Libertarianism versus Anarchism

synd

The real reasons for the reduction in take home pay in the US are related to increases in immigration, out-sourcing and the globalization of labour.

Outsourcing and capital mobility facilitated by de-regulation genius. Tax breaks on investment effectively subsidized the movement of capital away from the unionized north-east and mid-west into the non-unionized and weakly regulated south and west, resulting in overall wage reduction and the consequent increase in upper class accumulation.

In fact the fall of communism plays a part. From 1945-1970 take home pay massively increased. You also need to factor in the fact that house-hold incomes increased because of dual incomes increasing. This increase in the labour force put pressure on the individual incomes, but household wages increased.

This discussion is about the effects of market liberalism/neo-liberalism. Your referring to the regulated Keynesian era - where wages did in fact rise for a time, through state investment in R&D, public works ect. Keynesianism however fell in the 1970s with a crisis of exploding inflation caused by the capitalist response to high employment and unionized labour. The reduction of wages and increase in prices occurred in order to maintain profit margins - the offset of bourgeoisie expenditure onto consumers. It essentially boils down to class struggle, competition over the distribution of social surplus.

The last factor was globalization. It is hardly the American workers fault that China was freed from Communism, and India opened up, and Eastern Europe too. In effect this increased the world supply of workers in the capitalist market enormously. It has seen massive increases in per-capita incomes in China ( since world growth has increased enormously).

China has seen rapid growth by adopting a highly regulated form of economic policy. If your implying that China somehow enjoyed social freedom under the new system your mistaken - the urban middle class (what you see on TV) enjoy a reasonable living standard, but for the vast majority it remains an incredibly repressive society. State power once used to enforce the party line is now used to discipline workers, enact land seizures for private interest groups ect.

I love the cherry picking of Statistics. Brazil, largely a Statist command type economy anyway ( albeit of a rightist disposition)

Bull****, you should really learn basic economic terminology before making statements like that. Brazil has been one of the most free-market economies around since the mid nineties, gradually slowing down abit as of recent given the damage it caused itself in the process.

Brazil embarked on a disastrous project of economic liberalization around 1994 - extensive economic deregulation, liberalisation of domestic finance, exchange rate movements, the capital account of the balance of payments, drastic reduction of state ‘interference’ on price determination in consumer goods ect. The wholesale privatization state assets hit around $100 billion. Prior to this they ran on a more regulated model of capitalism, although nothing near the level of economic regulation the US developed under. The results of liberalization are ''as usual'' disastrous GDP at 2.4% between 1994 and 2003 - while under the regulatory system 1933 - 1980 it expanded on average 6.3% per annum.

Hardly a ''statist command economy type'' that caused problems. And to re-iterate the original point, far lower living standards than any soviet member state.

is compared against the Soviet Union, because the Soviet Union is "young". In fact the Soviet Union began its life with the public capital of the Russian Empire , including most of it's subjected peoples, and Brazil is as old as the US.

Yet another round of bull****, you should really get a job at the Cato institute. Im not referring to nations establishment as a point suitable for comparison, duh - Im referring to points of economic similarity. The Russian Empire was an impoverished agrarian backwater compared to the British Empire - (the wealthiest power on earth). Eastern Europe was a third world service area since Colombian times, providing raw materials for the emerging textile and metal industries of the western economies. -- oh ****, there goes your comparison.

Compare the US in 1800-1900 with the Soviet Union in 1900-2000.

Well from 1928 the USSR surpassed both the German and Japanese rates of industrialization in pace. Living standards increased in all member states beyond anything seen in the developing capitalist world. So while problems existed - their economy was quite successful even by US accounts.

Compare China in the last ten years with it's command economy. It was also an imperialist state, as was it's predecessor, and benefited from the oil resources, and labor of it's subjugated people, from Western central Europe to the Pacific.

China never industrialized to the same extent as Russia. And USSR imperialism is easily comparable to the US which also ''benefits'' from foreign oil reserves, invasions- and cheap labor of subjugated third world populations ect. Assassinations of democratically elected gov members - sponsoring of right wing juntas ect.

The fact that there is little left wing intellectual produce on Soviet post-colonialism and the effects of Soviet colonialism, shows just what **** leftism is.

Actually Chomsky - leading left wing intellectual, has produced volumes on Soviet imperialism. Others include - Leon Trotsky, Rosa Luxembourg ect

Yes it did. Notice that is is no longer around? Fail.

Neither is the Roman Empire, or the British Empire, if failure is defined by lack of duration then I suppose every regime in recorded history was a failure - nice theory.

As a two cheers for capitalism kinda guy I would agree with some of this. Most people would support the mixed economy with the State around 40%. We need capitalism to create the wealth we re-distribute. I suspect that you lefties are on the same side as the capitalist classes when it comes to the two main ways to keep wages in check ( both of which I think need to be constrained) - out sourcing and immigration. in fact you are one with the libertarians on that.

Yea, only we don't need capitalism to create wealth, granted its one possible form of wealth creation, one that consolidates economic, social and political power into the hands of an upper class elite but its not an objective constant or a natural law. Immigration is largely due to the fact that labor values fluctuate from place to place. In order to solve this we could implement a set medium of exchange - prices could be calculated with a set standard like labor time SNT. Restraints on out-sourcing and barriers on immigration wouldn't ensure stable wage - given mobile capital. The only rational solution to the problem presented by the falling rate of profit is to control the movement of capital - which cant be done under a system of private ownership.

Dumb statement since capitalist development - in Ireland - depends on none of that. The Soviet Union most certainly depended on its Empire - it was an Empire - not least in the complete theft of German industry after WWII. Notwithstanding that, Western Germany, starting from nothing after WWII, was much richer than the Soviet Union within a generation.

Straw Man. I was referring to the initiation of capitalism as a historical block ie - the industrial revolution and mercantile uprisings. Both of which laid the foundations for further development. History lesson - not much industry left in east Germany after WW2. West Germany got massive aid from the US under Marshall plan.

Indeed, at this moment of capitalist crisis when Marxist nuts should be making hay, as we can see in the European elections - the far left loses it's deposit, and the centre left is decimated. I wouldn't be presuming any communist revolution any time soon.

Marxist nuts seem to be doing alright over here mind you. And they have plenty of time to work with - BTW plenty of time, as in considerably longer than 5-10 years.

In other news the economist had a survey asking people what they thought of the statement ( true, or false) that Free Markets are the best route to prosperity.80% of Chinese, and 75% of Indians agreed, higher than any other part of the world. Higher than the US.

Wow - the economist, a neo-liberal interest group designed to promote policy conductive to the interests of TNCs. Their survey actually said people support corporate deregulation ? wow - who would have thought

There is only one game in town, the question is how to control capitalism, not to listen to the nuts who have no program to replace it ( anarchists), or support an old utterly failed economic system. ( Stalinists).

Feudalism used to be the only game in town, in fact come to think of there where a lot of games in town. This town has seen its fair share of games - yep ....loads of games in this town.

Their isn't one Stalinist group functioning within this country that Im aware of, with the possible exception of the workers party. Both main socialist parties are trots. Im an anarchist/libertarian socialist - its been proven successful wherever its been implemented although on a small scale, productivity typically rises ect.

turgon

Well synd, now that were in a full evaluation of the history of economic systems labeled communist, do you believe the supposed benefits warranted the extraordinary number of deaths?

synd

turgon wrote: »

Well synd, now that were in a full evaluation of the history of economic systems labeled communist, do you believe the supposed benefits warranted the extraordinary number of deaths?

Well which deaths are we talking about exactly ? 30 million soviet civilians who died in the NAZI invasion ? The Red casualties in the revolutionary conflict against the Tzars forces ? The Stalinist purges ? Maybe you can be a little more specific ?

turgon

synd wrote: »

Well which deaths are we talking about exactly ? 30 million soviet civilians who died in the NAZI invasion ? The Red casualties in the revolutionary conflict against the Tzars forces ? The Stalinist purges ? Maybe you can be a little more specific ?

Yep no problem. Figures courtesy of Norman Davies. Deaths in millions btw. Although, seeing as this is communism were talking about, thats pretty much a given.

1917-1953, excluding war losses 1939-1945.
Civil War & Volga Famine|3-5
Foced collectivisation and 'dekulakization' after 1929|10-14
Ukrainian Terror-Famine|6-7
Great Terror and Purges|1
Deportations to Gulag, to 1937|10
Shootings and random executions|1
Deportations from Eastern Poland, Baltic States and Romania, 1939-1940|2
Foriegn POW's|1
Deportations to Gulag, 1939-40|7
Deportations of nationalities: Volga Germans, Chechens, Ingush,Crimean Tatars,etc|1
Post-war screening of repatriates and inhabitants of ex-occupied territory|5-6
Median gross total|54

So thats 4100 deaths per day
171 deaths per hour
One death every 21 seconds

synd

silverharp wrote: »

what you said needs to be put in context, the worst combination appears to be deregulation within the conxext of an unrestrained federal gov and central bank. The free market guys would agree with you that there has been an increasing financialisation of the economy and upward shift in wealth away from middlle class to wealthy people. The graph below shows quite clearly that the US economy has been reliant more on debt and not income for decades it would be a wrong conclusion to say that this is a free market failure

It looks like your just re-wording what I said in order to give the illusion of a response, and providing an irrelevant graph to give a veneer of credibility. The general message was that de-regulation of the financial market leads to speculation, overproduction and eventual crisis. The removal of such regulations lies squarely within the realm of liberal economic theory - which assumes unrestricted market transactions guided by the fairy godmother can do no wrong. Economic crisis says otherwise - and this is undeniably an illustration of free-market failure.

synd

turgon wrote: »

Yep no problem. Figures courtesy of Norman Davies. Deaths in millions btw. Although, seeing as this is communism were talking about, thats pretty much a given.

1917-1953, excluding war losses 1939-1945.
Civil War & Volga Famine|3-5
Foced collectivisation and 'dekulakization' after 1929|10-14
Ukrainian Terror-Famine|6-7
Great Terror and Purges|1
Deportations to Gulag, to 1937|10
Shootings and random executions|1
Deportations from Eastern Poland, Baltic States and Romania, 1939-1940|2
Foriegn POW's|1
Deportations to Gulag, 1939-40|7
Deportations of nationalities: Volga Germans, Chechens, Ingush,Crimean Tatars,etc|1
Post-war screening of repatriates and inhabitants of ex-occupied territory|5-6
Median gross total|54
So thats 4100 deaths per day
171 deaths per hour
One death every 21 seconds

Im sure these figures are highly contested, but lets ''assume'' there accurate. The fact that this is a period of bloody revolutionary warfare between contending forces isn't mentioned. For instance the 5000 people murdered in the Bulgarian White Terror. 15,000 in the German communist purges. 6000 people in the Hungarian terror, 70,000 sent to concentration camps. 11,783 in the Finish Terror with 80,000 sent to concentration camps ect ect.

Now, lets apply the same standard to capitalism (since were taking famines into account) - Chomsky, taking statistics from Amerya Sen notes that in India alone, the "democratic capitalist experiment" since 1947 has caused more deaths than in the entire history of Communism everywhere - numbering at over 100 million deaths by 1979. Well that's just India in the space of three decades, and its ''double'' the figure of your suspect stats.

Nothing said about the deaths under European imperialism in Africa, the deaths caused by the industrial revolution, the extermination of the native Americans (exceeding the number killed in the holocaust according to historian David Cesarani). What about US imperialism and genocide in Latin America ? - Capitalism clearly far surpasses communism (whatever that's supposed to mean) - when it comes to death caused by war, murder, starvation and slavery.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

synd wrote: »

It looks like your just re-wording what I said in order to give the illusion of a response, and providing an irrelevant graph to give a veneer of credibility. The general message was that de-regulation of the financial market leads to speculation, overproduction and eventual crisis. The removal of such regulations lies squarely within the realm of liberal economic theory - which assumes unrestricted market transactions guided by the fairy godmother can do no wrong. Economic crisis says otherwise - and this is undeniably an illustration of free-market failure.

view it how you want, you pulled one economic statistic to make a point without putting it in context.

turgon

synd wrote: »

Chomsky, taking statistics from Amerya Sen notes that in India alone, the "democratic capitalist experiment" since 1947 has caused more deaths than in the entire history of Communism everywhere - numbering at over 100 million deaths by 1979.

How were these caused? Was killing a direct policy of India, like it was in the USSR? I think not.

synd wrote: »

Nothing said about the deaths under European imperialism in Africa,

What does imperialism have to do with capatilism?

synd wrote: »

the deaths caused by the industrial revolution,

So you intend to cherry pick capitalist periods and point the finger - capatilism is bad. The fact is that communism has always brought hardship to those "free" enough to live under it.

synd wrote: »

the extermination of the native Americans (exceeding the number killed in the holocaust according to historian David Cesarani)

What does the foundation of the American state have to do with capatilism?

synd wrote: »

What about US imperialism and genocide in Latin America ?

What does imperialism have to do with capatilism?

synd wrote: »

Capitalism clearly far surpasses communism (whatever that's supposed to mean) - when it comes to death caused by war, murder, starvation and slavery.

What you doing here is attributing every death caused in or by a capitalist country to capatilism, and that wrong. The communist deaths were caused directly by communism, these deaths you speak about were not caused by capatilism.

But anyway, you didnt answer my question. Did the apparent economic gains you speak of in USSR justify 54 million deaths?

Akrasia

synd wrote: »

Yes that's a great arrangement for the property owners - not the inhabitants. Liberalism when confronted with this problem - states that the inhabitants should go elsewhere and seek preferable conditions of socio-economic subordination/despotism. Naturally liberals shiver when they hear the socialist solution ie. the inhabitants take capital under public ownership and organize themselves democratically - no cries the liberal, that's against our ''inalienable'' property rights (echoing the sentiments of their aristocratic predecessors).



Yes plenty of statistics. To the extent that economic liberalism has been implemented its proven itself a complete disaster. What tends to happen is that wages stagnate in conjunction with rising productivity. Take the US as an example, the epoch of economic Liberalism starting with Carters uneasy shift towards deregulation - prior to Regans regime of market fundamentalism.




The duration of time spent in work actually falls under liberalism - the capitalist is ''pressured'' to cut expenses reduce hours and intensify workloads, squeezing more surplus from the employees in less time. Profits soar amongst the upper class while living standards typically stagnate or decrease for the majority. So while the federal minimum wage stood par with the poverty level in 1980 it fell 30% below that level by 1990. Average CEO pay from 1990 - 1995 rose from $2.34 million - $3.86 million. Corporate profits rose from $212 billion $317 billion. Compare this to average wages during the same period which reduced from $27,615 to $27,448. The consequences of market liberalism are apparent in every nation to have implemented it - esp Latin America, Eastern Europe ect.

It would be naive to conceptualize the liberal program as a mistake, its clearly beneficial to the process of bourgeoisie accumulation as illustrated above. The attacks on public services, unions and welfare serve the function of creating dependency on the market thus facilitating exploitation. Essentially the removal of supports acts to discipline the existing workforce. Make no mistake - the liberal project is an upper class transgression against working class people. Observation of who provides sponsorship to right wing parties and pseudo academic'libertarian'' think-tanks speak volumes. The Cato institute ect.



Fiasco ? I suppose your referring to the soviet style command economy - not quite what I advocate. Still, I should address the issue of the USSR since its held as the manifestation of ''socialist failure'' within liberal propaganda. The USSR is very important to liberals - something that should be understood, however their portrayal of the soviet system and consequent claims about its ''failure'' are entirely skewed and predicated upon a mixture of rhetoric and historical distortion.

Did the USSR fail ? Well lets look at the facts. The liberal assertion that the USSR was a failure is predicated upon its being compared economically with the USA or Europe within a given time frame - a ridiculous comparison in that that these areas had been developed prior - you would have to go back about 800 years before both economies where alike. The rational comparison would be to look at nations that were similar to the soviet states in 1910 and compare their level of development in 1990. So we could compare Russia and Brazil or Bulgaria and Guatemala ect. Brazil for example should be a wealthy nation given its vast natural resources - peace ect (Russia being destroyed by world wars). Brazil is actually better equipped to develop than Russia ever was. Theirs a reason no-one undertakes the above comparison - because the result exposes liberal sophistry.

For Brazil about 5-10% of the population enjoy a high living standard, however the remaining 80% live in conditions comparable with central Africa. For the vast majority of Brazilians Soviet Russia would have looked like heaven. In fact when you look at the rate of industrial development within the USSR - it surpasses that of the developed western world. Living standards shot up from around 1917 - 1950 in terms of average income. The economy stagnated around the mid 60s until its collapse. Now if we compare living standards from the last period of the soviet regime - to the period of economic liberalization we see something very interesting, massive reduction in living standards and an increase in poverty levels. UNICEF documented half a million additional deaths a year in Russia alone due to the implementation of capitalist reform, or more accurately the removal of social supports and price controls. In the Czech Rep poverty went from 5.7% in 1989 to 18.2% in 1992. In Poland during the same period from 20% -40%. The massive votes retained by the eastern European communist parties aren't hard to explain at all in light of the facts - with the Russian CP alone averaging with roughly a third of the vote. Some months ago Moldova voted the communist party back into power. Now its often thrown around by misinformed liberals that this is due to the ''youth vote'' - who had no experience of soviet misery. The truth is actually the opposite - the majority of communist party voters are the elderly. So did the USSR fail ? - well the USSR had internal problems - social repression, difficulty with adequate production esp in the form of consumer goods ect. However its clear that it resulted in a higher standard of living than economic liberalism would have provided within the given time span.

As for using IT to plan an economy - its entirely visible. Furthermore it would be to the benefit of the majority - its been calculated that if income differentials where removed and an egalitarian system of payment where introduced most quartiles of worker would see a 50% rise in real wage before tax. The only category of worker to see a decline would be the top 20% of male white collar office workers. Unemployment could be eradicated, education made accessible - or based of labor credits. We could also cut out the risk of crisis - as we can all see the the capitalist market is reactive and lacks foresight - causing all sorts of problems, overproduction - speculation ect. If price was determined by SNT - production was planned democratically and wages distributed in the form of a non-circulatory medium, we would have sustainability. The market dynamic with its inflation, unemployment and predisposition to crisis cannot be relied upon to deliver socially desirable outcomes. Capitalism doesn't work - something more and more people are beginning to realize.




To be a consistent liberal its essential to have a selective memory when it comes history. Only a liberal could preach about the benefits of industrial capitalism - (overlook the imperialism, slavery and brutality that its built upon) and then denounce socialists on the premise that soviet development came at a human cost.

Excellent post Synd.

Akrasia

turgon wrote: »

I dont think theres any point me replying to Akrasia as asfaik Im on his ignore list.

I don't have an ignore list.
I will get to your posts but I was very busy this weekend and don't have the time to give them the attention they deserve at the moment

Akrasia

asdasd wrote: »

i want to live in Killiney.

What's stopping you?

Technologies do not just happen... Inventors invent by either getting funding from the State, or as private individuals with the hope of getting a profit for their work.

Are you suggesting there would be no innovation in an anarchist society?

Better living standards, by the way, happen with increases in productivity in capitalist societites, as we can produce more goods with less workers, rather than getting increases in unemployment, we get increase in per-capita living standards ( after all that is what having more goods available per-capita means). Uneomplyment is not related to "changes in technology" - that is luddite nonsense.

Living standards are about more than just acquiring posessions and services. Free time and personal fulfillment are also major components that affect happiness.
There is a lot of research to show that beyond a certain level, increases in material wealth no longer lead to increases in happiness. Free time, family, community art and a feeling of inclusiveness are all bigger drivers of happiness once the physical needs for survival and comfort are catered for.

Also nonsenscial is the idea that there will be no umemplyment. That means that the "communes" would have to employ everyone regardless of their ability to do anything. Communes are hardly going to compete for crap workers, now are they.

Work would be allocated to everyone based on the work that needs to be done and the people available to do it, it would not be like capitalism where someone is either fully 'employed' for 8 hours a day, or unemployed and doing nothing.

Akrasia

asdasd wrote: »

You are going to have to decide whether you are in favour of Law, or not. Otherwise I have no clue what exactly you want.

My position is clear, As long as there is capitalism, there needs to be strong regulation. Unregulated capitalism would be a human rights disaster.

In anarchism 99.9% of the laws would be immediately redundant.

Joycey

I have about half the thread to catch up on but until I do here are 2 transcripts of interviews with Chomsky, a self described libertarian (but anarchist in the terms of this thread), Id like to hear the right side account for his attacks of the corporation:

first is specifically about state and corporation - http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20050518.htm

second is more general and in 3 parts, fantastic interview though, at the very start is an account of exactly what we were talking about earlier with the prison system as a mechanism of oppressing those superfluous to the operation of the capitalist system - http://www.zmag.org/zmag/viewArticle/13217

check them out anyway, even if you disagree, should strengthen your arguments because Im sure he brings stuff up we havent.


Edit: i see donegalfella has attacked Chomsky's credibility by asserting hes a capitalist. Certainly was an interesting article, not sure how seriously I take it considering it was published in a book called "Liberal Hypocrisy", but nevertheless id like to see Chomsky respond to the claims, or see them in their proper context. Even if the claims are true, his attacks of the capitalist system are not any less valid, if I can make the same claims and have them mean the same then why should we through them out because the original proponent has been discredited? Would you disregard the entirety of Heidigger's philosophy because he initially supported and later failed to oppose the Nazi party? Or how about Chomsky's work in linguistics? His claims about capitalism are intended as an objective critique of historical events, if his life contradicts his opposition to his stated principles then that is something he must answer for, not his theory.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I consider the entire system of exclusive privatised property as antiquated.

You've said that you don't want to stop libertarians from owning and trading private property. But neither do you want to compel anarchists to recognize the legitimacy of that privately owned property. So you have created what looks to me like an irreconcilable conflict. If an anarchist climbs over a fence and trespasses on private property, ignoring the legitimacy of the NO TRESPASSING signs, and the owner's Rottweiler guard dogs give him a savage mauling, who is in the right? The anarchist will say that he is free to go where he pleases. The libertarian will say that he is entitled to secure his private lands with fences and guard dogs.

The libertarian would have just severely injured another human being because the other human being wanted to walk in a field.
Yet libertarians claim that they are all about freedom.

Either you believe that libertarians should be free to own private property, or you believe that libertarians should be forced to accept socialist-anarchist rules. You can't have it both ways. So which is it?

I said the anarchists wouldn't accept the libertarian rules, You are turning it the other way around because you refuse to accept that private property is a restriction of freedom.

In the absence of a professional police force, how do you deal with organized crime, and crimes requiring a high degree of skilled training? Surely you can't expect a plumber to have the skills of an experienced detective in his spare time, or a farmer to have the training of a forensics expert?

There would be educated people in anarchist society with specific skills that could be called upon just like in capitalism.

So someone accused of rape or murder would have no recourse to legal representation? And jurors would make decisions based on their "conscience," rather than on established legal precedents for adjudicating evidence? This seems like a highly problematic legal system to me. I can see it producing a great many shoddy and tendentious verdicts, and I can see many innocent people going to prison—and many guilty people getting off.

Jurers would make their decisions based on the evidence that is put to them, the accused would have the right to defend himself or to appoint someone to defend him.

There are a great deal of shoddy verdicts in the current system also, just because it is extremely complex doesn't mean it functions any better than a simpler alternative.

Libertarians believe that they can do whatever they like with their private property so long as they do not harm others. A libertarian who wants to build a toxic waste incinerator beside a school would obviously be aware that he is leaving himself wide open to lawsuits from teachers, parents, and students!

And the toxic waste dump owner would claim that his toxic waste is perfectly harmless and that it is contained in a leak free environment and there is no impact on the environment. The onus would be on the school to prove that their health was being damaged, but by that stage, the damage would already have been done (most likely the school would have shut down before then anyway because no parent would send their kids to a school that borders a toxic waste dump)

How would libertarian law interpret the conflict of interest between the owner of the existing business, and the right of a nearby landowner to open a business that, by existing would reduce the value of the other person's land?

If such a challenge was permitted, libertarian courts would be constantly adjudicating cases like this, and instead of a transparent and coherent planning process, the courts would be deciding on what land owners can do with their property (which just as 'oppressive' as the current system if not more so)

On the one hand you are arguing that the average person does not have the ability to comprehend and consent to a health insurance policy. On the other hand, you are suggesting that the same person would be able to participate in complex decision-making processes regarding resource allocation. This doesn't make much sense to me. If Joe really is as dumb as a box of rocks, surely he will be equally flummoxed by libertarian contracts and by anarchist participatory government?

Libertarian contracts would be specific legal documents. I would not be so patronising to describe everyone who is not a lawyer as "dumb as a box of rocks"

People are experts in their own needs and demands, and so would be able to participate in the decision making process by expressing their preferences and opposing proposals that they do not agree with. The fact that the decisions would need to be approved by everyone that has an interest in them, would mean that the language would need to be accessable and not a lisbon treaty like document that is impenetrable to, well, pretty much everyone

If it wasn't for the welfare system and the public sector, we wouldn't be borrowing the umpteen billions that are going to keep our economy in the doldrums for the foreseeable future, would we?

The mismanagement of the Irish economy by the FF government is pretty irrelevant to this discussion. The reason the economy is in a mess is because of speculative market bubbles, local and international. The markets were whollely incapable of pricing risk.
The budget deficit is because our economy was built on sand, and the tax rates were too low.

They won't. And so the message that gets sent to someone contemplating using drugs is this: If you do this, you and nobody else is responsible for what happens to the rest of your life. Unless you get help from your family or a charity, nobody is going to come to your aid.

So you admit that you are in favour of a 'society' that totally abandons people who have made bad choices. Ok, but what about the people who are unable to work through no fault of their own? People with disabilities or people who get sick or injured?

Do you really think that the planet can produce all the food needed to feed its population from urban gardens and the like? It can't. If you take away the industrial system for producing food, food supplies will plummet. There will be shortages and famines.

The urban gardens could suppliment food requirements most food production would probably still occur in rural farms

If we are going to eat only locally produced fruits and vegetables, I will be restricted to eating what can be produced here in Donegal. So I guess I can say goodbye to oranges, bananas, kiwi fruit, and the like, and my diet is likely to become less healthy as a result.

There would still be trade, but the emphasis would be on sustainable food production, so your diet would be mainly based on eating the fruits and vegetables that are in season. (there would still be horticulture which people could use to grow more exotic foods if they wanted to)

You seem to be arguing that people should strive to become less efficient and less productive, so that there are more jobs for more people. So we should ditch labour-saving high-tech machinery on farms, for example, and go back to the days of manual threshing and the horse-drawn plough?

No I'm not, I'm saying that the work would be divided out amongst everyone so there would be less for each person to do rather than 80% working full time and 20% doing nothing, 100% of people would work 80% of the hours. (or however that works out)

Providing for "needs" is one thing. Providing for "wants" is another thing entirely. People need shelter, food, and clothing. They want big houses, flat-screen TVs, microwaves, Nintendo Wiis, iPods, Gucci shoes, 09-reg BMWs... their desires are limitless. How are you going to give people all they want?

There would be producer and consumer councils that would allocate resources and democratically arrive at the balance between wants and needs

asdasd

I consider the entire system of exclusive privatised property as antiquated.

most of the world thinks the idea of common ownership antiquated. Welcome to the real world.

Now I realise you are probably a posh kid who has never met a proletarian in your life, nor darkened the door of a factory. But lets get some case studies going.

1) Apple Computer Cork. Localizes software from the US, and build components from around the world. How exactly would that work as a local commune, what exactly do they localize, and in what interests do the workers have in "owning" something they already partyly own ( as stock options) in an investorless world where the ownership - stocks - cannot be sold on and are worthless. Thw Irish Commune for Localization Of Bourgeois Apple products would cease to exist absent the initial software from the US. If you dont understand this shut it.
2) A startup firm making a temporary loss, but is trying to break even. Tell me exactly why the working class in that firm would want to "own" debt, and lose money.
3) A restaurant where the trainee chef hopes to own his place some day. Why exactly would he want a "commune" where he gets paid the same as a crap chef, and can never aspire to be anything other than a member of the commune.
4) A hairdresser who wants to own her own place someday.

In talking of such things I am mentioning places that I have either worked in, or relatives of mine have. Never ever have I met a working class anarchist. Anarchists are confined to the bullying middle classes, and clue as to why is in my next post.

asdasd

There would be producer and consumer councils that would allocate resources and democratically arrive at the balance between wants and needs

Oh, god love us. Councils. Probably dominated by Trots, feminists, or that type. Telling us what we "need" to consume.

I'll take my own chances in the market with deciding what I want to consume, thank you very much. Give me currency and let me choose.

Stick your consumer councils up your bourgeois ass. A council is hardly going to decide I need a Lions ticket, a Elvis Presley album, a Specialized bike ( not that it would exist), a good meal at a restaurant, an iPhone. Because, in fact I "need" none of these. I want them, but I dont need them. I can imagine stony faced trots and ugly fems deciding that I dont need any of this. ( Of course in a commune driven society there would be not much to buy anyway).

No doubt the "democratically elected" coucil will be full of blowhards, like your bourgoies self, deciding what exactly I need. They can F off.

turgon

I would also be interested to find out how things such as aeroplanes would have been invented in the communist society, given that the prime motivator for innovation is material reward.

But, let me guess, aeroplanes arent needed.

asdasd

But, let me guess, aeroplanes arent needed.

His producer - consumer councils can hardly go worldwide. While individual capitalist companies can look worlwide for components by by-passing State structures, the elected council from mayo ( represting a number of communes) has to send a representative to Connaught, and then to the Irish council of producer-consumers, who needs to meet the EU counil of producer-consumers, who will meet in a world council of producer-consumers, and not one of them will have the faintest idea of how to build a plane, a bridge, create a record, or till a field.

turgon

Thats a very good point. I thought the planes would not come because of lack of motive, but the fact is that some local county council will not be willing to fund such a huge enterprise.

Akrasia

turgon wrote: »

Whatever about economics, that real fact is that at least 54 million people were killed in the USSR, and therein lies the ultimate failure.

How many people die of starvation and preventable diseases every year in Africa and the 'developing world'? The current system is broken, Stalinism was broken, capitalism is broken.

And dont forget that theres nothing to stop this burger fliper from starting his own restaurant.

So a libertarian world would be based on millions of sole trader businesses selling burgers to each other?

That's the libertarian answer to everything, start your own business and you'll be grand.

Would there be any employees in any of these businesses?

Just to re-emphasise this point: the Irish government places restrictions on discount retailers such as Aldi and Lidl which means their shops cant be bigger than a certain size. This is in the interest of "protecting" Irish businesses. Of course this only results in higher prices for the consumer.

This has no effect on the vast majority of Aldis or Lidls, shops that are nowhere near the maximum size for a retail shop.
Also, that restriction has been relaxed or completely removed to cater for IKEA

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

Akrasia, with respect, I find your answers less than satisfactory. Your explanations amount to little more than 'there would be this and that' (ctrl+f 'would' and you'll see what I mean). Apparently, in an anarcho-socialist world, there would be schools, hospitals, technological breakthroughs, etc. Why or how? Well, there just would be. Do you care to explain the nuts and bolts, though?

I genuinely struggle to get my head around the anarchist argument. There would be no money and no private property, and people would co-operate voluntarily to meet the needs and wants of 'society'. Hmm, yes. Cures for diseases, satellites in space, safer cars, faster computers - all of these would be achieved without competion, but with direct democracy. Indeed. Over the last hundred years millions of people have died in attempts at coercively implementing collective policies - was coercion the reason it didn't work, or the policies?

I recently completed a temporary job which involved a lot of manual labour. Want to know what I said to my employer upon completing the job? Well, I didn't complain about him being an evil capitalist who was exploiting me - I phoned him and thanked him for the work. We no longer live in the 1860s. For some reason this thread reminds me of the episode of The Simpsons where the movementarians want to build a spaceship to reach the planet Blisstonia.

headmuzik

Donegalfella:

Consider a libertarian woman in your society. She considers her body to be private, and to belong to her. She doesn't give anyone consent to "trespass" upon her body without her consent. Is that illegitimate? If an anarchist came up and started fondling her, using the argument that her body is public property and belongs to everyone in general, and she starts screaming that she is being sexually assaulted, what do you do?

See, at first, I was reading your posts with consideration but now I see that in fact you're actually taking the piss!

Someone mentioned participatory budgets way back there. There's some interesting stuff in that direction from Porto Alegre, in Brazil:
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=562

Here's some quick stuff on markets since there's so much hot air going around about them:
Problems with Markets:

Ignores externalities (pollution, the entire ecosystem, transaction effects on other actors)

The magnitude of externalities cannot reliably be measured

Individual atomistic consumer choices might be rational, but in aggregate can result
in negative and unplanned social outcomes

Differentials in ability confer different abilities to secure a favorable share of benefits
from market exchanges

Contribution to output alone is remunerated(effort and sacrifice ignored/irrelevant)

Social benefits not matched to market rewards - Why does plastic surgery pay much better than saving malnourished children?

Focus on competition discourages rather than encourages social solidarity

Market competition creates an environment in which decision-makers (within companies)
have no choice but to maximize the bottom line

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So for someone to speak about a subject, they have to be 'trained'. So in your book, a 22 year old 'historian' straight out of university is a better source than Noam Chomsky, the author of many well researched and critically acclaimed books on politics and world affairs?

asdasd

But if Akrasia supports the complete abolition of private property rights, upon what principle can someone's own body be understood as "private" and "off-limits"?

It isn't just anarchist societies which do not see the person as being totally private, to be fair ( if they don't).

Nationalist societies demand the blood of their citizens, every so often, to protect the realm. Trade Unions think that concession made by union members in the past should preclude a new worker from non-membership of a trade union.

Churches - and States - see suicides and the "right to die" as morally wrong, even if the person involved is terminally ill.

No State allows someone to get killed in a bondage game, even if the submissive "agrees".

Feminists dont believe that women should trade their bodies, or display their bodies, even if un-coerced ( they claim coercion by the culture), and some secularists oppose the Burka even if the woman makes that choice herself.

I think the privacy of the individual is a bit more complex than libertarians imagine, but although opposed to anarchism and communism, I am definitely not a libertarian.

asdasd

So in your book, a 22 year old 'historian' straight out of university is a better source than Noam Chomsky, the author of many well researched and critically acclaimed books on politics and world affairs?

Naom Chomsky's opinions on anything, except his linguistics, have no more validity than the man in the pub. The man in the pub could be a phsysicist, or a linguist, or a engineer. Or a proletariat. In fact Chomsky only gets considered an "intellectual" because he opines on US foreign policy. If he kept quiet he would merely be a scientist.

The Marxist Left needs the imprimatur of the degree, however, becuase they are quite bourgeois about credentialism. After, all, neither Karl, Engels, or Lenin were proles. Where would Karl Marx's philosophy be today had he failed his vida?

I'd say the egalitarians would give him short thrift.

asdasd

Here's some quick stuff on markets since there's so much hot air going around about them:.....

Good man. Needs State intervention to fix those. I agree.

Anarchism is still rot though.

have we worked out what happens to the workers in Cork, yet?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.