Objections to Socialism

[Toro]

That was what I was trying to say, thanks for clarifying it.

Not to mention that it would be uber-frustrating for most people to be the jack of all trades and the master of none. Getting them to sign on to such frustration would be extremely difficult.

God forbid if I was ever working on your car, for example...

 

[Ravi]

God forbid if I was ever working on your car, for example...

lol...that's why I REALLY don't have a problem with some jobs being unionized. I want someone happy building my car or repairing that 747 I'm taking to NYC.

 

[Ravi]

Another reality of the human condition these socialists (or whatever oddball socio-politio-economic fabrication this guy thinks he is) that we can all do all the things a society needs done, equally well. I can collect garbage as well as any garbage collector in my town, but there is not a single one of them that could perform any aspect of my job.

So who is going to perform life saving open heart surgery when the surgeon is pulling his garbage collection shift that week?

The thing is...you probably couldn't collect the garbage as well as any experienced garbage collector. Not efficiently, anyway. And your lack of experience would cost the community more money.

 

[Zoomie1980]

The thing is...you probably couldn't collect the garbage as well as any experienced garbage collector. Not efficiently, anyway. And your lack of experience would cost the community more money.

No, all it would take would be a day or two, and I'd figure out all the tricks. Assuming any garbage collector had the intellectual capacity to understand complex data relationship and the principals of object orientation and aspect oriented development, and agile based project management, it would take them decades to be able to do most of what I do, most lack the intellectual capacity to even start....

 

[Ravi]

No, all it would take would be a day or two, and I'd figure out all the tricks. Assuming any garbage collector had the intellectual capacity to understand complex data relationship and the principals of object orientation and aspect oriented development, and agile based project management, it would take them decades to be able to do most of what I do, most lack the intellectual capacity to even start....

Don't be insulted, Zoomie, I'm sure your job is more complex. But that doesn't mean that there are no skills in waste management. One little mistake can easily mean death to the driver/operator. And that death and down time wastes money.

Regardless, I think we are on the same page. Jobs aren't easily transferred from person to person so there is no real possibility of job rotation.

 

[Paulie]

Agna, you're really not helping your case. Perhaps spend some more time growing up and experiencing the workforce before you convey such strong beliefs. At 16, you're merely armed with nothing more than educated opinions. When you've held real jobs, borrowed money, invested, dealt with risk, managed others, etc, you will have gained more knowledge about that which you are so passionate. Your opinions may very well change.

There's no precedent for socialism leading to prosperity. To get the most production out of society, there simply has to be incentive. There is no incentive in socialism. It fails on its own merits.

 

[Toro]

If Agna really is 16, he's one smart kid.

 

[Paulie]

If Agna really is 16, he's one smart kid.

I believe he's 16. I've seen more than enough to draw that conclusion.

Now, all he needs to do is experience a little real life and put the intelligence to action. I highly doubt he'll retain those same viewpoints forever. Something's GOT to change as he enters the workforce and actually participates in capitalism. Even most of the hardcore liberals here will admit that capitalism isn't ALL bad.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

The thing with *real* socialists--the ones who actually read books and stuff--is, they have this strange tendency to use inpenetrable jargon, and to use words that have a different meaning to other people. No offense, Agna.

As a result, you have "socialists" who don't even understand the basic fundamentals of socialism, and in fact are Stalinists. This is the definition most people arguing against it have, too. You have to be very clear in your definitions. Particularly in the part where only workers own the factory they work in. No stockholder ownership. No government ownership. No owning stock in other companies, even if you are a regular blue-collar Joe, saving up for retirement. Free competition between (employee-owned) companies, none of this state-run monopoly rubbish.

Personally? I couldn't care less what happens, as long as people can decide for themselves to join a collective or not. Perhaps in a radically decentralized state, a lot of co-ops and so forth would spring up, especially when stifling regulations are tossed out the window. Personally, I tend to think that wouldn't happen. But hey, if I'm wrong, and that's what most people choose for themselves, so be it.

By the way, how are large companies started in an anarchist-socialist state? Co-ops are real easy when it's a bunch of hippies buying a tent and selling organic vegetables. Starting an aircraft company is probably a whole different ball game. There has to be some way to gather large amounts of capital. Probably the whole legal entity of "corporation" is gone, I assume, so no stockholders. So what's left? Banks loans? Company bonds? Stock certificates, only without voting rights?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

As I mentioned previously, the Soviet Union was not a legitimate socialist entity. That being said, I return to my previous examples of the Spanish Revolution and the benefits of workers' self-management in Argentina to make my case.

Trotsky and others would agree. Anarchists? sigh You only exist within society because of how society is set up. Pure anarchism would be a nightmare. Anarchism is for children and misanthropic troglodytes.

Most of your info on the Spanish events, uses the phrase "directly or indirectly effected..." along with numbers that are there to make a strong case for Anarchistic socialism, out of a case that is weak on objectivity. It's a lot of gibberish.

 

[Agnapostate]

Well, that's very nice that they were unable to win debates. But it honestly doesn't much matter to me what happened in some musty university hall 100 years or whatever ago.

I really can't fathom how you accuse socialists of operating solely in the theoretical realm when free market capitalism has never been successfully implemented in an industrialized society, and the majority of capitalists have a utopian understanding of the economy that is nonsensical outside of the textbook. Many capitalist illusions and misconceptions about the nature of market exchange and competition are akin to assuming perfect competition, a fallacy that has been rejected even by orthodox economists. (And yourself, incidentally.)

I do not argue from an Austrian perspective. I often point out the flaws of the Austrian arguments to the Austrian theologians on the Board. However, there are very few economists in the world today who do not believe that the pricing system is the most efficient system. The debate in the economics realm is not whether or not prices should be allowed to reach its clearing level because we all know what happens when pricing is not allowed to clear and is kept at an artificially high or low level. This has been repeated over and over and over again in the world around us. All you have to do is view what is occurring in Zimbabwe or Argentina or Venezuela for extreme examples of what happens when prices are not allowed to clear. Instead, the debate is how the pricing system most optimally operates.

And I have identified several flaws in the pricing system, as well as the wider market system, that you would do well to address. I have also argued that a decentralized, direct democratic form of economic management would be preferable to the imprecise and inefficient pricing system, a claim that I have supported with both theoretical and empirical evidence.

I am not interested in the economic practices of states for the most part. I am wholly uninterested in Zimbabwe, and only partially interested in Argentina and Venezuela, Argentina because of the autogestion movement that has occurred there separately from the state apparatus, and Venezuela because of several positive reforms that I believe Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution have influenced in that country, though I do not believe that the state can offer any permanent reform.

I am really not all that interested in the various forms of socialism, nor am I particularly interested in any theoretical construct of how society should look like. Rather, I do have an idea what happens when there is "democratic ownership of the means of production."

I would hope that you don't continue to harbor illusions about the Soviet Union or similar authoritarian states being socialist or communist, if that is what this is a reference to.

We know that companies owned by the government in a competitive market (as opposed to a monopolistic market) are generally far less efficient that companies in the private sector, and thus are destroyers of wealth. Your typical competitive government institution earns less than its cost of capital, meaning it returns, say 5% while its cost of capital is, say, 7%. That means the company is destroying 2% of the nation's wealth. There are some government corporations that are run for the profit motive, i.e. along the lines of the pricing system. There are also some credit unions and co-operatives that are well run. But generally, corporations that are not run with profits first in mind are wealth-destroying institutions.

Your comment solely applies to centralized state management, and I certainly wouldn't be prone to disagree on the inefficiency of that approach. That being said, you still need to address Barone's Pareto efficient model of a functioning socialist economy within the confines of a state, not to mention the far more pertinent issue of a functioning socialist economy within decentralized, non-hierarchical collectives.

As for direct employee ownership, in the academic world, that may be appealing but in reality, it is not. And I don't mean it is not from my perspective, as an allocator of capital, which is what I am. Rather, I am talking from the providers of labor, i.e. the labor unions themselves. Generally, members of labor unions do not want to run corporations. I know this because they tell me so, or at least they tell people whom we hire this is so. They realize how difficult it is to run firms. They realize they do not have the skills to run firms. They have tried through employee stock ownership plans where the union members own the company. They tried it. They don't want to do it. Instead, rather than running the organization, they want to get paid more.

Again, this claim is so potently rebutted by the example of the worker-owned facilities and production assets in anarchist Spain. I have spoken as to their widespread collectivization rates, and you have said nothing as to this empirical evidence.

Furthermore, the factory takeovers in Argentina are an excellent example of the successes and viability of autogestion, and its supremacy to hierarchical forms of management. The Hotel Bauen, the Brukman factory, the Fabrica Sin Patrones, and so many others have prospered after being taken over by their workers after the 2001 economic crisis caused by neoliberal policies in Argentina.

The Brukman Battle | Naomi Klein

Brukman isn’t just any factory, it’s a fabrica ocupada, one of almost 200 factories across the country that have been taken over and run by their workers over the past year and a half. For many, the factories, employing more than 10,000 nationwide and producing everything from tractors to ice cream, are seen not just as an economic alternative, but as a political one as well. “They are afraid of us because we have shown that if we can manage a factory we can also manage a country,” Brukman worker Celia Martinez said on Monday night. “That’s why this government decided to repress us.”

Hence, I would argue that empirical evidence supported my view.

Whether or not something is "true" communism is an irrelevant argument, just like it is an irrelevant argument whether or not we have had a "true" free market or a "true" conservative government. It is all hypothetical and exists only in the minds of its proponents.

I believe I've indicated that that's demonstrably untrue to a sufficient degree.

As for me, like

science > religion

and

empiricism > ideology/philosophy/dogma

I have already spoken as to the empirical evidence supporting the practicality of libertarian socialism. I have cited several well-implemented examples of libertarian socialism, including full-on anarcho-communism in one case, which ought to be acknowledged as valid empirical evidence. Consider just one, for instance: the Paris Commune.

The Paris Commune was the government that briefly ruled the city of Paris for several months in 1871 after France's military defeat at the hands of Prussia in the Franco-Prussian War. The National Guard, (a municipal militia made up of various radical leaders, including a minority of libertarian socialists) was in control of Paris. The provisional president of France, Adolphe Thiers, ordered that the 400 cannon that were held by the National Guard be seized by regular soldiers. Instead, the army commanders were killed, and various army units joined the side of the National Guard. The National Guard held elections in which those elected to the Communal Council were recallable if they did not perform their duties assigned to them by the general electorate.

The Paris Commune implemented several significant reforms, including the separation of church and state, the establishment of womens' suffrage and other feminist reforms, the remission of rents owed throughout the occupation, and several important labor and economic reforms, notably the right of workers to take over an enterprise or business in the absence of its owner, and more equitable distributions of wealth and social programs for the disenfranchised. The National Guard was generally a socialist movement, as most obviously proven by their own self-identification via the use of the socialist red flag. They were not a strict libertarian socialist organization, but adopted many principles based on Proudhonism, mainly the aforementioned shift towards direct democracy from representative democracy. Anarchists and libertarian socialists do not consider the Paris Commune to be a perfect example of their ideals, but they do hold that its successes were indicative of what some form of libertarian socialism could accomplish.

And I simply cannot understand why you have entirely ignored the examples of the Spanish Revolution and the anarchist collectives that existed, the Free Territory of Ukraine and Nestor Makhno's military campaign, and the areas of Chiapas influenced by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation.

I see no reason whatsoever for these examples to not be recognized as valid forms of empirical evidence that illustrate the practicality of socialist ideals and principles.

Then you'd have the problem of having everyone adequately trained to do hundreds of different jobs competently. Imagine for a minute rotating yourself through driving a garbage truck and collecting trash, cleaning hotel rooms, waiting tables, performing general landscape chores for the community, etc. And imagine not being able to do it competently. Chaos.

I should obviously clarify this position further. Certain varieties of work obviously require different varieties of qualification, and this would not be ignored in a libertarian socialist collective or body.

Now, it is also necessary to note that the grueling imposition that many lower class laborers currently regard work as would not remain so in a libertarian socialist society. Since some variety of autogestion (workers' self-management) would be implemented in an anarchist or libertarian socialist economy, work would not only be more effectively managed, but labor reforms would bring a humane element to this system.

That being said, the fact will remain that certain varieties of work (managing sewage or garbage, etc.) will remain rather unappealing. There are several manners of dealing with this, including one that I did not mention before. Consider this point, made by George Barrett.

"Now things are so strangely organised at present that it is just the dirty and disagreeable work that men will do cheaply, and consequently there is no great rush to invent machines to take their place. In a free society, on the other hand, it is clear that the disagreeable work will be one of the first things that machinery will be called upon to eliminate. It is quite fair to argue, therefore, that the disagreeable work will, to a large extent, disappear in a state of anarchism."

It is also necessary to clarify the fact that no one would be rotated through various forms of work in such a manner. Rather, people would select the variety of work that they regularly wanted to do, and those who were physically able would be selected to perform unappealing tasks for several days a month, if that. This would be rotated among the able-bodied so that no one would have to do it all the time. It would thus be a lesser imposition than it currently is on the burdened members of the lower class who currently have to do it constantly.

Instead of defining Socialism as "collective ownership of the means of production", perhaps if it were defined as "collective taking of the profits", you would get a different result?

If this is intended to be a reference to progressive taxation or some similar facet of mixed-market capitalism, it is inaccurate. What do you mean to say?

It is more than that. What we know - and this is not theoretical - is that specialization increases productivity, and productivity is key to increased standards of living. Society, and the individual, are better off when they specialize at what they do best.

That being said, both orthodox and radical schools recognize that division of labor criteria are not the sole purpose of different varieties of "education" and certification. Certification also serves to establish and perpetuate hierarchical settings throughout various labor sectors, a fact that I mentioned in the "Youth Rights" thread.

A fitting quote to illustrate this would be that of historian Lawrence A. Cremin, author of American Education: The National Experience 1783-1876.

"[Factories] required a shift from agricultural time to the much more precise categories of industrial time, with it's sharply delineated and periodized workday. Moreover, along with this shift in rhythm, the factory demanded concomitant shifts in habits and attention and behaviour, under which workers could no longer act according to whim or preference but were required instead to adjust to the needs of the productive process and the other workers involved in it...The schools taught [factory behaviour], not only through textbook preachments, but also through the very character of their organization--the grouping, periodizing, and objective impersonality were not unlike those of the factory."

My belief, based not only on socialist theory, but on empirical evidence based on the successes of the worker-owned collectives of the Spanish Revolution and the current situation in Argentina is that preservation of hierarchical management inhibits the efficiency of the workplace, even in an industrialized first-world country. As you ought to know, the libertarian socialist recognizes that the formal certification process involved in the school system is not necessarily involved with skill level, as the orthodox economist will claim, but with a basis for instilling "industrial discipline" in future workers so that they might perpetuate a system of hierarchical wage labor.

The "industrial discipline" that students are indoctrinated with while in schools is wholly inapplicable to many facets of a post-industrial society, as the technological, medical, and information sectors often require greater innovative skills than are provided by such indoctrination.

Consider the words of Dan Greenberg.

"In the post-industrial society there is essentially no place for human beings who are not able to function independently. There is no room for people trained to be cogs in a machine. Such people have been displaced permanently from the economic system. The economic demands of post-industrial America are something that you hear from personnel directors in every industry and company today, small or large. The demands are for creative people with initiative, self-starters, people who know how to take responsibility, exercise judgment, make decisions for themselves."

I do quote him quite often, and I hope he won't mind, but I do find it necessary to mention the words of my fellow socialist, Reiver. (A socialist poster on Political Forum - US & World Politics Forum)

"Consider, for example, education. That should fulfill the human capital investment role. Indeed, orthodox and radical schools agree that such a role exists. However, the socialist is able to also refer to the consequences of hierarchy. They'd acknowledge that such hierarchy isn't simply based on 'division of labour' criteria (in order to maximise productivity). Instead, its about controlling labour militancy (and therefore maintaining economic rents). Education then has the additional role of legitimising that hierarchy (e.g. you do not attend university to increase your productivity, you attend to achieve the certification required to be considered for the 'good jobs'). This will then suggest the social benefits from education are not fully realised (e.g. see Britain where its tertiary education investments have reduced social mobility, given it provides extra opportunities to lower ability youngsters from high income backgrounds). To deliver optimal education we'd need a socialist economy."

He also made a commendable point that I should reiterate, as it is a fundamental staple of socialist theory. A Coasian understanding of the nature of the firm requires us to acknowledge that firms are developed to effectively manage transaction costs. (Coase, of course, played an active role in the development of transaction cost theory.) Since such an understanding of the formation of capitalist entities means that we have to acknowledge the fact that capitalism necessitates the creation of inefficient hierarchical management techniques, capitalism as a whole is therefore rendered an inefficient system, an inefficiency that libertarian varieties of socialism do not suffer from, not only theoretically, but as evidenced by the empirical evidence that I have presented.

What production do we collectively own?

Currently? We don't collectively own any aspect or component of the means of production, despite the common and erroneous belief that public schooling, healthcare, services, etc. is a form of "socialism." If you're asking what forms of production would be collectively owned in a socialist economy, they would include factories, manufacturing and power plants, and other productive assets of industry and agriculture.

That was what I was trying to say, thanks for clarifying it.

Not to mention that it would be uber-frustrating for most people to be the jack of all trades and the master of none. Getting them to sign on to such frustration would be extremely difficult.

That's not the purpose of the activity that I was referring to. Most people would pursue some primary form of employment, and the able-bodied would only deal with unpleasant forms of work for a few days a month, if that, since it would be rotated among the able-bodied, and it is possible that those pursuing more popular forms of work would also be assigned a greater amount of unpopular work, so as to balance the two out.

Again, you deny fundamental human nature. Sure, in a prisoner of war or political prisoner environment humans will seek the only thing that a completely powerless person can to survive, as cooperation is the only thing that can work. To base an entire politico-economic theory on the basis of what what finds in a rare and brutal environment and extrapolate that to ordinary life, is ridiculous.

Humans, generally, are extremely UNCOOPERATIVE. We are forced to be cooperative in a corporate environment because if we are not, we are fired for not being a "team player". Given total freedom of action virtually no one has any interest in being a "team player". It takes months of training to train soldiers to work as a team because it is so unnatural to do so.

We are still selfish, self-preservationist beings at the core. I know, if you ever try to take what is mine, I will kill you if I can, no matter how bad you need what you are trying to take, and have no reservation about doing so. What is mine, is MINE, not yours, and not the "collective's". And that is the standard human state.

This is not a sufficient reply to the reporting of Kropotkin that I mentioned, or Gould's affirmation of his observations in Siberia. You focus primarily on competition, while ignoring the reality that cooperation often fosters self-interest to a far greater degree, just as is the case with the Prisoner's Dilemma and so many other dilemmas that we encounter on a daily basis. Are you not familiar with J.B.S. Haldane's and John Maynard Smith's work on this matter?

Your assertions conflict with well-established doctrines of human evolutionary behavior. Are you familiar with kin altruism? Group altruism? Are you completely dismissive of the manner in which cooperation often fosters self-interest to a greater extent than competition does?

Another reality of the human condition these socialists (or whatever oddball socio-politio-economic fabrication this guy thinks he is) that we can all do all the things a society needs done, equally well. I can collect garbage as well as any garbage collector in my town, but there is not a single one of them that could perform any aspect of my job.

So who is going to perform life saving open heart surgery when the surgeon is pulling his garbage collection shift that week?

That is absurdly false, and I never made such a claim. Obviously, different varieties of work would require different varieties of education, and those performing open heart surgery would be those qualified to do so. The difference is that skill certification would not serve to perpetuate the hierarchical structure that it does in our society.

Agna, you're really not helping your case. Perhaps spend some more time growing up and experiencing the workforce before you convey such strong beliefs. At 16, you're merely armed with nothing more than educated opinions. When you've held real jobs, borrowed money, invested, dealt with risk, managed others, etc, you will have gained more knowledge about that which you are so passionate. Your opinions may very well change.

Ad hominem arguments are not especially commendable, particularly when the obvious fact remains that so many advocates of libertarian socialism have gone through "real life" and have retained their convictions.

Moreover, I'm an executive officer of a previously incorporated nonprofit organization, and I'm the one overseeing the effort to re-obtain 501(c)3 status, so it's not technically accurate to claim that I've never worked the "numbers game" or anything of that variety. I've also done plenty of informal work involved with obtaining grants for other similar organizations. Regardless...time to move on.

There's no precedent for socialism leading to prosperity. To get the most production out of society, there simply has to be incentive. There is no incentive in socialism. It fails on its own merits.

I'm very surprised that you would make such a claim, considering that it's already been addressed and that it's a very common fallacy. A socialist economy does not abolish differentiations in remuneration according to differentiations in labor input. Market socialist, mutualist, and collectivist economies still retain a wage system, for instance, albeit with greater democratic oversight and management, and communist economies issue access to public services based on the existence or nonexistence of labor input. Hence, a person who was able but simply unwilling to work in a libertarian communist society would have their access to public services restricted, and may not be considered part of the commune. This is actively practiced in Zapatista-controlled Chiapas.

It's also necessary to note that though it would exist, incentive would not be as critical a component of a socialist economy as it would in a capitalist economy, since workplaces and employment standards and practices would be be subject to participatory, direct democratic management. As a result of this, labor standards would be dramatically improved, as resource allocation would no longer be devoted to highly paid "management" positions. Elitist, hierarchical management is not a facet of a socialist economy.

I believe he's 16. I've seen more than enough to draw that conclusion.

Now, all he needs to do is experience a little real life and put the intelligence to action. I highly doubt he'll retain those same viewpoints forever. Something's GOT to change as he enters the workforce and actually participates in capitalism. Even most of the hardcore liberals here will admit that capitalism isn't ALL bad.

I am not a "liberal," a mixed-market capitalist, a Democrat, or any other similar perversion. I am an anarcho-communist.

By the way, how are large companies started in an anarchist-socialist state? Co-ops are real easy when it's a bunch of hippies buying a tent and selling organic vegetables. Starting an aircraft company is probably a whole different ball game. There has to be some way to gather large amounts of capital. Probably the whole legal entity of "corporation" is gone, I assume, so no stockholders. So what's left? Banks loans? Company bonds? Stock certificates, only without voting rights?

Firstly, "anarchist-socialist state" is an oxymoron. No variety of anarchism retains the existence of the state, even the "anarcho"-capitalism of Rothbard, Hans-Herman Hoppe, and the rest of that crowd.

Next, I sense some hostility to my theoretical explanations, so I shall merely say that empirical evidence indicates that your position is not tenable. Examine these images below.

The one on the bottom shows anarchist workers in a collectivized aircraft engine plant in Barcelona. The fact that indicates that an-soc organization is prepared to deal effectively with industrialized society.

Trotsky and others would agree. Anarchists? sigh You only exist within society because of how society is set up. Pure anarchism would be a nightmare. Anarchism is for children and misanthropic troglodytes.

Trotsky and others would agree? That's utterly absurd! Trotsky was himself a state capitalist, albeit a somewhat more moderate one than Stalin, and himself participated in the suppression of anarchism in the Soviet Union? Who was commanding the Red Army when they betrayed the Makhnovists and executed their members? Who was commanding the Red Army when the Kronstadt Rebellion, perhaps the last great spark of democratic socialism in the Soviet Union, was brutally crushed and its participants murdered? Trotsky was, as was correctly noted by Emma Goldman. Are you familiar with these events?

Moreover, why do you say that pure anarchism would be a nightmare? What specific elements of anarchism do you refer to then you make this claim?

Most of your info on the Spanish events, uses the phrase "directly or indirectly effected..." along with numbers that are there to make a strong case for Anarchistic socialism, out of a case that is weak on objectivity. It's a lot of gibberish.

What specific elements or components of my discussion of the Spanish Revolution do you object to?

 

[Modbert]

Agna, you're really not helping your case. Perhaps spend some more time growing up and experiencing the workforce before you convey such strong beliefs. At 16, you're merely armed with nothing more than educated opinions. When you've held real jobs, borrowed money, invested, dealt with risk, managed others, etc, you will have gained more knowledge about that which you are so passionate. Your opinions may very well change.

There's no precedent for socialism leading to prosperity. To get the most production out of society, there simply has to be incentive. There is no incentive in socialism. It fails on its own merits.

As much as some wish, making society Socialist will not have everybody all of a sudden willing to help their fellow man out of the kindness of their hearts.

 

[Agnapostate]

As much as some wish, making society Socialist will not have everybody all of a sudden willing to help their fellow man out of the kindness of their hearts.

I'm not going to rebut this a third time. Perhaps if you read the entire thread, as well as my response to that post, you wouldn't make such inappropriate replies.

 

[Modbert]

I'm not going to rebut this a third time. Perhaps if you read the entire thread, as well as my response to that post, you wouldn't make such inappropriate replies.

A.) I had posted that at the same time just about of your very long reply. In fact, I was reading the thread and had not refreshed the page when I went to reply.

B.) I have read the entire thread.

C.) You talk about how and I quote:

"incentive would not be as critical a component of a socialist economy as it would in a capitalist economy, since workplaces and employment standards and practices would be be subject to participatory, direct democratic management. As a result of this, labor standards would be dramatically improved, as resource allocation would no longer be devoted to highly paid "management" positions. Elitist, hierarchical management is not a facet of a socialist economy."

Problem is, incentive may not be a critical component in a economy but it is a component in people and their actions. Many people are naturally greedy, and looking to take every advantage they can get. Others also look for ways to get rich. Others also need a reason to want to make money.

(Example: If a doctor and a janitor make the same amount of money. Then why should the doctor go to school many more years, do a much more difficult job,etc if they are making the same amount?

Unless in your idea of a socialist society, people still make different wages. Then completely scratch what's in the ().)

Just because it's not a critical component in such a society, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it shouldn't exist.

There would however be a Elitist, hierarchical government that controls the socialist economy would there not?

 

[Modbert]

You're a anarcho-communist if I read correctly in that last long post?

Interesting, we will have to debate about that tomorrow.

I have a couple objections to that if you care to debate them here.

 

[michiganFats]

Agnapostate, When I suggested that socialism should be defined as "collective taking of the profits", I meant that many people today would buy that argument. Socialists are all kinds of confused as to what appeals to people. Joe Lunch Box doesn't want to collectively own anything, he just wants to collectively profit from something. By the way, there is no such thing as mixed market capitalism. As far as I know, there are only two places on Earth where real capitalism is practiced, the black market and the Basque region, and even the black market is suspect because the government's actions can heavily influence prices there.

 

[editec]

I certainly don't deny that such regrettable and unfortunate issues are typically facets of a centralized economy, which is necessarily authoritarian in many ways.

In other words you do not really favor theoretical SOCIALISM. So noted

However, that is not the brand of socialism that I favor. I am an anarchist, I oppose the existence of the state, and I would favor a variety of decentralized, libertarian socialism.

In other words you do not favor theoretical socialism. So noted.

As I have mentioned previously, public control without a state would essentially function through a federation of voluntary communes and syndicates that are democratically managed through participatory committees and workers’ councils.

You realize, don't you, that nobody is preventing workers from creating their own corporations to create such libertarian collectivist industries right now, don't you?

Nobody is preventing that, EXCEPT for the fact that the workers cannot afford to do that, and even if they could, they don't seem willing to take that risk.

Have YOU ever lived in a commune? I have. Hell, laddie, I'm living communially right now.

Are you?

Or are you just another of those armchair socialists who talks talk talks a good communal game, but who doesn't DO ANYTHING TO MAKE IT HAPPEN?

This would mean placing emphasis on grassroots neighborhood committees, community assemblies and other direct democratic associations rather than the centralized state.

And all you have to do is convince people to do that and it WILL happen.

As I have already done, both professionally AND in my personal life.

Instead of a “top-down,” centralized governance system, an anarchist society would function using a “bottom-up,” decentralized governance system.

Sounds good in principle...now make it happen.

Neighborhood assemblies would be open to the general public, and these assemblies will be the primary (and final) governors of public policy in their jurisdiction.

Public policy would be determined by direct democratic means, and delegates would be assigned to deal with the task of public policy administration.

I have that now...it's called TOWN MEETINGS. Our town management is still fairly corrupt and highly inefficient, BTW.

Why? The problem is called politics.

These delegates would be recallable at any time by a direct democratic vote, as opposed to the current dictatorial political system.

Some methodology would be necessary to insure that the managment wasn't entirely SNAFU'ed while management was changing though.

Various sections and aspects of the Paris Commune are an illustrative example of this sort of direct democracy in action, although it is necessary to note that the Paris Commune was not anarchistic, and was not strictly libertarian socialist either. It did, however, incorporate certain elements of libertarian socialism.

A yet, despite that ideal system France ended up with Napoleon in charge. Odd isn't it?

Workers’ councils would be specifically intended to address workers’ needs and concerns, and would determine workplace management and administration through direct democracy, again. Control of the means of production would be granted to both these democratically managed workers’ councils, as well as to the citizens of the locality, if some of the workers are not both. The community assemblies would primarily serve as complementary features of workers’ councils for citizens who do not perform conventional work (such as parents with small children, the elderly, the disabled, the sick, etc.)

Grand idea...what are you doing to make it that happen?

If the community’s industrial aspects are properly and efficiently managed through direct democracy, this would result in increased benefits for the workers and surrounding community. The workers themselves would be able to distribute and delegate work tasks and administration evenly among themselves, and thus form a far more efficient workforce, resulting in increased production levels and benefits, as well as decreased work hours and shortages.

What percentage of the goods and services will be set aside for those rainly days, and for future development that is inevitably necessary?

And how does one convince the workers to set aside something for those future changes to the sytems?

Soviets initially functioned this way, until the Bolsheviks began to forcefully collectivize land and resources, and delegated control of the means of production to high-level bureaucrats rather than workers.

Yeah? Then why couldn't they fight off the Bolsheviks?

Through community and industrial unionism, decisions regarding the means of production and public policy affecting the wider community could be made in an efficient, direct democratic manner.

Efficient democracy? That's amusing. The beauty of democracy is its lack of efficiency.

Communes would function as free, voluntary associations that would not force citizens to work or govern.

So let us assume that I choose not to join and I happen to own most or all of the resouces needed for this commune to function.

What happens next?

 

[Toro]

I really can't fathom how you accuse socialists of operating solely in the theoretical realm when free market capitalism has never been successfully implemented in an industrialized society, and the majority of capitalists have a utopian understanding of the economy that is nonsensical outside of the textbook. Many capitalist illusions and misconceptions about the nature of market exchange and competition are akin to assuming perfect competition, a fallacy that has been rejected even by orthodox economists. (And yourself, incidentally.)

Again, you are living within a textbook, and fail to understand, or at least seem to, that what economists are describing is a model of human behavior, not how human behavior is exactly. You are speaking in absolutes and setting up a straw man that does not exist. The fact that there is no theoretical perfect free market society is irrelevant. What is relevant is that, for the most part, most economists believe that the pricing system is the most efficient allocator of resources in society, most of the time.

And I have identified several flaws in the pricing system, as well as the wider market system, that you would do well to address.

Good lord, my man, there are several people on this thread with whom you are arguing whom I have noted flaws to regarding the pricing system. The pricing system is flawed for a variety of reasons. However, it is still the best mechanism by which to allocate resources.

I have also argued that a decentralized, direct democratic form of economic management would be preferable to the imprecise and inefficient pricing system, a claim that I have supported with both theoretical and empirical evidence.

I am not interested in the economic practices of states for the most part. I am wholly uninterested in Zimbabwe, and only partially interested in Argentina and Venezuela, Argentina because of the autogestion movement that has occurred there separately from the state apparatus, and Venezuela because of several positive reforms that I believe Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution have influenced in that country, though I do not believe that the state can offer any permanent reform.

I would hope that you don't continue to harbor illusions about the Soviet Union or similar authoritarian states being socialist or communist, if that is what this is a reference to.

I specifically point out Zimbabwe, Argentina, Venezuela and the older communist countries because they are examples of what happens when you interfere in the pricing system on a massive basis. It does not matter if you pretty up your argument with phrases like "anarchic socialism" and "decentralized, direct democratic form of economic management." That is merely form in terms of economic outcomes, whatever the political benefits you proffer would be best. When you are set the price of anything that is outside the pricing system, you will get either surpluses or shortages if the price is not near the clearing price.

If you say the price of bread should be 2, and the clearing price is 4, demand will be a quantity of 6 and supply will be 2, bringing shortages. This is what is happening in Argentina today with its natural gas industry. Argentina was a net exporter of natural gas until a few years ago. But the government thought it politically expedient to keep the price of natural gas down for its electrical utility. Now the country isn't producing enough gas and has to import gas from Bolivia. In Venezuela, to combat runaway inflation, ol' Hugh put price caps on foodstuffs. Guess what? There were shortages of food in the grocery store. Zimbabwe is an extreme case of economic mismanagement. The old communist countries made as many loaves of bread as they could for their citizens, such that they produced 6 loaves of bread in our graph. However, the amount of resources taken out of the economy and destroyed as measured by the triangle at the point of equilibrium, 2,2 and 6,2. That destroyed capital means less investment elsewhere in the economy and shortages of other goods demanded by citizens. This is why it could take 5 years to get a good apartment or 3 years to get a decent car in the USSR. And this is not due to "state" socialism. This is due to imposing artificial prices on the economy by not allowing prices to clear at their equilibrium level. This is what would happen in an economy based on "anarchic socialism."

Your comment solely applies to centralized state management, and I certainly wouldn't be prone to disagree on the inefficiency of that approach. That being said, you still need to address Barone's Pareto efficient model of a functioning socialist economy within the confines of a state, not to mention the far more pertinent issue of a functioning socialist economy within decentralized, non-hierarchical collectives.

Pareto made many significant contributions to economics. However, Pareto efficiency can also be applied to a free market society as well as to a fascist one.

Again, this claim is so potently rebutted by the example of the worker-owned facilities and production assets in anarchist Spain. I have spoken as to their widespread collectivization rates, and you have said nothing as to this empirical evidence.

Furthermore, the factory takeovers in Argentina are an excellent example of the successes and viability of autogestion, and its supremacy to hierarchical forms of management. The Hotel Bauen, the Brukman factory, the Fabrica Sin Patrones, and so many others have prospered after being taken over by their workers after the 2001 economic crisis caused by neoliberal policies in Argentina.

Brukman isn’t just any factory, it’s a fabrica ocupada, one of almost 200 factories across the country that have been taken over and run by their workers over the past year and a half. For many, the factories, employing more than 10,000 nationwide and producing everything from tractors to ice cream, are seen not just as an economic alternative, but as a political one as well. “They are afraid of us because we have shown that if we can manage a factory we can also manage a country,” Brukman worker Celia Martinez said on Monday night. “That’s why this government decided to repress us.”

The Brukman Battle | Naomi Klein

Hence, I would argue that empirical evidence supported my view.

No it does not.

There are all sorts of co-operative organizations that have worked fairly well on a small scale. There are hippy communes today in America. The fact that a factory has operated "for a year and a half" does not prove that such a system gives its citizens the best outcomes. How long did the anarchist organizations exist in Spain? One year? Two? Five? You cited the Paris Communes. Here is what you wrote.

The Paris Commune was the government that briefly ruled the city of Paris for several months in 1871 after France's military defeat at the hands of Prussia in the Franco-Prussian War.

For several months? This is what is offered as "empirical evidence" that anarchic-communism is the best system?

There are many different forms of social organizations which mankind has participated. They all work if by what you mean is that they can operate. The Soviet Union "worked" for seven decades.

But that is not the standard by which I am arguing. I am arguing that the pricing system provides the best sustainable optimum outcome. Any system can work for a while but the pricing system has given mankind its greatest standard of living, ever.

This rise in wealth has been almost entirely in the West, which allocates resources via the pricing system.

 

[Agnapostate]

*sigh*

It seems that I have again lost a long reply that I had typed. Hence, my progress toward returning to this is now inhibited not only by time constraints, but my bitterness toward retyping the same information.

 

[Toro]

Actually, I am glad you did not reply. I am getting worn out!