IcarusAngel
19th December 2009, 02:08
Free-market/libertarian-socialist/Cooperative:
Suppose you had a company controlled by workers that operated more along the lines of capitalism. Suppose another company wanted to buy their product, a piece of software that will be licensed on several computers. Suppose the seller wants to charge $5,000 for the software. The company that wants to buy it, the buyer, will pay a credit cooperative $5,000, which will then pay the software company, and with their revenue they can buy more resources. The buyer will then pay off the credit cooperative, say $1000 over five years. Where does the credit cooperative get the money? From two sources: one from the loans in the past being repayed, and the other from expansion of the money supply required by the expansion of production.
Free-communist/libertarian-socialist/commune:
In a syndicalist commune, the commune who is trading the software will receive enough in goods and services to provide for the commune from the people interested in the software. Perhaps they will receive resources to provide for the people in their own commune. Perhaps the commune interested in the software will give them something they need that they produced. In such a system, if they need 10 programmers, they will find them by providing the people who live in that commune with more resources if they perform the action. So if many people were looking for productive worker, they should be programmers. This requires no more 'coercion' than in a market system, and is in fact, by far, a more free choice considering the fact that the programmers are not under threat of starvation. If the people do not like the rules, they are free to leave the commune, or split the commune in half if they don't want to be programmers? So how is the commune scenario more oppressive than the capitalist scenario? It isn't.
Hence, this is why some people, such as Chomsky, not only consider libertarian-socialism to be the true descendent of anarchism, but the true descendent of classical-liberalism as well, since liberals such as Adam Smith, von Humboldt, and especially JSM, were concerned about the worker-manager relationship and the workers not receiving the true value of their labor. Smith was also concerned about monopolies and corporations (or "incorporations") receiving too much power.
Also, noticed how the commune eliminated the middleman, the banking system, which is clearly evil and which even many 'libertarian capitalists' concede.
It seems like the commune style of libcom is where we want to be.
Suppose you had a company controlled by workers that operated more along the lines of capitalism. Suppose another company wanted to buy their product, a piece of software that will be licensed on several computers. Suppose the seller wants to charge $5,000 for the software. The company that wants to buy it, the buyer, will pay a credit cooperative $5,000, which will then pay the software company, and with their revenue they can buy more resources. The buyer will then pay off the credit cooperative, say $1000 over five years. Where does the credit cooperative get the money? From two sources: one from the loans in the past being repayed, and the other from expansion of the money supply required by the expansion of production.
Free-communist/libertarian-socialist/commune:
In a syndicalist commune, the commune who is trading the software will receive enough in goods and services to provide for the commune from the people interested in the software. Perhaps they will receive resources to provide for the people in their own commune. Perhaps the commune interested in the software will give them something they need that they produced. In such a system, if they need 10 programmers, they will find them by providing the people who live in that commune with more resources if they perform the action. So if many people were looking for productive worker, they should be programmers. This requires no more 'coercion' than in a market system, and is in fact, by far, a more free choice considering the fact that the programmers are not under threat of starvation. If the people do not like the rules, they are free to leave the commune, or split the commune in half if they don't want to be programmers? So how is the commune scenario more oppressive than the capitalist scenario? It isn't.
Hence, this is why some people, such as Chomsky, not only consider libertarian-socialism to be the true descendent of anarchism, but the true descendent of classical-liberalism as well, since liberals such as Adam Smith, von Humboldt, and especially JSM, were concerned about the worker-manager relationship and the workers not receiving the true value of their labor. Smith was also concerned about monopolies and corporations (or "incorporations") receiving too much power.
Also, noticed how the commune eliminated the middleman, the banking system, which is clearly evil and which even many 'libertarian capitalists' concede.
It seems like the commune style of libcom is where we want to be.