Who is responsible for YOU?

[PubliusInfinitum]

So you can't explain what it is SPECIFICALLY, that leads you to believe that confiscating the product of Person A's labor and giving it to Person B; who did NOT earn it and is NOT required to even CONSIDER paying it back, can be argued to be anything EXCEPT theft?

thus you're refusing to substantiate your feelings with even a discernable, let alone a sufficient basis to avoid the conclusion that you're 'feelings' amount to little more than anarcho-communist bull-shit.

(snip'd annoyingly large idiocy)

See kids, there's nothing difficult about exposing leftists as fools... ya just need to let them to speak long enough to make an assertion and ask them to support it; whereupon they'll fail every single TIME...

Are you a complete and utter moron? Did someone bash you in the head with a heavy or sharp object? Apart from AllieBabble, I've never encountered such rancid, putrid stupidity.

You have such an absurdly fallacious conception of market exchange, believing in your utopian (and possibly drug-induced) free market fantasies. This is why you've failed to answer any criticisms of your moronic position based on the absence of perfect or costless information in a market. Asymmetric information exists in a market; hence, adverse selection and moral hazard problems will exist in a capitalist economy.

The original theft springs from the subordination of labor under capital, given the nature of imperfect contracting (which you are incapable of understanding).

You're serious? ROFL...

You want to rest what little bit of credibility that you may enjoy in the creepier pockets of this board, on this farce; "The original theft springs from the subordination of labor under capital, given the nature of imperfect contracting"?

Now, before I respond to this... In the name of fairness, I just want you to clarify that you're satisifed with this position and are resting your entire thesis on this point.

Feel carefully here Ag... as this will be the last chance you have to 'clarify' your position...

Take your time and do not return to this thread until you've had a chance to REALLY FEEL ABOUT IT.

If you feel that you need to 'tweek' it... change it, revise it, run from like it was a vacuous abyss of idiocy and change the subject, hoping no one notices... just go ahead and I'll respond accordingly.

OH! And I'm paying $10 each for examples of where I've failed to answer "failed to answer any criticisms of {my} position based on the absence of perfect or costless information in a market". Now for the payoff of $10/EA for ALL of THESE EXAMPLES YOU HAVE STORED UP and which you NO DOUBT ARE PREPARED TO ADVANCE IN REFUTATION... I'll require you to paypal $50 deposit with the Admin Gunny... With your deposit simply have the Gunny e-mail me that he has the deposit, which he can give to the fund supporting the forum upon your certain failure.

Now once that happens I will send to your PP account the sum of $10 for EACH EXAMPLE YOU PROVIDE which meets the above criteria.

(For the record, this idiot will not set the required $50 deposit; she will not advance even a SINGLE such example, as there are no such examples... she simply wants to project that such is the case as a means of appealing to what she perceives is a popularly held opinion in hopes of propping up a fatally wounded reputation... she's an imbecile of the frist order.)

 

[Agnapostate]

Then let's see what you've got, boy.

You already failed to reply to my other discussion of imperfect contracting in the "pillars of communism" thread, so I expect similar failure here.

 

[manu1959]

ok ok ok ok .... i just watched the speech....again...it was like a scene out of clock work orange....but it is all clear tome now.....

obama is responsible for me...

 

[KittenKoder]

Corporate employees are over paid ... because the laborers keep letting them get over paid by working for them.

 

[Agnapostate]

It's not really a matter of choice, given the limited options of labor markets. Since corporatists are also protected by an immense concentration of state power, it's also not possible to expropriate their productive assets.

 

[KittenKoder]

It's not really a matter of choice, given the limited options of labor markets. Since corporatists are also protected by an immense concentration of state power, it's also not possible to expropriate their productive assets.

There are lots of choices, a couple I can think of off hand:

1. Co-ops ... they work and everyone is equal.

2. Dissolve the unions and coordinate one massive strike. Even if up to 10% are willing to work, the corporations would have to meet the demands. But don't ask for more money, demand they take pay cuts and lower their prices.

I've been freelance for some time now, but even I know this. Hell, if more laborers went freelance they'd find they have more control, though most labor jobs cannot work that way.

 

[Agnapostate]

There are lots of choices, a couple I can think of off hand:

1. Co-ops ... they work and everyone is equal.

Not a viable solution while the means of production remain privatized. The means of production must be collectivized prior to the widespread establishment of co-ops because they will possess limited access to productive assets as a result of restricted social mobility.

2. Dissolve the unions and coordinate one massive strike. Even if up to 10% are willing to work, the corporations would have to meet the demands. But don't ask for more money, demand they take pay cuts and lower their prices.

That wouldn't function as a feasible long-term solution, considering the nature of class struggle and intra-class conflict, as well as the immense power concentrated in the hands of the private owners of the means of production. I find that advocates of these "solutions" don't appreciate the radical change to economic structure that would promote optimal consequences, such as expropriation and collectivization of the means of production, and establishment of horizontal federations of direct democratic control. What's wrong with that course of action?

 

[KittenKoder]

Agna ... you are proving to be very short sighted.

 

[Agnapostate]

Agna ... you are proving to be very short sighted.

On the contrary, your proposed "solutions" create opportunities for numerous long-term setbacks that can't be appreciated from a utopian understanding of a capitalist economy. What specific facets of my alternative solutions do you object to?

 

[KittenKoder]

Agna ... you are proving to be very short sighted.

On the contrary, your proposed "solutions" create opportunities for numerous long-term setbacks that can't be appreciated from a utopian understanding of a capitalist economy. What specific facets of my alternative solutions do you object to?

One ... raising minimum wages only increases the prices by the same percentage ... which doesn't help anything but devalues our currency.

Two ... taking money from the rich only gives them an excuse to raise prices to cover this ... without some way to drive the price down even taxing them won't ever work.

Three ... forcing corporations to "behave" is giving more control of all our lives to the government ... even history shows this is never a good idea.

 

[Agnapostate]

I did not advocate any of those policies. I am not a Democrat; I would not favor staples of liberalism.

 

[KittenKoder]

I did not advocate any of those policies. I am not a Democrat; I would not favor staples of liberalism.

So then what exactly do you think we can do?

 

[Agnapostate]

So then what exactly do you think we can do?

I don't believe that worker participation can manifest itself through unions to a sufficient degree. (You may want to have a look at Karl Ove Moene's Strong unions or worker control? for a closer examination of that). I believe that collectivization of the means of production and the establishment of horizontal federations of worker-owned enterprises is a more effective solution, as well as one that would have the consequence of maximizing economic efficiency. Ultimately, I'm not in favor of a market economy, though I wouldn't adamantly oppose its existence. A viable short-term solution might be transition to a form of market socialism a la David Schweickart.

 

[KittenKoder]

So then what exactly do you think we can do?

I don't believe that worker participation can manifest itself through unions to a sufficient degree. (You may want to have a look at Karl Ove Moene's Strong unions or worker control? for a closer examination of that). I believe that collectivization of the means of production and the establishment of horizontal federations of worker-owned enterprises is a more effective solution, as well as one that would have the consequence of maximizing economic efficiency. Ultimately, I'm not in favor of a market economy, though I wouldn't adamantly oppose its existence. A viable short-term solution might be transition to a form of market socialism a la David Schweickart.

Short term? You mean like the bail outs? No short term solution has or will ever help anything, it harms instead because it's ... short term. However, what you posted wasn't even a solution, it's just a bunch of ideals from other people mixed with a few of your opinions. What solution do you see as being most effective? People can blame and point fingers forever, while everything still crumbles. Give a solution or leave it to the people who are looking for them.

 

[Agnapostate]

Short term? You mean like the bail outs? No short term solution has or will ever help anything, it harms instead because it's ... short term. However, what you posted wasn't even a solution, it's just a bunch of ideals from other people mixed with a few of your opinions. What solution do you see as being most effective? People can blame and point fingers forever, while everything still crumbles. Give a solution or leave it to the people who are looking for them.

You can't appreciate this perspective while considering it in terms of the centralized, hierarchical structure that our current society and economy is based on. Since I favor the abolition of unnecessary hierarchy and the establishment of direct democracy in horizontal federations of decentralized collectives and communes through community assemblies and workers' councils, there would be no fixed economic system that I would insist that all adopt. It's a core tenet of decentralization that different entities will experiment with different policies and adopt whatever economic system functions best for them. In terms of my personal preferences, I'd favor the establishment of anarchism in the social realm and the establishment of communism in the economic realm. But the establishment of anarchism in the social realm necessitates the freedom to experiment with different systems and policies in the economic realm, so market socialism might exist in some communities, while collectivism or communism would exist in others.

 

[KittenKoder]

Okay .. hierarchy is unavoidable ... it's impossible for any system like companies or governments to function without. The problem isn't even related to that, it's related to the fact that the people at the top simply forgot who is important to their functionality.

 

[Agnapostate]

Okay .. hierarchy is unavoidable ... it's impossible for any system like companies or governments to function without. The problem isn't even related to that, it's related to the fact that the people at the top simply forgot who is important to their functionality.

I'd say that hierarchy is difficult to avoid inasmuch as it seems to be a natural biological arrangement. (I depart from other anarchists when I say this.) And to assume that hierarchy will be absolutely nonexistent is unduly utopian; there are bound to be failures simply because of the wide variance of experiences that different people and communities have. But there will necessarily be conflicts in a traditional capitalist firm between owners, investors, managers, and workers. To use a classic example, owners may wish to shorten the work week because of high worker productivity. Workers will thus have an incentive to shirk and not reach their full productivity levels, so that they may therefore prevent the work week from being shortened and themselves from receiving a pay cut. These conflicting interests are why I refer so often to principal-agent problems.

As I've mentioned previously, autogestion (workers' self-management) has the tendency of minimizing principal-agent problems. Therefore, if we were to consider the available data on worker-owned enterprises and therefore conduct microeconomic analysis into their productivity levels, we might look to the work of researchers Logue and Yates in Cooperatives, Worker-Owned Enterprises, Productivity and the International Labor Organization.

A survey of empirical research on productivity in worker-owned enterprises and cooperatives finds a substantial literature that largely supports the proposition that worker-owned enterprises equal or exceed the productivity of conventional enterprises when employee involvement is combined with ownership. The weight of a sparser literature on cooperatives tends toward the same pattern. In addition, employee-owned firms create local employment, anchor jobs in their communities and enrich local social capital.

Hence, we see that capitalism has the tendency to create inefficiencies because of its information asymmetries and more general principal-agent problems. Socialism has the benefit of correcting those issues, and thereby generating efficiency gains.

More generally, it is possible to eliminate hierarchy to a very great degree, as was the case in the Spanish Revolution of 1936-1939, in which an anarchist society and decentralized socialist economy was established in the Spanish regions of Aragon, Catalonia, and to some extent, the Levant. Accordingly, Aragon enjoyed an efficiency gain of 20% in response.

 

[Jon]

Since I favor the abolition of unnecessary hierarchy

Unnecessary to whom? Who decides what hierarchy is allowed and what is not?

 

[Agnapostate]

Unnecessary to whom? Who decides what hierarchy is allowed and what is not?

Most establishments of hierarchical authority are illegitimate on various grounds, not least of them ethical ones, nor grounds of interest in efficiency maximization. There are obviously some establishments of hierarchy that are legitimate (such as a parent preventing a toddler from running into a busy highway), but I would be inclined to say that the vast majority are both illegitimate and counterproductive.

 

[Jon]

Interesting theory. I can't say that I agree, because there is no chance that a complex economic system such as ours would function properly without a system of leveled management to oversee various operations of a business, all the way up to the very top. I think KK hit the nail on the head when she said that the problem isn't with hierarchy, it's with those in power not making ethical choices. There are plenty of instances where one person runs an entire company and is still able to not only maximize employee productivity AND satisfaction, but also show high profits, growth, and returns. The SAS Institute is a prime example. Ironically, they specialize in software that allows companies to better their enterprise resource management.