum level of production is when Marginal Cost is equal to price

whose cost? and how do you measure someone's cost, anyway? And, most importantly, what's the history behind of the person whose cost your measuring?

Presumably the marginal cost of cleaning public toilets is a lot higher for Ingvar Kamprad than it is for Fred the unemployed janitor who lives around the corner from my house. But that tells us nothing about the historical background that led up to that difference.

Black Flag

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Black Flag on October 12, 2006

I would just like to say that although things have improved in the west since the nineteenth century,things are still shit in the third world(most of the world) and always will be as long as people listen to and vote for social democrats and capitalists(pretty much the same thing!).Communism may not be very popular (due to people believing that left-wing capitalism is in fact communism)but neither is social democracy,especially in europe.The rise of the far-right is due to the failure of social 'democracy'.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 12, 2006

carlosgonzalez

Well, I think in terms of mass production and how the majority of the benefit of technological advance has accrued to the workers who in turn represent the majority of the population.

I will not discuss whether the burgeoise - workers gap is bigger, but rather that both you, I, and the queen of england eat the same brand of cereals and yogurts.

yes, and slaves in 1800 were better off than slaves in 1700. iraqis under saddam hussein were better off than under the Hashemite monarchy (standard of living equal to portugal apparently, pre-sanctions) - that isn't an argument for saddam hussein though is it?
carlosgonzalez

Ultimately workers have been turned into consumers.

workers have not been turned into consumers - we still have to work, but workers are now also consumers. true, consumption has become a much more important part of society (demands for higher living standards, the need to build new markets etc). The only people who are just consumers are those with enough capital not to have to work. Although i know the marketplace is where economists feel most comfortable, communists have the annoying habit of bringing up the 'hidden abode of production' - class doesn't disappear if you through enough commodities at it.

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 12, 2006

Hi

things are still shit in the third world(most of the world) and always will be as long as people listen to and vote for social democrats and capitalists

There you go, every cloud has a silver lining.

Love

LR

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 12, 2006

Hi

none of this justifies capitalism

For the love of Christ, JK, you're such a moralist. Capitalism doesn't require justification. Neither does communism for that matter.

Love

LR

Lazlo_Woodbine

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazlo_Woodbine on October 12, 2006

Capitalism doesn'r require justification, because it exists regardless of whether it is 'justified' or not.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 12, 2006

and the fact that this is in the context of a discussion, i wasn't suggesting that all i need to do is rationally debunk capitalism and it will go away (obviously)

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 12, 2006

Hi

revol68

well when you are arguing over the merits of something I think justification is an important criteria, otherwise I could say Lazy Riser is a paedo nonce and you would have no room for a response (of course you would have no need to justify any response you did give, but this in turn relies on the justification that there can be no justification....)

I'm not sure if that makes sense. One should not argue the merits of capitalism, but instead demonstrate the profit of a different course.

Love

LR

Lazlo_Woodbine

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazlo_Woodbine on October 12, 2006

revol68

sorry Lazlo but this is based on the justification that things that exist do not require justification, see the problem?

Nope. I'm not justifying anything - merely pointing out that the justification discourse is irrelevant.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 12, 2006

Lazlo_Woodbine

revol68

sorry Lazlo but this is based on the justification that things that exist do not require justification, see the problem?

Nope. I'm not justifying anything - merely pointing out that the justification discourse is irrelevant.

and thus debate and critique are irrelevant and we should hit the streets to change the 'facts on the ground'?

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 12, 2006

Hi

this is based on the justification that things that exist do not require justification, see the problem?

Not really. I can do infinite recursion. I thought all working class people could.

Love

LR

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 12, 2006

Hi

which would probably rely on some very basic justifications, no?
for example, this x is better than capitalism because it doesn't rely on selling your arse for a wage, has to be justified by the assumption that selling your arse for a wage isn't much fun, which in turn has to be justified.

It doesn’t rely on justifications. Say they weren’t there. Nothing’s changed. A fact doesn't suddenly appear and make something happen.

Love

LR

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 12, 2006

Hi

It’s not like that for some of us revol. Morality doesn’t exist as a thing to escaped from, it exists as a biological curiosity.

Love

LR

Lazlo_Woodbine

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazlo_Woodbine on October 12, 2006

Joseph K.

and thus debate and critique are irrelevant and we should hit the streets to change the 'facts on the ground'?

That sounds nice. How hard do we need to hit it?

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 12, 2006

oh 10 million walking out of work ought to do it. i can't justify that of course.

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 12, 2006

Hi

Lazy if it wasn't for binary you would only exist as a biological (non)curiosity

I suppose that’s one way of looking at it. Nominating a specific number base a bit of a red herring though. I have to congratulate you on your ability to raise the tone of the debate towards questions of abstract existence. And so quickly too.

lazy you said it isn't about justification but about demonstrating a "profit", but how does one measure such a profit without some basic position, some justified position? I'm not asking for some transcendental truth, just a reason.

There is no more reason for the existence of a justification for the basic position than there is for the existence of any imaginary thing. What I’m afraid I will have to concede though is that the method of measuring profit can be said to require justification, that is to say must be demonstrated. In the absence of such a political theory though, capitalism doesn’t require any justification beyond its incumbency.

Love

LR

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 12, 2006

Hi,

revol68

Joseph K.

oh 10 million walking out of work ought to do it. i can't justify that of course.

why not?

because if i did i'd actually have to commit to some position which might expose the bankruptcy of my (allegedly non-) postion. Oops, there i go justifying myself.

Love

JK.

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 12, 2006

Hi

Joseph K.

oh 10 million walking out of work ought to do it.

That would depend on which 10 million. You might just end up with 10 million poorer people. Great.

Love

LR

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 12, 2006

Hi

They key my roller, the fewer the better I say.

Love

LR

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 12, 2006

Hi

Plus they stink of piss and shuffle around like retards.

Love

LR

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 12, 2006

Hi

I just find it aesthetically offensive.

Love

LR

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 12, 2006

Hi

No reason. I suppose you might want to emulate my excellent taste and see if it rewards you.

Love

LR

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 12, 2006

Hi

Thus revealing the deep misanthropy that so often accompanies communist morality. It sounds like your sex life has gone off the boil again.

Love

LR

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 12, 2006

Although i know the marketplace is where economists feel most comfortable

Its not just that I have studied economics, the charming thing of markets is that opposing forces battle each other out and reach equilibrium.

----------------------

To justify or not justify?

In science good ideas and valid arguments persist over time.

The stablishment is definitely trying to justify itself continuously, from the monarchy to industries and their pressure groups.

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 12, 2006

Hi

how can misanthropy have any meaning to someone who refuses to be drawn into any stance?

Cheeky. I have a wicked stance actually.

I mean by what standards are you defining hate or humanity?

Nice question. I suppose as individual words they mean nothing, but when connected as demonstrable concepts hate, humanity and misanthropy take on an internalised standard through a subjective cognitive process.

Love

LR

Lazy Rizer

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Rizer on October 12, 2006

Hi

Certainly this is all true, but how do we justify the hours wasted on this pointless thread?

Love

LR'

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 12, 2006

Hi

I apologise for my evil twin, revol. I don’t know if it’s JK or what. Maybe it’s john. Who can say?

would that subjective cognitive process involve an ethical position?

Hmmm. One could argue that even a machine has an ethical position, so it would seem sensible to assert than human cognition is coloured by an ethical system of one kind or another. I suppose in that sense, you’re right when you say there’s no escaping moral truth, anymore than there is from truth itself.

for example, if someone see's hate as a good thing they will react to misanthropy in a somewhat different manner than someone who thinks hate is innately evil?

Almost goes without saying. I know people who get sexually aroused by violence.

Love

LR

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 12, 2006

well you're never logged in at the same time as far as i can tell

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 12, 2006

Hi

Ho ho JK, seeing as you can't even hold your own against the likes of Carlos without regressing into transcendental moralism, we're hardly likely to have much credence with your analysis.

Love

LR

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 12, 2006

sorry where was the transcendental moralism? didn't you just fail to hold your own with revol on that? is not your charge of "regressing into transcendental moralism" itself a moral judgement? :roll:

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 12, 2006

Hi

sorry where was the transcendental moralism?

No need to apologise. The bit about justifying capitalism was especially bad I thought.

didn't you just fail to hold your own with revol on that?

Even if you’re right, comparing revol and carlos is like comparing a Lear Jet and a Reliant Robin. I’ve been in meetings all day with people scoring points off each other for the sake of it rather than delivering value. Their failure and the failure of the working class to emancipate itself from bourgeois rule follow the same theme. How’s that for a social relation? You cheeky minx.

Anyway, just because there's no escape from morally coloured cognition, it doesn't mean a moral argument against this-or-that effect of capitalism builds the case for communism. Having said that, I am the sort of person who threatens Oxfam and FOE canvassers with violence if they invade my exclusion zone. Make of that what you will.

Love

LR

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 13, 2006

you make me look good 8-)

jason

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jason on October 13, 2006

I am the sort of person who threatens Oxfam and FOE canvassers with violence if they invade my exclusion zone. Make of that what you will.

I make of it that by your own criteria you are a misanthrope. Although your definition of misanthropy is flawed.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 13, 2006

I thought communism was based on materialism, dialectics and rationality, that it justifies the case for itself because it creates a better society in practice.

i.e. society will be more happy if they are not coerced by a hyrearchical system, rather than society will be better because hyrarchical coercion is wrong.

Ethics and morals discussions corresponded to fundamentalists, religious and ideologues. My concern as a human being is to create the best society, without necessarily having to imprint my own particular views onto it. Just because they are my own, doesnt make them right.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 13, 2006

carlosgonzalez

I thought communism was based on materialism, dialectics and rationality, that it justifies the case for itself because it creates a better society in practice.

you're not entirely wrong, but Lazy Riser's no communist, he just likes to hang out here and drag debates off in irreverent circles ;)

I don't think ethics are inherently fundamentalist, religious or ideological though - a conception of good and bad or right and wrong - as part of a lived participation in material reality - underpins a critique of hierarchy/domination; it's not purely utilitarian otherwise if someone could demonstrate dictatorship was more efficient than democracy we'd be on board.

it seems to me that communists make the ethical claim that it is wrong to live off the surplus-value created by others; infact the utilitarian 'anti-ethical' approach of disinterested technical pursuit of the "best society" by whatever means neccessary is bourgeois morality par excellance - it takes an ethical stance by using the very concept of the 'best society' ;)

we're veering off into a debate of means and ends here i think :P - i daresay there's a dialectical unity between them that precludes either a deontological privileging of means or a utilitarian privileging of ends - both are ideal moments of reality that make no sense except in reference to each other.

Edit: I should add that, although i might not give the impression what with all this technical/philosophical jargon, i'm quite out of my depth here and making it up as i go along, i've read less than 100 pages of ethics-related philosophy ;)

Seumus

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Seumus on October 13, 2006

" I thought communism was based on materialism, dialectics and rationality"Carlogonzalez

and here's me thinking that communism was the basis for a society where one, 'gives what what one has and takes what one needs.'

ernie

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by ernie on October 13, 2006

I have only carefully read the fist page and do not have time to real all of what is clearly a very interesting discussion. Whilst not agreeing with carlosgonzalez, one has to welcome the manner in which he has sorted to develop his position. It takes some cojones to defend 'liberal' state capitalism but also to be open to the discussion.
On the discussion, near the beginning of the discussion carlosgonzalez said that capitalism was over with the industrial revolution and an example of this was the way in which the was now a more social control of capital, for example role of the pensions funds. Along with thinking that capitalism is old hat, carlosgonzalez thinks the same about Marx's etc.
carlosgonzalez, you said you found Marx to thick to read -by which I take you mean dense-, this is a pity (and quite hard to understand given the turgid rubbish you must have had to wade through for your economics degree) because if you had made the effort you would have found that you agree with Marx more than you think. Marx, in the 1860's was analysing how capitalism was becoming more social, that the process of centralisation, concentration and the falling rate of profit was bringing about a situation where the individual capitalist was being replaced by financial instutions etc. Part of this process is also the huge growth of the role of finncial transactions such as shares. The recent example of the growth of the hedge funds would not have surprised Marx at all. In fact all of these developments are expressions of the unfolding of the tendencies and counter tendencies that Marx was able to analyse in embryonic form in Kapital.
carlosgonzalez, seeing you have time on your hands it would be worth read Capital Vol3, you will be pretty surprised.

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 13, 2006

Hi

here's me thinking that communism was the basis for a society where one, 'gives what what one has and takes what one needs.'

Sounds awful. No-one's getting my stuff.

he just likes to hang out here and drag debates off in irreverent circles

That is an uncalled for slur, and from a Christian too.

Love

LR

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 13, 2006

I don't think ethics are inherently fundamentalist, religious or ideological though - a conception of good and bad or right and wrong

I think it is a question of start v.s. end points, of starting with a series of ethics and judgements and developing a system that adresses these v.s. saying that hirearchy is wrong and has to be removed, full stop.

I am not saying that Social Democracy is the best system, but that it is the best way to address the different issues and problems in society.

I have a problem with libcom concentrating their analysis on the coercive violence of hirearchy, because it ignores other issues that deserve to be addressed. It is a MICRO V.S. MACRO issue, we have to build from the foundations upwards and not start with the rooftop.

it's not purely utilitarian otherwise if someone could demonstrate dictatorship was more efficient than democracy we'd be on board.

Utility is a very dangerous concept to play with and as economists we limit ourselve to ordinal utility, i.e. explain how consumers rank their preferences only, and not enter into discussion of how happy they are by giving an value ie. Joseph today has happines 10.756, Carlos 9.767 and john 11.763.

However economic analysis does point out that there are many situations where it would be optimal if the decision was taken by only one economic agent. This is analogous to your ideas that if work was democratized then many externalities and problems would be resolved, only that you guys speak in terms of the workplace and have not yet come to discuss how a libcom system would deal with economy wide issues i.e. certain polution affects all workers and not just those involved in the polluting process.

Since as a society we are faced with problems and decisions that are best taken by one ecomic agent on behalf of everone in the society, there is a strong argument for DICTATORSHIP (hirearchy??).

There is no system that is not a dictatorship, social democracy is equivalent to 4 year dictatorial terms. Bolscheviks, Fascist, Absolutist, Militarist, Nationalist... all systems we have ever had are diferent form of dictatorship.

I havent read on mutialism yet, but I doubt anarchism can provide a solution that is not another form of dictatorship. The perfect democracy is still dictatorial to the extent that it imposes the will of the majority.

And not willing to make those decisions is not an alternative just as an army cannot fight a war based on individual independent platoons, as it would loose out on the benefits of coordinating strategy. Can you imagine infantry, artillery and air power, each fighting their own private war?

This reminds me of Ken Loach's "land and freedom" when later in the film they take a Nationalist position on top of a hill and cannot hold it because of lack of artillery support.

and here's me thinking that communism was the basis for a society where one, 'gives what what one has and takes what one needs.'

But the key is that doing that you get a better society. If you argue it you are a rationalist, if you consider it a matter of fact then you are a fundamentalist.

Unfortunately humanity is not very good at making predictions, they do teach us this in economics degree, so we are doomed to making mistakes and hopefully learn from them. Bolscheviks had a decent go at it and we should learn from their successes and their mistakes.

you said you found Marx to thick to read -by which I take you mean dense-, this is a pity (and quite hard to understand given the turgid rubbish you must have had to wade through for your economics degree)

Dear Ernie, fortunatelly 65-80% of economics is mathematics, we study models to draw conclusions from changing assumptions.

At 17 I started reading Plato as I had not been taught any philosophy and thought that it would be best to start at the beginning. I found it extremely thick and with time realised that what he was saying was total rubbish, utter bullshit, that did have a bearing 2000 years ago but not in the present. For one plato is a proto-scientist and thinks that knowledge is in each of us and that by reasoning we can get to the truth. That is total bullshit. The only way to get at the truth is through the scientific method, and it has lots of limitations.

Aristoteles proved to be as similar dick and the only ideas worth scraping was his endeavor to categorise everything. Something for which I am very greatfull as it helps to organize my hard disk and film collection.

I am still surprised not to hear people share similar opinions on Plato or Aristoteles and all the crap they say. But then I suppose that few people actually read them or understand what they say. I would only recommend them for anyone interested in the history of philosophy - thinkers.

I went on to Sofocles, Epicuro and others with similar results and eventually just gave up on trying to understand past thinkers and concentrating on what it was that I though and I believed in.

Among these thinkers I did get my hands on Proudon, only to give up after the second page (there where 450...). I also had a go at Marx's Das Kapital, which failed to entice me either.

But then I am a 21st century humanist, if you want to teach me something you better make a BBC Horizon documentary about it :) or have Ken Loach make a movie :) :)

As I said earlier, the beauty of economics is that entire philosophical traits are summarized into mathematical equations, simple yet powerfull. For example, with a couple of equations we can understand the monopolistic incentive to limit production and raise prices.

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 13, 2006

Hi

Carlos, you really are a pompous ass. Anyway, I'd like to bring up Ludwig Wittgenstein again...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

He did a fantastic job reducing existence to algebra, and he was a hottie to boot.

One of my fav. bourge of all time actually. Next to Castoriadis, of course. And myself. Ha ha.

Lazy Riser's no communist

Communism seems a bit right-wing for my liking TBH.

Love

LR

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 13, 2006

carlosgonzalez

we have to build from the foundations upwards and not start with the rooftop.

agreed, which is why you won't find us trying to impose our ideas on society by seizing state power, by elections or otherwise ;) A lib com approach starts from the grassroots by 'building the new society in the shell of the old' by organising along directly democratic means now.

carlosgonzalez

There is no system that is not a dictatorship, social democracy is equivalent to 4 year dictatorial terms. Bolscheviks, Fascist, Absolutist, Militarist, Nationalist... all systems we have ever had are diferent form of dictatorship.

I havent read on mutialism yet, but I doubt anarchism can provide a solution that is not another form of dictatorship. The perfect democracy is still dictatorial to the extent that it imposes the will of the majority.

which is why communists frequently use the oft-misunderstood term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to refer to a society where power resides in the open, directly democratic organs (councils etc) of workers (understood broadly, i.e. everyone after private property is no longer enforceable) [note: various statists also use the term to justify (;)) a dictatorship over the proletariat]

carlosgonzalez

As I said earlier, the beauty of economics is that entire philosophical traits are summarized into mathematical equations, simple yet powerfull. For example, with a couple of equations we can understand the monopolistic incentive to limit production and raise prices.

and as i said earlier, like all mathmatical models it all flows logically from it's axioms - yet neoclassical axioms are totally inadequate to describe society or humanity as a whole, and those which aren't circular have been severely questioned if not falsified by empirical economic studies (such as on 'social preferences' and gift-giving: amazon link)

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 13, 2006

Hi

For example, with a couple of equations we can understand the monopolistic incentive to limit production and raise prices.

Ha ha. Come on then, show us. It only works if you've got a right wing moral ethic associated with the incentive. If you’re incentivised by lazy living and wanton sex, I can show we should ramp up production and drop prices towards zero.

Love

LR

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 13, 2006

Ernnie, I have looked at the article http://es.internationalism.org/Rint/2005/121_crisis.html and it full of propaganda: all the good curves are downward sloping and all the bad curves are upward sloping.

Its initial premise is false, the world is not descending into the hell of economic crisis.

It abuses the terminology, for example, a recesion is "usually defined in macroeconomics as a fall of a country's real Gross Domestic Product (GDP)" and not just a slowdown of economic growth as the article portrays.

It picks and chooses what it wants, sometimes from the world, the EU or the USA...

Granted it has some valid and objective criticism, but then one cannot write 3000words on economics without getting something right, its the simple law of probabilities :)

And bottom line, all this criticism takes us no-where because it does not provide an alternative with which to compare it.

The main factor behind economic growth is Technology, without the advancement of science and technology economy growth would fall to 0. So when in the article critizices saying that economic growth is slowing, it is just deluding itself because economic growth doesnt ultimately respond to the capitalist system just as economies do not grow thanks to politicians (even if at election time they are only too keen to claim that economic success is thanks to them).

If on the otherhand the article did indeed compare capitalism with an alternative, then the tone would not be out of place. Since all systems that exist or have existed are capitalist in nature then it is futile, and I note that china is not mentioned. Infact, there is an apology saying that they dont have enough space to deal with China...

In the end, it is an exercise in preaching to the converted by the corresponding spin doctors. Bottom line society and its economy changes and like statistics, anyone can argue that change is good or bad. Since the article is not done in good faith I extract no value from it.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 13, 2006

Lazy Rider, economic incentive is what drives each and all of our actions.

The problem is that you are a delusional ideologue and take economics to be a simil of capitalism.

It is just as simple as saying that every cause has an effect. The effect is the economic decision, and the cause is the economic incentive.

With this framework you can analise ANY kind of economic decision, from contributing to the forum, collaborating in Free Software, giving money to Charity or deciding to take the car instead of the bus...

But then you hate everything and everyone that does not think like you want them to think, analogous to Woody Allen in Casino Royale, who wanted to kill everyone on earth who was taller than him...

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 13, 2006

carlosgonzalez

Its initial premise is false, the world is not descending into the hell of economic crisis.

:D - that premise is the ICC's initial premise for everything they say and write ('decadence theory') ;)

carlosgonzalez

Since all systems that exist or have existed are capitalist in nature

thats a pretty bold claim, we may live in a capitalist world today but that doesn't mean all of history was capitalist, unless you're just projecting your ahistorical economics everywhere you look that is ;)

fruitloop

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by fruitloop on October 13, 2006

carlosgonzalez

Lazy Rider, economic incentive is what drives each and all of our actions.

That explanation of commodity fetishism hasn't really sunk in, has it.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 13, 2006

:D

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 13, 2006

Hi

Lazy Riser, economic incentive is what drives each and all of our actions.

Ho ho. Ever heard of the phrase "preaching to the converted".

That explanation of commodity fetishism hasn't really sunk in, has it.

I understand it, I just think it's alright. I mean, commodities, they're handy aren't they.

Love

LR

Khawaga

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Khawaga on October 13, 2006

The main factor behind economic growth is Technology, without the advancement of science and technology economy growth would fall to 0.

And I thought it was the real material labour of people that created wealth...

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 13, 2006

Hi

only if you continue to stick to your nonsensical idea of a commodity as a just a neutral "thing".

Let me tell you what’s nonsensical. C-M-C', that's what. Communism isn't held back by its 150 year old jargon, it's held back because it's gobbledegook no matter how you cut it.

Love

LR

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 13, 2006

i don't think C-M-C' constitutes communism no matter how you cut it :?

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 13, 2006

Hi

Ha ha. Communism is nothing without its negation, capitalism. And this, alongside M-C-M, is capital's general formula.

Love

LR

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 13, 2006

Hi

Perhaps you would like to check the dictionary. Anyway, if it wasn't for the exchange of something, you wouldn't even stick to the Earth's surface.

Love

LR

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 13, 2006

oh yes the gravity market :|

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 13, 2006

and as i said earlier, like all mathmatical models it all flows logically from it's axioms - yet neoclassical axioms are totally inadequate to describe society or humanity as a whole

Fair critique but you have not been clear about what axioms you find inadequate. I thought it was the consumer / produce dichotomy, that plays itself in the market through demand and supply forces. You take it that it models a hyrarchical system but I dont see that. Furthermore I fail to envision an efficient economy that does not relly on markets, and expect a successfull libcom system to have prices and markets.

On another level, neoclassical economics is rather limited in its development and its conclusions. I dare say that it does not attempt go as far as attempting "to descrive society or humanity as a whole". It is a basis for dealing with individual consumer choice. From that Consumer Theory derives demand curves and Welfare Economics analises the eficiency of the market...

--------------------------

In a libcom state, democratic workers councils would still be organised around the means of production, the firm. So the model doesnt change.

I see Cooperatives in Argentina as following profit maximization in more-or-less competitive markets. Please note that monopolistic practices originate from profit maximization, being run by workers does not exclude the possibility that the cooperative behaves monopolisticly-The only difference is that in that type of libcom state, monopoly profits revert to the workers, but production would here too fall short of the optimum.

Though you have good ideas about how to run companies and avoid the evils of hireachical management you are not doing anything to curb the dictatorship of companies over the market.

You may argue that the system will produce that what is needed:

communism was the basis for a society where one, 'gives what what one has and takes what one needs.'

but that is a falacy because human needs are infinite.

Bread and Roses... Who decides how many roses to each?

Thats why even in your libcom world you will need markets (and also a central authority).

Bottom line is that there is very little stoping you from going ahead and setting up your own firms and run them according to your ideas. That it is not sow shows that the majority of workers prefer the salaries paid by bosses to the efforts, stress and risks, of organizing production.

And please dont accuse the system of violence or the burgueoise, because in running your own companies you are on the level with them. Sometimes you speak of the burgeoise as John Ford when he warned of a Judeo Masonic plot to take over america.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 13, 2006

Quote:
The main factor behind economic growth is Technology, without the advancement of science and technology economy growth would fall to 0.

And I thought it was the real material labour of people that created wealth...

Well Atmlek, economic growth is about increasing production, and that can only be done by working more hours...

Except if there is technological advancement i.e. if you give the farmer a tractor he will be more efficient. But given a technological level, a farmer can only grow more produce by working more hours.

Please not that I am talking in per capita terms. Population growth leads to overall growth, but per capita income remains the same if there is not tecnological advancement.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 13, 2006

carlosgonzalez wrote:
Since all systems that exist or have existed are capitalist in nature

thats a pretty bold claim, we may live in a capitalist world today but that doesn't mean all of history was capitalist, unless you're just projecting your ahistorical economics everywhere you look that is

I have been hoping for an example, I can only relate to the FAI-CNT and that doesnt really count because they took over production and only lasted a couple of years under war time conditions.

Where has there been a non hirearchical system?

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 13, 2006

Hi

Where has there been a non hirearchical system?

OS/400's original file system.

Love

LR

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 13, 2006

A file system that is not hirearchical? It must be categorical, which is the same thing, it just leaves open to each user how they want to rank their searches.

P.S. I once programmed a database from scratch

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 13, 2006

carlosgonzalez

Fair critique but you have not been clear about what axioms you find inadequate.

ok, i'll recap:

Axiom 1. People have rational preferences among outcomes that can be identified and associated with a value.

the reductive rationalist notion of the subject is wide open to critique, but i'll leave it to someone better versed in psychology, since there are major problems elsewhere ...

Axiom 2. Individuals maximize utility and firms maximize profits.

i think that 'individuals maximise utility' is circular, to the point that whatever people do is deemed to give them utility. as a result it's non-falsifiable too, since even suicide is held to have utility to the suicidal. The practical meaning of this axiom, as taught to me at degree level economics at least, is that people are self-interested in the narrow sense and motivated only by material incentives; which is demonstrably untrue, or rather demonstrably partial, even in a society based on commodity exchange! firms maximising profits is ok, it's a legal requirement of plcs etc (the exceptions don't do too much damage to the rule).

Axiom 3. People act independently on the basis of full and relevant information.

virtually no-one except sociopaths actually act independently. we are enmeshed in a society with all sorts of pressures and power relations to which we have to conform - i just spent a load on office clothes because being a wage-labourer i can't just independently decide to wear casual stuff i already own, for example. Plus peer pressure/low self-esteem which is a major issue for a lot of people (and of course there's a whole insecurity industry). Full and relevant information is also a fantasy, more so than perfect competition even, it describes an impossible ideal, but acts as a foundational axiom! (just imagine your incredulity if 'full and total solidarity' was a foundational assumption of libcomism!) Information is always partial and it's relevance indeterminable, and that's before we get into outright deception etc.

carlosgonzalez

On another level, neoclassical economics is rather limited in its development and its conclusions. I dare say that it does not attempt go as far as attempting "to descrive society or humanity as a whole"

I only see it as dealing with individual consumer choice. From that Consumer Theory derives demand curves and Welfare Economics analises the eficiency of the market.

exactly, it's designed to deal with consumer choice in a capitalist market - a scientific mask for commodity fetishism.

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 13, 2006

Hi

really i thought exchange is only a concept we use to try and grasp something, not the thing itself. I could just as easily stick to the world thanks to the term "swap", "connection" ,"gift" or indeed "movement".

I suppose that’s correct. But I assume we’d agree that communists use a special definition of exchange which carries a level of exploitation. Moreover, they use a special definition of exploitation which carries a level of unacceptable human misery.

Either that, or like Jesus, they see it as some kind of indelible sin from which we can be saved by eschewing the corrupting influence of private ownership.

Love

LR

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 13, 2006

Hi

P.S. I once programmed a database from scratch

Bless. A genius economist as well. You must be very proud. I bet you’re a real hit with the ladies/gents.

Love

LR

(Better than being a real hit in the gents though, ha ha).

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 13, 2006

Hi

Look I'm sorry for posting too much, but really...

a scientific mask for commodity fetishism.

Here it is again, the irrational notion that there is something masking the current order’s true character. A mask only transparent to communists. You’re sounding like an ICCer.

Love

LR

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 13, 2006

right, because it's impossible to construct a psuedo-scienficic rationalisation of something, and everything that says it is true is :roll:

anyway, i thought you didn't query commodity fetishism you just like fetishising commodities ... ?

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 13, 2006

Hi

Oh so what if I did. I fetishise loads of stuff, even gauge boson exchange. I’m doing it now actually, and it feels good I can tell you.

Love

LR

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 13, 2006

wank on this then

it pains me to tear away from this enthralling discussion, but i have to reproduce my labour power in some roundabout social factory kind of way now ;) (i have to hoover the flat :().

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 13, 2006

Hi

Are those superstrings? Man, I am hard now.

"Love"

LR

Khawaga

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Khawaga on October 13, 2006

Well Atmlek, economic growth is about increasing production, and that can only be done by working more hours...

Except if there is technological advancement i.e. if you give the farmer a tractor he will be more efficient. But given a technological level, a farmer can only grow more produce by working more hours.

Please not that I am talking in per capita terms. Population growth leads to overall growth, but per capita income remains the same if there is not tecnological advancement.

There is a bit of a theoretical gulf between us. I'll try to explain. The source of all wealth comes from human labour. A commodity or product is not summoned by magic, it actually was made by someone from its imagination to its material reality. Someone thought about something, figured out how to do it, why to do it (usually now for profit, but always connected to use-value) and did it. The outcome is the product of human labour. New technology to increase production is conceived by someone so that it will increase production, lessen repetitive work or to deskill workers (just as a few examples) which is then produced by human labour and it is then used for what it was designed to do. It is a mystification to believe that technology somehow idependently appears out of nothing, when capital needs it, to come and save declining profit rates (or declining growth rates if you will). Labour creates wealth, regardless of whether it is measures quantitively or assessed qualitatively. This is something that even Smith and Ricardo recognized.

And then I could go into the labour theory of value, but I might just wait a bit for that so it won't be too much to digest.

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 13, 2006

Hi

Oh no.

The source of all wealth comes from human labour

Well of course it is. Even having a desire requires a bit of effort. Too much sometimes.

We're dying to read your unique take on the LTV by the way. Regardless of what it is, just because the source of wealth is labour doesn't mean the value of wealth is proportional to it.

Love

LR

Khawaga

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Khawaga on October 13, 2006

We're dying to read your unique take on the LTV by the way. Regardless of what it is, just because the source of wealth is labour doesn't mean the value of wealth is proportional to it.

I am so happy :) that you are looking forward to my LTV exposition, though I hardly think that it will be very unique

Value of wealth equal to the labout put in to create it? Well, I certainly believe, money is just a measure after all, though the global financial casino is pretty good at conjuring all kinds of value. It all depends of whether you see wealth as something primarily subjective or objective. If its the latter then it would be "proportional".

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 13, 2006

Axiom 1. People have rational preferences among outcomes that can be identified and associated with a value.

Its not, neoclassical economics, which is really just just economic principia, requires only ordinal utility, i.e. that consumers can rate between different levels. There is absolutely no need to be associated with a value, and definitely not with a numerical value.

whatever people do is deemed to give them utility. as a result it's non-falsifiable too, since even suicide is held to have utility to the suicidal.

This is the cause and effect issue I discussed earlier. It is non-falsifiable because noone has shown that an cause has followed an effect. A suicidal thinks that he will be better of dead? YES, he definitely doesnt kill himself to disprove economist... It boils down to calling utility whatever motivates people to choose.

Comunists usually have a problem with this because they find the stress on "individual" and take it for "selfishness".

As an economist I am impartial and just pay homage to the idea that only individual councisouness exist, none of which has ever claimed to make a bad decision, atleast not until afterwards.

exactly, it's designed to deal with consumer choice in a capitalist market - a scientific mask for commodity fetishism.

"capitalist market"¿¿?? Comunist market? Fascist market? Nationalist market? Libertarian Comunist market?

I only know of one type of market. The one where people use money to buy.

"commodity fetishism"??? I thought you were materialistic.

You are fetichist! I didnt speak of commodities you did! what about services??? You are thinking in terms of industrial sindicalism, workers who "make" commodities...

-------------------------------------------

I insist that a libertarian comunist society will need a market and a central governemt if it is not going to be another human failure.

It will also need laws, courts, police, schools, roads...

I often get the impresion from revolutionaries, that once they get their revolution the doors of heaven will open and man will live in the garden of eden once more...

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 13, 2006

Hi

though the global financial casino is pretty good at conjuring all kinds of value.

Ah yes, the mask again. No wonder gambling is a sin.

Love

LR

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 13, 2006

carlosgonzalez

Axiom 1. People have rational preferences among outcomes that can be identified and associated with a value.

Its not, neoclassical economics, which is really just just economic principia, requires only ordinal utility, i.e. that consumers can rate between different levels. There is absolutely no need to be associated with a value, and definitely not with a numerical value.

well i took that from wikipedia, since you were quoting it heavily earlier - i didn't say much on that point anyway ...

carlosgonzalez

It boils down to calling utility whatever motivates people to choose.

exactly, which means 'people maximise utility' means 'people choose that which motivates them to choose', which is either nonsensical, or such a broad truism it says nothing.

I said 'capitalist market' to stress that the commodities in the marketplace are produced under capitalist conditions (private property, alienation etc, which we've been over before). This is the 'hidden abode' you seem determined to overlook in favour of discussing the market as the problem-solution to everything vaguely 'economic' and a fair bit that isn't - i.e. commodity fetishism, which i explained before: you only see the exchange of money and goods and are blind to social relations (and i can only assume wilfully so after 8 pages).

your 'garden of eden' impression seems far more based on a preconception you brought to the debate than anything anyone has said, and certainly not anything you've read, by your own admission. you seem to be repeating your starting premisses, without any real reference to the lenghtly counter-arguments people have offered ...

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 13, 2006

There is a bit of a theoretical gulf between us.

There isnt, not theoretical anyhow.

Bottom line, a farmer without a tractor cannot grow more carrots without working more hours. Without tecnological growth there cannot be increased incomes i.e. if we dont grow more carrots we cannot eat more carrots.

This is something that even Marx and Hegel recongnized (Together with Smith and Ricardo :)) )

now, please go into labour theory

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 13, 2006

carlosgonzalez

Bottom line, a farmer without a tractor cannot grow more carrots without working more hours.

or working harder for the same period. or accumulating experience and 'working smarter', to use the current business-speak. But as revol says, technology itself is the product of human labour.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 13, 2006

From wikipedia:

Economists distinguish between cardinal utility and ordinal utility. When cardinal utility is used, the magnitude of utility differences is treated as an ethically or behaviorally significant quantity. On the other hand, ordinal utility captures only ranking and not strength of preferences. quote]

Ordinal utility is less restrictive and works just as well for all intents and purposes.

carlosgonzalez wrote:
It boils down to calling utility whatever motivates people to choose.

exactly, which means 'people maximise utility' means 'people choose that which motivates them to choose', which is either nonsensical, or such a broad truism it says nothing.

It means the axioms of neoclassical economics are so simple and basic that they are laughable and that you are not going to find the evils of capitalism here :)

After all the whole point of it all is to derive downward sloping demand curves (consumer theory), so that we can quickly move on and spend some time discussing the nature of monopoly prices.

------------

Joseph, you are the one intent on blaming the market for capitalism, when even in a libertarian society the market continues to have a pivotal role as well as a central decision maker.

The market does not make inferences or judgments about how production is organize. Talking of capitalist markets is like talking of capitalist machines.

Lets say that libcom win over the brittish people... Will brits stop coming to spain on holiday? Will spaniards stop going to Brighton for language courses?

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 13, 2006

carlosgonzalez

Joseph, you are the one intent on blaming the market for capitalism

well it doesn't seem to matter how many times i repeat capitalism is based on alienated property, i can't convince you i'm saying otherwise. i've already said that if i turn out to be completely wrong and there's no libertarian alternative to the market then there's always mutualism, a market system that is non-capitalist; you can't understand capitalism while you remain in the sphere of circulation - the market - you have to look at the sphere of production too.

carlosgonzalez

The market does not make inferences or judgments about how production is organize. Talking of capitalist markets is like talking of capitalist machines.

aside from the fact machines are hardly neutral, being developed by specific interests for specific purposes (that they nevertheless often escape), i've already said 'capitalist market' is short hand for 'market society where production is under the alienated social relations of private property'.

carlosgonzalez

Lets say that libcom win over the brittish people... Will brits stop coming to spain on holiday? Will spaniards stop going to Brighton for language courses?

no entiendo :?

Khawaga

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Khawaga on October 13, 2006

There isnt, not theoretical anyhow.

yep, there is. you didn't understand my post about labour. I don't disagree with you about economic growth, I only state that there is a bit more to it.

You are fetichist! I didnt speak of commodities you did! what about services??? You are thinking in terms of industrial sindicalism, workers who "make" commodities...

Commodities do not have to be material things. Servies are as much commodities as anything else. Commodity has a specific meaning in Marxist theory relating to wage-labour.

The reason why you are called a commodity fetishist is because express social relationships as as relations between things.

I'll wait with an exposition of LTV for now.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 13, 2006

working harder for the same period. or accumulating experience and 'working smarter'

That is also technological advancement (again your industrial sindicalist mentality thinking in material term :) ) though I think "working harder" is probably cheating :).

as revol says, technology itself is the product of human labour.

Furthermore, labour is the beneficiary of tecnological progress, because as I already said in my post about tecnology, improving machinery doesnt lead to "capitalist" charging more for machines that work faster and better. Instead more efficient machines lead to increased productivity of labour. Similarly, the millions of goods produced are destined for the workers/consumers.

-----------------------------------------

Many corporation, in their strategy planning, look several years in advance and implement their technological developments gradually and in response to competitors.

Again we have similar issues as with Monopoly profits, that in the absence of competition less is produced / technology implemented than would be desirable.

However at the same time the rationel makes a strong incentive for technological develpment as you cannot hold back what you have not developed.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 13, 2006

you didn't understand my post about labour. I don't disagree with you about economic growth, I only state that there is a bit more to

Atlemk, I now there is much more to it, you assumed I didn't and I didnt like that along with several patronising coments. Besides I also agreed with you.

Lets say that libcom win over the brittish people... Will brits stop coming to spain on holiday? Will spaniards stop going to Brighton for language courses?

Would libcom brits make it free for social-democratic spaniards to learn english or would they expect a trade-off i.e. for some britts to come on holiday to spain. Obviously there will be a market between both systems/countries ergo the market is not the issue. Similarly brits and spaniards will travel in the same planes (machines)...

Look I think we have both earned a compromise, you leave the market alone and I will accept your definition of capitalism :)

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 13, 2006

carlosgonzalez

Furthermore, labour is the beneficiary of tecnological progress

workers are a (un) benificiary of technological progress, not the (el) beneficiary.

technology can make work easier, but it can lead to mass layoffs and the intenification of work for the remaining workers. marx anaylises these contradictory tendencies at lenghth, pointing out that the introduction of machinery to production actually led to an extension and intensification of the working day as the labour force was expanded and subjugated to the rhythms of the machines; rather than the machines being the means for the workers, the workers became means to the machines. the point is, as long as the means of production are private property, any increased leisure created by machines is experienced by workers as unemployment and poverty, even while increased productivity means cheaper commodities, those commodities are still produced under the same alienated conditions.

carlosgonzalez

Instead more efficient machines lead to increased productivity of labour

so workers produce more for the same wage, more surplus-value, great! only workers indirectly get cheaper commodities. seems a roundabout way for workers to benefit for the boss' extra surplus-value ...

I don't doubt that there are strong incentives for capitalists to invest in new technology, nor did marx for that matter. but its by-the-by really, i mean people have pretty much being inventing stuff prodigiously for 40,000 years or so, and technological progress is autocatalytic, because it's own development tends to accelerate itself. However, most of the technological innovation being done today is by either wage labourers (researchers, scientists, data anaylsyts ;) ) or volunteers (open source developers etc), with only a few entrepreneurs, for sure, who often didn't start an innovation as a money-spinner but merely cashed in when it blew up (e.g. google, napster).

you're not trying to claim people only invent stuff for money are you? because that isn't even true in a society where you need money to live, let alone a communist one.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 13, 2006

But again Joseph, in analogy to the discussion we had about profits and resource, we need to have it about worker v.s. bourgeoise.

Under your definition of workers I would include managers, entrepeneurs and investors. I would reserve the term burgeoise to those parasitic elements of society, who do not add value or manipulating maquiavelans that detract from it.

It is not that I am blind to the problems of capitalism, the abode of production, but I include it among a larger set of problems and issues which deserve to be addressed. e

With this in mind I insist that workers are the beneficiary of tecnology.

rather than the machines being the means for the workers, the workers became means to the machines.

Yep, technology implementation has negative effects. The situation is analogous to the closure of the pits, I dont doubt that libertarian comunism would be more efficient in dealing with the issues involved.

any increased leisure created by machines is experienced by workers as unemployment and poverty

What I find revealling is that the working week remains 40 hours. All that extra productivity translates into different jobs arising. I think that the 40 hour week is a cultural phenomenom beyond our discussions.

However, most of the technological innovation being done today is by either wage labourers (researchers, scientists, data anaylsyts ) or volunteers (open source developers etc), with only a few entrepreneurs

I dont think entrepeneurs are part of the innovation, but rather the implementation. I think of the multibillion dollar pharmaceutical industry and at fundamental research at universities. Similarly we have windows and linux.

Although I have been arguying about monopolistic profits in practice the reality is more complex and from a black and white perspective turns more into a greyish one... The system we have has many mechanism and complex interactions, it has been shaped over centuries...

In Ghost in the Shell 2 by Mamouru Oshii, a case is made for our societies and cities being an external kind of DNA equivalent:

"If the substance of life is information, transmitted through genes, then society and culture are essentially immense information transmission systems, and the city, a huge external memory storage device."

I like this idea very much, its analogous to biologic complexity on which DNA operates, it points to a unique feed-through relation between individual/society.

It also points to new concepts were our ideas appear primitive in comparison, like a farmers understanding of the inheritance laws to the biology of DNA.

I value complexity, dinamism, variety. I would prefer to see libcom ideas put into practice within the current framework and slowly shape society i.e. in biological terms, small change is evolution, a sudden change is likely to turn into a tumor.

P.S. I know you do too, but ultimately you would like to see a profound change whereas I would settle for much less. Again we fall to the profit issue, my perception of the evils of capitalism, monopoly profits, is much restrictive than yours.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 13, 2006

carlosgonzalez

What I find revealling is that the working week remains 40 hours. All that extra productivity translates into different jobs arising. I think that the 40 hour week is a cultural phenomenom beyond our discussions.

see, i don't think it's cultural, but a lot to do with capitalism. productivity gains mean, in theory a 10% productivity gain could mean a reduction in working hours from 40 to 36 for the same profit and wages, but this never happens. Why? because from capital's purpose in pursuing productivity gains is what marx called increasing 'relative surplus-value', that is increasing that proportion of the working day which produces value for them and decreasing the proportion that produces the workers' wages. So basically we don't have much choice (outside of direct action, strikes for shorter hours etc) about whether productivity gains mean more consumption, less work, or a bit of both, because capital acts as if it has a life of it's own, always needing to expand, regardless of human desires.

carlosgonzalez

I value complexity, dinamism, variety. I would prefer to see libcom ideas put into practice within the current framework and slowly shape society i.e. in biological terms, small change is evolution, a sudden change is likely to turn into a tumor.

well, we generally believe in 'building the new society in the shell of the old', because revolutions don't come out of nowhere, and are far more likely to turn into 'tumours' if we haven't prepared. thats not to say we rule out revolution however, we think it is neccessary, but it can't happen without the slow, gradual work of building libertarian networks of workers, federations etc now, which when they reach a certain size will probably be repressed by the authorities, which may lead to a revolutionary situation (or a need to start again :()

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 13, 2006

Regarding the 40 hour week, I think of self employed people, and how they opt for more rather than less.

I also have in mind construction workers, who are given many oportunities to do overtime and agree to it. A carpenter friend works 9 hours per day, he wants the extra cash and he also goes occasionally on saturdays and sundays if he wants the cash.

We often hear that work is a "right", that is an essential part of pride and the backbone of society. Recall here the criticism on closing the mines, destroying communities. Think of people who see retirement as a deathwish.

My grandfather died when he was not physically able to work, even when he retired as a teacher he continued to work as a guide at a local cave. It was one of the few times that I saw him cry and likewise I never saw him as happy as when he was working. I myself have often worked beyond my shift when I liked my job and was motivated.

I also see how people compete with their neighbours, friends and family, i.e. who has the newest car...

You argue that it is capital, I think it is more complex. Afterall a 40 hour week is already a minimum, Chinese often work 72 hour weeks.

when they reach a certain size will probably be repressed by the authorities

I dont copy you here. In Spain ETAs political wing has been persecuted by PP without much success. We have had situations where convicted murderes have been elected to parliament and in town halls, the same townhalls that used government money to fund support for ETA.

I am receptive to basque and ETA concerns but even I agree with PP that one cannot use government position and government funding to attack the government. Even so PP have been relatively unsuccesfull as ETA would register new political organisations and the whole illegalization process would have to start all over again in the courts, taking years...

do you think that they will be willing to spend time and energy in worrying about you, and second that you will not be able to defend yourselves. Furthermore you are not the political wing of a terrorist organisation, fostering street violence on a dayly basis and all kind of public and sectarian support i.e. you will not be breaking the law. will you??? :)

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 13, 2006

i'm not saying the repression would succeed - after all the British government managed to boost the IRA with it's repressive polices, but the point is neither the IRA or Eta are revolutionaries, but nationalists with a bit of leftism thrown in. If we say, formed a mass militant union, it would probably be illegal under thatcher's anti-union laws, and if it wasn't, i'm sure it would be criminalised if the state thought it could get away with it.
carlosgonzalez

I also have in mind construction workers, who are given many oportunities to do overtime and agree to it.

i don't doubt that a lot of people, particularly more self-employed craft-workers, don't mind working those hours. In fact libertarian communism is based on the idea that people will voluntarily produce without coercion. But remember that we all work in a society where money is required to meet our needs, so the fact that workers work overtime may just mean that they have a huge mortgage/rent/bills to pay etc.

You're right, there are many stories of people who die soon after stopping work. I think it's tragic that work becomes such a big part of our lives that we can end up with nothing else; but of course if we had libertarian communism at least those who wanted to work a lot could, and those who wanted to pursue other activites could too (within certain limits of freeriding etc), and hopefully much work itself could be made more enjoyable/sociable. I'd also hope a society not so centred on work would have more time for the elderly rather than sending them off to retirement homes to die alone.

The point is about freeing society from the constant need for narrowly defined economic growth (e.g. if i buy 3 rubbish toasters in 3 years GDP and profits are probably higher than if i just bought 1 that lasted), and allowing productivity gains to benefit human needs directly, rather than simply as more commodities, ad infinitum. It may well be we choose to work even harder for ourselves than we do for bosses, or maybe we'd half the working week and consume less stuff, or maybe some combination of these things, different for different people as much as possible. Needs, or rather desires to consume, may be infinite, but our desires to work are not. so in a directly democratic society an equilibrium would emerge, which wouldn't neccessarily require a market, even if the processes involved could be conceptualised in terms of a broadly understood marginal cost (effort) = marginal revenue (reward).

production oriented to need is still more likely to fulfil our desires than production oriented to profit that only fills profitable needs as a secondary effect and spends a fortune creating others, because there is mediation between our desires to work and our desires to consume - without the distoring imperitive to grow at any cost (social, ecological etc).

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 14, 2006

I always thought of ETA and the IRA as legitimate movements who responded to violent coercison. In the thread about civil disobedience I stated that vilence is justified in the face of repression. I have often encountered bullies, in school and at work (mobing?). Psicologist say that if you coward down and try to talk to them it only makes you look weaker and they feel justified to continue.

Though basques were oppressed under Franco, with democracy they have seen the rule of law uphold their right to pursue happiness, even if it means with their own flag, language, parliament, police, law courts, inland revenue, even the region is called "Basque COUNTRY". It is then that ETA turned from a resistance movement to a trully nationalist one with all the evils the word entails. It has taken ETA 20 years to see that, Hipercor mass bombing was in 86, but lets hope that they have finally seen the light.

This is also a similar process to the argument against accumulation by big corporation, that having big fat accounts and lots of liquid assets just makes them attractive to sharks who organise a junk bond buy out which they pay off by selling those assets. And it follows that if you dont want to loose control of your corporation you better not keep any assets that are not necessary for the economic activity. By removing the oppresion of the basque people ETA no longer can justify its violent struggle.

So similarly, if libertarian comunism gets the strength it need it will not need a revolution, as the system is likely to respond to its concerns before that, and gradually demolish its arguments, not by force but by acknowledgeing the demands. Furthermore it would be a mistake to substitute the coerscion of the state by libcom revolutionary zeal.

You seem to think that the justification of revolution will come from gaining the support of a majority of workers, but I think that the real legitimacy is from libcom showing that it can improve society.

if i buy 3 rubbish toasters in 3 years GDP and profits are probably higher than if i just bought 1 that lasted

I dont agree that this is a capitalist issue but a consumeristic one. Quality has a price, and not everyone is willing to pay it. I and my family are very conscious of quality, as a kid my father would check that anything he bought was not italian, it would brake down fast :)

I know people who have flampoyant cars and crap washing machines. I have a "crap" car and a good washing machine...

so in a directly democratic society an equilibrium would emerge, which wouldn't neccessarily require a market, even if the processes involved could be conceptualised in terms of a broadly understood marginal cost (effort) = marginal revenue (reward).

That is CENTRAL PLANNING, albeight by the dictatorship of the proletarian, but central planning all the same.

As anarchists you should worship the market for being a non hirearchical and coerscive way of transmitting production and consumption information accross society.

production oriented to need is still more likely to fulfil our desires than production oriented to profit hat only fills profitable needs as a secondary effect and spends a fortune creating others,

First of all, "our desires" is consumer society, you are materialistic and should acknowledge that the market gives unparalled freedom and rights to the consumer. You may be coerced by your boss, but as a customer you are the one who makes all the decision totally individually and anarchically.

So I find totally patronising on consumers to say that they are spending a fortune on "other needs". Leave the consumer out of it, you have no right to tell people how to spend their money just as you dont want to tell them how to spend their time.

So if someone is willing to work 14 hours a day and spend all his money in tuning his car (and buy a crap washing machine), you may not agree with him but would be totally out of line to remove his freedom to do so.

Is it this that you didnt like about the axioms of neoclassical economics? the idea that individuals always make the best choices for themselves?

I for one support suicide and euthanasia. I would also legalize drugs and make them availabe at their true cost, and prostitution and hirearchical jobs... PROVIDED THE INDIVIDUAL HAS THE POSSIBILITY TO CHOOSE FREELY, i.e. to continue living, not to do drugs, not to prostitute or not to work for capitalist firms.

If you are judgemental about what people should or should not do, then you are just as violent and coercive as traditional hirearchical societies, and far from being a true libertarian you would just amount to a new form of capitalism per your defintion.

because there is mediation between our desires to work and our desires to consume - without the distoring imperitive to grow at any cost (social, ecological etc).

The current capitalist system relies on profit maximization and competition.

What mediation are you calling for, because I think of a firm in Brighton and a consumer in Leeds. How are you going to mediate between the two if it is not through the market or a centrally planned system?

By the way, think of a firm as a centre around where production is organised, a location, a team of people. Whether run under libcom or any other rationel, its objective is to use means to produce, and presumianbly that is very much a technical matter for enginneers who are ultimately scientist who should agree on the most efficient way to perform a task, i.e. cigars in Cuba, and cigars in Pureto Rico are hand rolled the same way, and in Cuba they are hand rolled in the same way under Fidel as under Batista.

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 14, 2006

Lazy Riser

Here it is again, the irrational notion that there is something masking the current order’s true character.

well, this doesn't quite fit with (what seems to be) your main argument that the main problem facing people is their inability to really think clearly about what it is they want and how to get it.

I mean if everything was as transparent as you claim in the quote, then surely a thought-clarification process wouldn't be necessary?

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 14, 2006

carlosgonzalez

So similarly, if libertarian comunism gets the strength it need it will not need a revolution, as the system is likely to respond to its concerns before that, and gradually demolish its arguments, not by force but by acknowledgeing the demands.

it will try, and the existence of social democracy is evidence of such mediation. but we don't make demands of the bosses, we demand their abolition, so no concession they make can ever be enough - and concessions to a revilutionary movement could just as easily encourage it as placate it.
carlosgonzalez

That is CENTRAL PLANNING, albeight by the dictatorship of the proletarian, but central planning all the same.

As anarchists you should worship the market for being a non hirearchical and coerscive way of transmitting production and consumption information accross society.

only if you've had it drummed into you for three years at britain's top economics university that everything is either central planning or a market :P. Decentral planning, probably.

carlosgonzalez

Quality has a price, and not everyone is willing to pay it.

so how come a TV my parents bought (and could afford) 20 years ago still works while one they bought 5 years ago has broken down? Are you suggesting planned obselescence is not a major feature of a profit-driven economy? I don't want cheap crap, but i don't have much disposable income. You can't say the market reflects people's desires when there is the dual distortion of profit-centred production and always-inadequate wages which have nothing to do with economic scarcity per se.

carlosgonzalez

First of all, "our desires" is consumer society, you are materialistic and should acknowledge that the market gives unparalled freedom and rights to the consumer.

ahh, the freedom celebrated by Henry Ford, proto-fascist. This is alienation - the products of our social labour which we have no control over are separated from us and sold back in a market, and we are told 'the customer is king'. The 'spectacular' abundance of commodites merely signifies the loss of half our waking lives to the control of someone else; it is a bad joke to call this freedom. Again:

carlosgonzalez

We want nothing of a world in which the certainty of not dying from hunger comes in exchange for the risk of dying from boredom.

we have all sorts of needs that are not commodities and cannot satisfy our needs if they are commidified, something which seems to escape you.

carlosgonzalez

So if someone is willing to work 14 hours a day and spend all his money in tuning his car (and buy a crap washing machine), you may not agree with him but would be totally out of line to remove his freedom to do so.

oh yeah, the 'free choice' of the wage labourer. what are the alternatives to wage labour again?

carlosgonzalez

If you are judgemental about what people should or should not do, then you are just as violent and coercive as traditional hirearchical societies, and far from being a true libertarian you would just amount to a new form of capitalism per your defintion.

can you show me where i was being judgemental and hierarchical, i seem to have missed it? I certainly judged a system based on profit, naughty me.

carlosgonzalez

How are you going to mediate between the two if it is not through the market or a centrally planned system?

are people incapable of netwotking and co-ordinating activity horizontally without central authortity? of course not. would this require a price system set by a market? not neccessarily, there are all sorts of quantitiative and qualitative informatics derived from all sorts of methods which do not constitute competitive equilibrium (Michael Albert's Parecon is one, since you seem to want a lot of detail for a forum post). It's also worth pointing out that nobody was able to imagine digital stock markets and the intricate workings of the modern economy in advance either, but that obviously doesn't mean they don't 'work' (on their terms).

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 14, 2006

we don't make demands of the bosses, we demand their abolition

I dont agree with you, it is just substituting one coercive violence for another and I doubt it is worth it i.e. that you will be able to deliver a better society. You will solve many problems, but at the expense of creating a whole new batch of them.

how come a TV my parents bought (and could afford) 20 years ago still works while one they bought 5 years ago has broken down?

I recommend that you read Death of a Salesman, by Arthur Miller, it is a wonderfull play and deals with that and other critiques on the "American Dream"

You can't say the market reflects people's desires when there is the dual distortion of profit-centred production and always-inadequate wages which have nothing to do with economic scarcity per se.

I totally disagree. Consumer societies consume all that is produced, inadequate wages mean inadequate production and that has all to do with economic scarcity.

There are distortive forces, such as Monopoly prices and government taxes. But then societies are more complex than we like to think.

we have all sorts of needs that are not commodities and cannot satisfy our needs if they are commidified, something which seems to escape you.

On the contrary, what escapes you is that we have many other non-commidified needs other than the abode of production.

You only worry about bosses, anarchist-feminists about /men, black anarchist about whites, and that is just the top of the iceberg.

'free choice' of the wage labourer. what are the alternatives to wage labour again?

I said nothing about system, you argue that in libcom state workers decide how much they want to work. So what if someone want to work 14 hours and put all the value he created into tuning his car?

Why dont you admit being judgmental and not willing to tolerate that someone wasted his labour on such a futile effort as tuning his car?

are people incapable of netwotking and co-ordinating activity horizontally without central authortity?

Actually, that would be a good definition for the boundaries of a firm. There is no market within a firm, or rather the trade-offs are internalized. But there is one point when this is no longer practical and the firm lets the market take over as a means to organize production and consumption on an economy wide bases.

P.S. Im reading on mutualism, very interesting, it supports much of my argument, theres even banking! Where I disagree it is mainly because I think that it can be improven...

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 14, 2006

carlosgonzalez

You will solve many problems, but at the expense of creating a whole new batch of them.

probably, but that doesnt mean there won't be a net gain. The replacement of chattel slavery with wage slavery replace one set of problems with another, but i'd still rather be a wage slave.

carlosgonzalez

I totally disagree.

i figure ... but then i see possibilities beyond private ownership of the means of production, where the rules of the game you take as naturalised are shattered (though i don't buy into the whole 'post-scarcity' thing)

carlosgonzalez

On the contrary, what escapes you is that we have many other non-commidified needs other than the abode of production.

You only worry about bosses, anarchist-feminists about /men, black anarchist about whites, and that is just the top of the iceberg.

i'm concerned with all forms of domination, you shouldn't assume otherwise just because we're having a discussion focussed on 'economic' exploitation. i mean, i don't assume you support child abuse just because you haven't explicity condemned it ;)

carlosgonzalez

Why dont you admit being judgmental and not willing to tolerate that someone wasted his labour on such a futile effort as tuning his car?

because i don't make such a judgement :?

that's fine by me, though if someone did nothing but tune their car i'd probably have a word and point out it's a bit antisocial not to contriubute anythung to the society that supports their car-tuning.

carlosgonzalez

Actually, that would be a good definition for the boundaries of a firm. There is no market within a firm, or rather the trade-offs are internalized. But there is one point when this is no longer practical and the firm lets the market take over as a means to organize production and consumption on an economy wide bases.

i work for a fortune 500 company that employs 60,000 or so people worldwide - you are right, there is very little internal market, and each division and business unit is fairly autonomous and co-ordinates it's activities with the others through co-operation. why, for example, could you not have multiple producer federations/networks which while not in competition in the strict sense were relatively autonomous, and so offered 'consumer choice' to gauge public demands?

there would be different groups working to solve their own problems, but successful solutions could quickly spread throughout the economy, there being no motive to hoard them for 'competitive advantage'. Like the way there is libcom and infoshop for libertarian communists/anarchists, indymedia for activists etc - these sites are not competitors as such, and can even share technology etc, so they could co-operate while remaining autonomous and offering choice (meaning no centrally plannned monopoly, and choice and decentralised production without a market).

carlosgonzalez

P.S. Im reading on mutualism, very interesting, it supports much of my argument, theres even banking!

thought you'd like it ;), it's what i'd describe as a non-capitalist market system

Khawaga

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Khawaga on October 14, 2006

On the contrary, what escapes you is that we have many other non-commidified needs other than the abode of production.

That doesn't escape him at all. The concept of commodity escapes you. When we have needs in capitalism and want to satisfy them we are increasintly forced to satisfy them through buying commodities. This goes from everything to food, shelter, culture, transportation, health-care, education etc.

His point is exactly that there is so much more to do with life rather than spending it on producing profit for someone else.

I would really recommend you to try to read Marx again, or read some introductory text to the subject. Don't give up because it is dense!

Most of this discussion has just been some of us using (and trying to explain) Marxist concepts and theory, and you often (but not always) mistaking those concept for the words neo-classical economics use. You constantly cite neo-classical economics and that is fine. But you see this economics as something waterproof (well in a way it is: it is internally coherent) whereas people like Joseph believe that this is (more or less) nothing but a mystifying bourgeoise ideology. Now neo-classical economics is not worthless, it does explain stuff pretty well in certain contexts, but its main prolem is that it is one-dimensional.

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 14, 2006

good summary, there has been a fair amount of talking at crossed purposes with terms like 'commodity' and 'property' having different meanings in neoclassical and marxist theory.

atlemk

neo-classical economics is not worthless, it does explain stuff pretty well in certain contexts, but its main prolem is that it is one-dimensional.

yep

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 14, 2006

Hi

the main problem facing people is their inability to really think clearly about what it is they want and how to get it.

Well they’re able to do it, it’s just that they have neither the time nor material resources to develop their goals or the political infrastructure required to implement them.

I mean if everything was as transparent as you claim in the quote, then surely a thought-clarification process wouldn't be necessary?

A thought-clarification process isn’t necessary regardless. The maintenance and extension of our living standards is.

the market appears neutral because it's foundations of property relations and wage labour are naturalised.

I’m not sure what property relations are. I take it to mean that the legal owner of a thing can dictate how it is deployed. Even in capitalist markets, the community has (albeit limited) control over the deployment of otherwise alienated property via local government. As for wage labour, this presumably means the bulk of income coming from being exploited at work. Does this mean that a market without wage labour is impossible? In which case, I’m in the clear, which is nice. The good lord only knows how PARECON rewarding sacrifice whilst abolishing markets is expected to work.

there has been a fair amount of talking at crossed purposes with terms like 'commodity' and 'property' having different meanings in neoclassical and marxist theory.

It sounds like you’re watering down communism to make it acceptable to common sense. Communists advocate the abolition of private property, in all senses of the word. Else, they’re little more than left social democrats.

Love

LR

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 14, 2006

Lazy Riser

they’re able to do it, it’s just that they have neither the time nor material resources to develop their goals or the political infrastructure required to implement them.

ok, well how do they aquire those resources?

surely C-M-C' is part of a general scheme that helps to explain (once you get past the weird language) why those resources are scarce for some and not for others?

which itself is a step towards overcoming the obstacles you're talking about?

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 14, 2006

Hi

surely C-M-C' is part of a general scheme that helps to explain (once you get past the weird language) why those resources are scarce for some and not for others?

An attempt, certainly. A help, maybe. But by the application of 19th century clockwork logic, it incorrectly postulates that ownership of property rather than management of the money supply is the root of alienated society. I would add that the general formula is as much about showing capitalism to be a degenerate social relation as an exercise in applied economics. For a start it assumes that the value of money is set by the market for precious metals, not a “designed” thing set by the management of central banks.

which itself is a step towards overcoming the obstacles you're talking about?

Definitely. Communists are not the enemy, at least not most of them.

Love

LR

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 14, 2006

Lazy, C-M-C' implies little or nothing about the determination of the 'value of money', it's merely a way of stating that the point of capital is it's own expansion, which requires a universal equivalent for circulation, phrased in a 19th century quasi-scientific form of course.

Lazy Riser

Communists advocate the abolition of private property, in all senses of the word.

not really 'in all senses' though, given as the first thing that comes to most people's mind when mentioning private property is their own possessions (i.e. usufruct)

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 14, 2006

Hi

implies little or nothing about the determination of the 'value of money'

Ho hum. Marxist notions of money as the “universal commodity”, and hence its value relative to other commodities is key to the general formula.

not really 'in all senses' though, given as the first thing that comes to most people's mind when mentioning private property is their own possessions (i.e. usufruct)

Well, usufruct is a first order attempt to water down communism by tying the abolition of private property back to common sense. I mean, you have to get planning permission including opening yourself to public objection before certain modifications to your dwelling or land. In this sense, we already have usufruct as far as the most fundamental part of capitalist property is concerned. Besides, introducing usufruct for your laptop, underwear, telly or sex-android is as alien to “people’s minds” as the abolition of private property. Indeed the things you’re allowed to do with your laptop is already subject to law, so how much more usufruct are you thinking of introducing? Either way, you've already said that mutualism is a viable for you, which propels you well out of the communist ball park. Communism is only interesting when advocated by the devout.

Love

LR

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 14, 2006

Lazy Riser

it incorrectly postulates that ownership of property rather than management of the money supply is the root of alienated society.

well, personally I do think that the actions of Terry Leahy have a more constraining effect upon me than those of Mervyn King.

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 14, 2006

Hi

Well think again then. Besides, Terry Leahy doesn't "own" tescos, he manages it.

Love

LR

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 14, 2006

Lazy

ou've already said that mutualism is a viable for you, which propels you well out of the communist ball park.

If communism proves impossible, that's quite a crucial caveat.

otherwise your conceptions of property and usufurct are in a ballpark of your own

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 14, 2006

Hi

If communism proves impossible, that's quite a crucial caveat.

Duly noted. Interesting angle. And if mutualism proves impossible, what then? Social Democracy by the looks of it. Say even that doesn't work out, perhaps you might put up with neoliberalism.

otherwise your conceptions of property and usufurct are in a ballpark of your own

That "otherwise" seems superfluous, theoreticians of dialectics just can’t manage without antithesis.

Love

LR

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 14, 2006

carlosgonzalez

Duly noted. Interesting angle. And if mutualism proves impossible, what then? Social Democracy by the looks of it. Say even that doesn't work out, perhaps you might put up with neoliberalism.

perhaps :roll:, except the point at issue was whether decentralised allocation without a market is possible, if it isn't communism turns into mutualism by default.

what do you advocate again, btw, tactical regicide aside?

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 14, 2006

Hi

Ho ho. Your misattributing my posts to Carlos, are you trying to be funny?

the point at issue was whether decentralised allocation without a market is possible, if it isn't communism turns into mutualism by default.

Another interesting angle. Under mutualism, how are we to be renumerated?

Love

LR

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 14, 2006

however you like, i'm not here to describe every possible permutation of every possible system, desptite appearences ;)

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 14, 2006

Hi

So why bother with communism at all? What benefits does it offer over mutualism?

I suppose I mean to ask, what are the reactionary consequences of the presence of a market, in the sense of the mutualism you're describing.

(Sorry for not advocating a position above, I'm saving it for a rainy day)

Love

LR

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 14, 2006

i'm into boring old anarchist stuff like solidarity, co-operation and mutual aid, and not so into wars of all against all and competition, so i want a system that correlates most with the human potentialities i like, and not one that compels the ones i don't.

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 14, 2006

Lazy Riser

Terry Leahy doesn't "own" tescos, he manages it.

yes, but what with stock options, mega-bonuses and the like, the distinction is increasingly blurred.

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 15, 2006

Hi

i'm into boring old anarchist stuff like solidarity, co-operation and mutual aid, and not so into wars of all against all and competition

You poof. If mutualist markets are indeed a war of all against all I don't see how you can ethically advocate them as a if communism doesn't pan out. You should get on side with the devout and stop sitting on the fence.

Terry Leahy doesn't "own" tescos, he manages it.

yes, but what with stock options, mega-bonuses and the like, the distinction is increasingly blurred.

Ho hum, I wondered if you were going to bring this up. As it happens directors are increasingly encouraged to not have shares in their firms. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember that large PLCs have to have a non-executive director(s) with no shares at all. Tesco’s major shareholders are institutional investors, that is to say, it’s really owned by future pensioners.

Love

LR

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 15, 2006

Lazy Riser

You should get on side with the devout and stop sitting on the fence.

i think you know i'm not on the fence, but neither am i under the delusion i possess some infallible truth or historical mission; potentiality is only ever affirmed retrospectively, i.e. gotta give this communism lark a go and see what happens ;)

on mutualism and hobbesianism, i'd have thought a market society without alienated property would not have strong enough drives to accumulate over and above basic human solidarity, we all know the petit bourgeoisie are petit because they can't bring themselves to brazenly fuck people over; the guy at the laundrette the other day refused to let me pay the extra for some unexpected additional costs (waterproof jackets are a pain to clean, apparently), because he hated charging more than he quoted, and was genuinely embarassed (at the absurdity of commodities? maybe ... :P)

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 15, 2006

I wrote a long post yesterday after reading on mutialism, unfortunately I posted it at 12.25, just when the web was being updated and it was lost :(. In addition, much has been discussed and I needed time to let it settle.

I find very interesting the Joseph vs LR discussion, and I see myself very much in Joseph :) Please note LR that I sometimes cant follow you and stay out of your reasonings.

One issue corresponds to property:

Clarence Lee Swartz, says in What is Mutualism:
"One of the tests of any reform movement with regard to personal liberty is this: Will the movement prohibit or abolish private property? If it does, it is an enemy of liberty. For one of the most important criteria of freedom is the right to private property in the products of ones labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property."

Have I said that before? :)

Now, I have voiced my viral opposition to revolution and I was extremely surprised to read the following:

Proudon: democratically organised workers' associations . . . We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic social Republic

Bottom line if you want a revolution, you have to prove within the liberties and tolerance of social democracy that you can do it, that you can organize the means of production just as well or better than a capitalist.

Beneath the governmental machinery, in the shadow of political institutions, out of the sight of statemen and priests, society is producing its own organism, slowly and silently; and constructing a new order, the expression of its vitality and autonomy... (Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century )

This Atlemk, sounds very much as the CIVIL SOCIETY I have repeatedly mentioned. You are intent in thinking that I missunderstand the concept of commodity, but I am just as materialistic as the next man, and the first to recognize that consumerism is not the answer to all the problems and point out that there are many issues worthy and being addressed within social democracy, particularly through CIVIL SOCIETY and politics.

By the way, I see consumerism as a result of materialism. We have substituted sunday mass for saturday evening at Tescos. Miracles dont happen at Lourdes but in Hospitals. After all communism rose because labour was being oppressed not just socialy but economicaly. Bread and Roses mate, bread and Roses...

Furthermore Atlemk, you can read up and see that it was Joseph who started to talk about neoclassical theory. As an economic model I am very conscious of what it is trying to model and the assumptions being made. It provides a framework in which to analyze and discuss different ideas as we have very honorably done here. Joseph has voiced his concerns over the concept of utility and of individual decisions.

On reflexsion I think that Joseph and I (not excluding anyone else, just that we have argued a lot:) ) share a common academic ground, that we are "little" men of science who understand that we can see things differently and disagree but that we owe it to ourselves to express our ideas rationally in a language we can both understand and use. To that effect we have found some common ground between pure economics and comunist political economics.

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 15, 2006

Hi

I see myself very much in Joseph

Ha ha. Well you're both left social democrats, so that makes sense (sorry JK, just a joke). Carlos, you realise you're discrediting JK by association.

Please note LR that I sometimes cant follow you and stay out of your reasonings.

Sorry about that. I'm eager to answer any questions you might have.

Love

LR

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 15, 2006

Duly noted. Interesting angle. And if mutualism proves impossible, what then? Social Democracy by the looks of it. Say even that doesn't work out, perhaps you might put up with neoliberalism.

"War is the continuation of diplomacy, by other means..."

Another dead idealist for the history books.

Loosing will not prove you wrong, but neither will winning.

Who ultimately decides which system we have?

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 15, 2006

Lazy Riser

Tesco’s major shareholders are institutional investors, that is to say, it’s really owned by future pensioners.

not really, it's really owned by capitalists that make their money by selling pensions

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 15, 2006

Lazy Riser

As it happens directors are increasingly encouraged to not have shares in their firms.

Terry Leahy has 1/2 million pounds worth of shares in Tesco - and this year he stands to earn nearly 4 million pounds.

I think we can safely say he is a capitalist.

Info on Mr. Leahy Moneybags

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 15, 2006

Well John, making money by selling pensions sounds like an honest living from an honest job, at least in comparison to exploiting labour or usury.

Your comunist ideas defend labours from those who exploit it, but labour is not exclusive to "workers" but also financiers, organizers, entrepeneurs or salesmen, specialists whose effort has value.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 15, 2006

Well John, I see a contradiction in terms, how can a capitalist earn his living?

Capitalists dont earn, they appropriate the produce of labour.

Earning is labour, what communism defends, but how can communism defend employers?

:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 15, 2006

Hi

not really, it's really owned by capitalists that make their money by selling pensions

Yes, yes, john. Rather than pedantically correct you here, I'll simply ask you to summarise what point you're trying to make, coz all it's achieved is to give ammunition to our newly acquired Social Democrat.

Love

LR

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 15, 2006

the point is that you can't work 200 times more than the average person - there must be some surplus value mixed up with that large an amount of money

in what way are pensions companies any more worthy than supermarkets?

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 15, 2006

Hi

in what way are pensions companies any more worthy than supermarkets?

Are you asking me? They're not. What has their worthyness got to do with anything?

Love

LR

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 15, 2006

Lazy Riser

Yes, yes, john. Rather than pedantically correct you here, I'll simply ask you to summarise what point you're trying to make

erm, that the ownership and control of property is more coercive than the management of money - and that even if that ownership lies in the hands of "institutional investors" that doesn't discount my point

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 15, 2006

No, LR, I was asking social democracy boy

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 15, 2006

Hi

erm, that the ownership and control of property is more coercive than the management of money - and that even if that ownership lies in the hands of "institutional investors" that doesn't discount my point

Oh right. Well there’s no doubt that ownership buys control. My point is that the bourgeoisie are as marked by their influence over how capital is deployed as they are by their individual relationship towards the means of production. For a start, our Tesco’s chief exerts far more influence over Tesco’s plans than his shareholding would buy in an AGM. It’s clear, I assume, how closely related Tesco’s plans and performance are to the base interest rate and the overall fiscal character developed through our fractional reserve banking system.

Of course, as a communist, your first duty is raise the question of property whenever the opportunity arises. So I can’t knock you for carrying out your traditional genuflections.

Love

LR

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 16, 2006

carlosgonzalez

On reflexsion I think that Joseph and I (not excluding anyone else, just that we have argued a lot Smile ) share a common academic ground

¡madre de dios!
damn my residual liberalism ... the world will not be free until the last economist is hung with the guts of the last economics lecturer! ;)

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 16, 2006

Dear Lazy Riser,

But still, in your view, Merv is the facilitator whilst Tel is the actual agent of coercion, no? Surely we should focus more on the coercers than those who help with the process of coercion?

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 16, 2006

Hi

john

But still, in your view, Merv is the facilitator whilst Tel is the actual agent of coercion, no? Surely we should focus more on the coercers than those who help with the process of coercion?

Nah. For a start drawing a distinction between them is somewhat reactionary. Further, we should focus on the working class not the bourgeoisie.

Love

LR

Khawaga

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Khawaga on October 16, 2006

This Atlemk, sounds very much as the CIVIL SOCIETY I have repeatedly mentioned.

I've never really had a problem with you using the term Civil Society, though I think how the concept is used and abused makes it very ambigious (e.g. do you include business here?, is the family civil society? is civil society just institutionalised). There's a lot of disagreement out there on what space civil society actually inhabit.

Furthermore Atlemk, you can read up and see that it was Joseph who started to talk about neoclassical theory. As an economic model I am very conscious of what it is trying to model and the assumptions being made. It provides a framework in which to analyze and discuss different ideas as we have very honorably done here. Joseph has voiced his concerns over the concept of utility and of individual decisions.

I don't see your point here that Joseph started to talked about neo-classical economics. I have an issue with your take on it, I am in almost full agreement on Joseph on this issue.

But FYI I do have some academic background in economics (I did development studies) so I understand all of the theory you've written about on this forum. My problem with this is that you take some of the main assumptions in neo-classical theory as given and natural, which basically means being ahistorical and apolitical to some degree. The fact that you actually state that there is something as pure economics illustrates my point exactly.

ou are intent in thinking that I missunderstand the concept of commodity, but I am just as materialistic as the next man, and the first to recognize that consumerism is not the answer to all the problems

As Joseph has had more patience than me in explaining, commodities are not just about consumption!! Contained in the marxian concept of commodities lies wage-labour, enclosure, alienation, class struggle, profit, exchange etc etc. i.e. I agree with you of course that just focusing on consumption, such as fair trade, environmental labelling etc. will not lead to fundamental changes in society. There is more to it.

Still, carlos, and I am not trying to be condescending here, I do think that you don't "get" what Joseph has been trying to explain. Before you can fully understand Marxist concepts you need to have some grasp of dialectics, which is pretty tough to wrap your head around. Again I will recommend you pick up some Marxist texts again, I can assure you it will be worthwile. I would recommend "Economy-Development-Environment-Knowledge" by Ken Cole. It is a fairly easy introduction to Marxist theory, and it also covers "why economists disagree" when they are seemingly talking about the same stuff (like we've been doing a lot here).

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 16, 2006

Lazy Riser

For a start drawing a distinction between them is somewhat reactionary. Further, we should focus on the working class not the bourgeoisie.

ok, but this seems to contradict this:

Lazy

it incorrectly postulates that ownership of property rather than management of the money supply is the root of alienated society.

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 16, 2006

Hi

a) In what way? (Assuming we share the definition of "contradict")

b) In what way does exposing an internal contradiction, assuming it exists, constitute a viable counter argument?

Love

LR

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 16, 2006

a) you distinguished between the 2, and you focused on the management of money supply (rather than working class)

b) it's not a counterargument, it's an attempt to show that you seem to be backtracking on an argument you initiated

Khawaga

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Khawaga on October 16, 2006

Edit: managed to post the same post twice due to a shitty DSL connection so I just deleted everything.

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 16, 2006

Hi john,

I appreciate I've given you a tall order there, whilst we're waiting, let me entertain you with a few quotes...

Mayer Bauer

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws"

Amschel Rothschild

Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."

Nathan Rothschild

care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.

President James A. Garfield

Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.

Love

LR

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 16, 2006

Hi

Oh you came back rather quicker than I expected...

a) you distinguished between the 2, and you focused on the management of money supply (rather than working class)

Not really, I maintain that "ownership", in Marx's 19th century sense of capitalism, isn't really the name of the game anymore. Influence over capital deployment, however, is. Ask the local Council Chief Exec if you don't believe me.

b) it's not a counterargument, it's an attempt to show that you seem to be backtracking on an argument you initiated

Oh great. Well thanks for that, try not to take stuff so personally from now on. I'm perfectly capable of making myself look stupid without your help.

Love

LR

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 16, 2006

ok, I'll try not to be so sensitive in future.

granted, direction of capital, in contrast to the direct ownership of it, can be equally coercive

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 16, 2006

Before you can fully understand Marxist concepts you need to have some grasp of dialectics, which is pretty tough to wrap your head around.

Well, it is part of my initial post, I wouldn't want to learn theology to discuss religion. I see economics as the legitimate framework on which to expose our ideas.

Economics is scientific and rational, a tool. Ofcourse economics deals with economic issues. You may argue that politics covers a wider range of topics. Agreed and that is probably were the issue of commodities arises, I centre on the economic analysis whereas you refuse to give up sociological aspects of productions. Its a micro vs macro issue, economics needs to be simplistic in the face of the complexity of reality.

----------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Joseph for my new Bittorrent client, I wanted to download "The Take" and I tried the one suggested at the page. It is working 3 times as fast as all the clients I have used previously, and I have just finnished watching it.

What the experience shows is that given bankruptcy, workers can successfully take over. It also shows that workers have to find themselves in extreme circunstances, jobless and without job prospects, to organize themselves and make the considerable sacrifices which ARE necessary.

But, in the absence of such extreme situations, workers are just as happy to earn a good salary, just as the president of the cooperative states: that before being laid off he earned 1200USD, took his daughters to McDonalds, went on holiday...

In the documentary it says that 15.000 jobs have been taken back, but hundreds of thousands of Argentinians preferred to emigrate to Spain.

Ultimately I dont seek an ideology of desperation. I will keep libcom, anarchism and mutialism in mind, hoping that they will never proof usefull.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 16, 2006

By the way, I agree with EVERYTHING Lazy Riser says...

In particular that in the present it is no longer as much a question of who owns what as who has power to decide.

Regarding money, we have a very complex system, highly competitive and yet secure. Furthermore, the key to monetary policy, the key to managing the money supply, the interest decision, is in the hands of (more or less) independent central banks, whose prime concern is to keep the genie in the bottle (inflation).

As revol says:

the power of money stems from real relations

Money is just a tool for those relation to be played out, it has no intrinsic value and cannot create value by itself. Infact, inflation is a result of people thinking that they are better off because they have more money, when nothing real has taken place.

The issue is that inflation is sluggish to respond and so a government could lower interest rates in election years, temporarily boosting investment, consumption and the stock markets, before paying the price in terms of higher inflation later.

Governments should be gratefull that monetary policy is out of their hands, as it is one of those things that can fuck things up badly if done wrong, and goes unnoticed if done correctly.

--------------------------------------------------------

the point is that you can't work 200 times more than the average person - there must be some surplus value mixed up with that large an amount of money

Agreed, though one half goes in taxes, the ex-wifes take another chunk, the mercedes, the house and the kids boarding school is equally demandanding. After all what head of a pension fund would be seen with less :)

Look at players in Real Madrid, they earn 500 times more than the average person, everyone knows, and noone really complains if they score goals...

in what way are pensions companies any more worthy than supermarkets?

Are they. (Atlemk when are we going to start argueing about value and worthyness???:) )

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 16, 2006

Hi

Once again Lazy is trapped on the level of appearances, and hence overlooks that the power of money stems from real relations, and these real relations involve real power.

And so we return to the mask. The mask that only communists can see through, the mask that seduces the decadent. Trapped I may be, but the power is as real to me as it is you comrade.

Except you can't fucking eat money Lazy. So you could have all the money you want but if you can't get your hands on the means of production, the fields or communications infastructure you might as well paper your walls with it.

I suppose that’s true. That “except” looks somewhat superfluous though. Explain which of my grand positions you're countering, do.

By the way, I agree with EVERYTHING Lazy Riser says...

You're out of order. I demand you withdraw to your downloaded movies at once.

Love

LR

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 16, 2006

carlosgonzalez

By the way, I agree with EVERYTHING Lazy Riser says...

poor Lazy, all his hard work arguing against the value of arguments down the pan in one short discrediting sentence

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 16, 2006

Hi

Yeah well. Personal criticism is all you've got left in your analytical armoury.

Love

LR

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 16, 2006

i haven't even got that - I had to outsource it to carlos the wayward social democrat

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 16, 2006

I also agree with John....

(this is my dual personality speaking here)

Lazy Riser

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazy Riser on October 16, 2006

Hi

Oh how civilised. Are there any implications of this discussion on meaningful action?

Love

LR

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 16, 2006

Well, after one week I am overloaded

I no longer have the urge to say much, I can imagine what the counter arguments are going to be. Would you believe me that I had a dream (nightmare) yesterday about our discussions?

After watching The Take I stick with one of the cooperative workers saying that voting frequently meant that he got used to accepting the vote even when it didnt turn his way.

In the end, it is not a question of who is right, who has the best ideas, or who is best at debating, it is about what we decide as a society.

Joseph had a problem with one of the axioms of economics which sees the individuals as always making the right choice. I am not sure what alternative he may propose, but I consider self evident that there is noone or nothing better suited than the self to make its own decisions. That is why we will find the answer to our debates in the real world, society will have to speak and we only amount to one vote each.

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 16, 2006

carlosgonzalez

I consider self evident that there is noone or nothing better suited than the self to make its own decisions. That is why we will find the answer to our debates in the real world, society will have to speak and we only amount to one vote each.

unfortunately, that's not the case - Rupert Murdoch gets a lot more say than me

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 16, 2006

So? This is about you and me.

Why do you mention Murdoch? To legitimize your critique of society/system? You are diverting the attention from the fact that you have to convince your fellow workers, ideologes and members of society of the virtue of your ideas. Otherwise you are a traitor to your ideals.

In "The Take" we see a cooperative where they voted to pay different salaries.

And dont try to tell me that Durruti had the same say as the next man.

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 16, 2006

i thought you were arguing that each of us as individuals only has the voice equal to 1 person - unfortunately that's not the case...

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 17, 2006

One person one vote... People are born equal... Democratic organisation...

There is nothing in a libertarian society that will stop individuals like Durruti or Murdoch from being vested with power because people listen to what they have to say.

Or did you expect that people like Murdoch where going to dissappear by magic? In every walk of life there will always be people ready to follow and others to lead.

Murdoch is not putting a gun to anyones head to read his papers or watch his TV news. Personally I think it is futile to expect to be informed by journalists whose alliance falls with those who pay them, and in particular with todays TV infotainment.

john

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by john on October 17, 2006

Dear Carlos,

thanks for that. I can see more clearly what your point is now.

congratulations, by the way, on your ability to predict 'what will always be'

Khawaga

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Khawaga on October 17, 2006

Well, it is part of my initial post, I wouldn't want to learn theology to discuss religion.

Hmmm, that is a bit of a problem then. If you don't want to learn some dialectics you would not be able to understand fully ANYTHING that we've been discussing so far. Just because you see ecomoics as the way to understand society doesn't mean that you should not learn how to understand it from other points of view. Does this mean that you would refuse to take in feminist points of view, or race etc.

Theology is a bit different, there you take the issue of the existence of God as given. To read up on dialectics you do not have agree with it apriori, you would just be able to understand marxist arguments better, and it would also help you to refine your own bourgeoisie ideology (perhaps).

Anyhoo, please continue posting even if you have nightmares about it!!!!

Also, could you provide me with a link to The Take torrent, the one I have don't have a lot of peers.

carlosgonzalez

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by carlosgonzalez on October 17, 2006

Ive spent more than an hour looking for the torrent link, only to realise that Joseph posted it on another thread :(

I think it was from www.indymedia.org, but there are several links and Im not sure which one it is exactly. I'll keep looking and if not Ill send a message to Joseph to send it to you.

-----------------------------------------------------------

If you don't want to learn some dialectics you would not be able to understand fully ANYTHING that we've been discussing so far.

After one week I have quite a profound understanding of your view points.

Theology is a bit different, there you take the issue of the existence of God as given.

Yep, but theology is also about dialectics. Even science makes asumptions, but what it makes it stand out is that it is very critical of itself thanks to the scientific method.

it would also help you to refine your own bourgeoisie ideology (perhaps).

You may find it surprising, but Im not pursuing any evangelical end of convincing you of my ideas :) nor do I have an ideology to preach.

You may view social democracy as an ideology or a system, but it is the result of the evolution of society and is by far the best system humanity has known (I have not been shown an alternative).

You libcoms have lots of valid criticism and sugestions, but ultimately fail to deliver the goods in the real world. The success of Argentinian cooperatives is born of desperation of being out of work and withoug prospects, not from bosses controlling the means of production.

Please note that Argentina is the only western country where the same party has always won the elections and that remains the case even after the crisis. They have the leaders they deserve.

jason

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jason on October 17, 2006

After one week I have quite a profound understanding of your view points.

Has it only been a week? It feels like eternity.:wink:

Joseph Kay

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 18, 2006

the take torrent i posted was from ChomskyTorrents - just search it for "the take" (there's two i think, don't know which has most seeds/what the difference is)

Khawaga

17 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Khawaga on October 18, 2006

You may find it surprising, but Im not pursuing any evangelical end of convincing you of my ideas Smile nor do I have an ideology to preach.

Ideology does not necessarily mean that you are aware of it. Bourdieu refers to this as habitus, Gramsci as hegemony. Neo-classical economics does adhere to an ideology, a vulgar form of Ricardo and Smith mixed with Darwin.

Yep, but theology is also about dialectics. Even science makes asumptions, but what it makes it stand out is that it is very critical of itself thanks to the scientific method.

You'd be surprsied to know that dielactics is actually very empirical, especially the way in which Marx used it. Theology is also surpisingly self-critical and theologians were very often excellent scientists. Science is basically just a post-Christian truth paradigm that claims truth as being their domain alone. For a good discussion on this I would recommend John Gray's Al-Qaeda and what it means to be modern. John Gray is basically a proponent of capitalism with a human face (kinda like Soros).

The success of Argentinian cooperatives is born of desperation of being out of work and withoug prospects, not from bosses controlling the means of production.

Duh! This is what "crisis" Marxism is all about. Working class will do such stuff when capitalism is in crisis. I totally agree that worker self-management in Argentina was not born out of "bosses controlling the means of production", though I don't think this is what you meant. :)

the take torrent i posted was from ChomskyTorrents - just search it for "the take" (there's two i think, don't know which has most seeds/what the difference is)

Thanks Joseph. That was actually where I did find it, but they always just seem to die out after a while.

Steven.

7 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steven. on October 30, 2016

Ended up just having a look at this old thread again because it was a good discussion back in the day, and got to some pretty central points about the real differences between communism and social democracy.

One thing which stands out as being pretty funny is the original poster talking about the success of social democracy in Western Europe at least, with its generous welfare schemes and how stable it was:
carlosgonzalez

Things have changed a lot lately, for one we have not suffered a serious crisis in 15 years. Remember those boom and bust economies? Remember the "economic cycles"? They have dissappeared thanks to economists, who have identified the problems and provided working solutions. For example through Independent central banks who decide on interest rates and monetary policy.

I wonder if his views are any different now…

Ivysyn

7 years 4 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Ivysyn on November 28, 2016

I always hate this kind of argument (no offense to the OP). I see it constantly in modern introduction's to Marx's work. Yes, capitalism has changed since "communism" as an idea was first put forward, but that doesn't mean that class struggle simply goes away, or that there is a capitalist way out of the current misery.

Capitalism's biggest change since Marx's time for example has been the expansion of the exploitative relations he talked about to every corner of the world. It racked up huge death tools and destroyed the lives of millions to do this. Class struggle is not simply the program of communists, it is a materiel reality. Profit itself is a form of class struggle where the capitalist class appropriates the produce of workers through dispossessing them of the means to produce, taking part of it for personal consumption and re-investing it back into the economy. Capitalism was constructed through class struggle as well where over the coarse of history class systems developed and died causing the property of direct producers to be accumulated in the hands of a class which does not produce, and benefits from owning said property. This was done through all kinds of barbarism across the centuries. Ignoring class struggle means ignoring the basic foundation of modern society.

I would suggest the OP take a look at this:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/03/working-class-capitalism-socialists-strike-power/

Ivysyn

7 years 4 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Ivysyn on November 28, 2016

Ho damn this is old, lol, didn't notice.

Noah Fence

7 years 4 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Noah Fence on November 28, 2016

Jesus, what a weird thread! I've only read half of it, I mean, enough is enough. I amazed at the level of engagement with this apologist suckarse of capital. Really, what a dick! No such thing as capitalism, we are not exploited, dumb kids can get rich so there's no excuse, blah blah fucking blah.
I couldn't give a fuck how comfy you feel in your imaginary soc dem paradise, the world over people are being exploited, displaced, starved, tortured and murdered all because of the requirements for power and profit that this supposedly non existent capitalism creates.
This guy has a whole load to say but none of it relates to reality.