Materialist versus idealist economic decentralization

[Dean]

This is a brief exposition I just typed up in order to explain economic ideology and centralization to someone on FB, and I thought some here may find it interesting.


Capitalism does not support individual freedom because it does not take the term seriously. It would only under a system of perfect competition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition)- but this really shows how preposterous is the notion of "individual economic liberty" in the context of capitalism.

Individualism can only be really attributed to a capitalist system if it is the individual freedom of a minority - that is to say that we are only concerned with the ability for individuals to achieve more acute economic control. This says nothing about the empowerment of individuals in general, so it has no value if we are concerned with individual liberty across the economy.

Rather, a meaningful concept of individual liberty must consider the ability of individuals across the market to have control over their own economic life. The notion of capitalist individualism rather bluntly contradicts the very notion, because we see that the accumulation of wealth translates into explicit centers of economic hegemony, which themselves are able to more efficiently assess market conditions and redefine economic relations in order to benefit the interests which control that base.

Again, there is the return to moral idealism in your post, that is the concern with the "right to choose." Well, E. Fromm and the Frankfurt School both utilized Marxist and Psychoanalytic theory to show that "choosing" something is not necessarily an expression of individual freedom. In particular, they referred to mystification of ideas and the misrepresentation in Fascist and Representative states toward their constituency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fear_of_Freedom

The point is that people cannot be seen as free if they are beholden to outside interests - that is in particular the economic apparatuses which control housing and food - in order to achieve economic power.

You seen, the difference between us is rather fundamental. You are an idealist - you like to think that if society can achieve a state where "anyone can do what they want in the market" we have succeeded. You don't have any meaningful measure except government intervention, and actual capitalist organizations - their structure, the conditions created for workers and consumers - is not meaningful either.

I am a materialist. I define my viewpoints rather simply - the greatest degree of freedom for each human being, especially to define their own living conditions, social relations and the like. This is socialism in the simplest meaningful terms. Whatever can be said to be "possible" against the state apparatus is not as important as whatever degree of decentralized, individual control there is over the economy. My notion of economic liberty is measured in the actual ability for each human being to personally be in control of their life and direction, etc. so when we develop a "free market" which confoundedly centralizes economic power more acutely than any previous market (which is a fact - you'd be flat-out wrong to say that economic control was more broadly distributed than under feudalism or just a decade ago), I find it very peculiar that this is seen as "economic liberty," but I guess it makes sense if you, again, are not interested in the material reality, but rather mystical concepts of economic freedom which in practice develop very centralized systems of economic control.

I don't think that our ideologies are very different, actually, and I think these values are very fundamental for most people. But it is easy to get confused once we develop various layers of fabrication in regards to the economic structures we live in.

Socialism IS economic decentralization. Capitalism IS economic centralization. Of course, I am for decentralization of power.

[Left-Reasoning]

Amen!

[mikelepore]

Socialism IS economic decentralization.

Then how come I've been a socialist since 1968 and I have never supported decentralization?

I say centralize as much as possible. Best case, every little lemonade stand should be collectively owned and administered by the entire human race.

[trivas7]

Rather, a meaningful concept of individual liberty must consider the ability of individuals across the market to have control over their own economic life. The notion of capitalist individualism rather bluntly contradicts the very notion, because we see that the accumulation of wealth translates into explicit centers of economic hegemony, which themselves are able to more efficiently assess market conditions and redefine economic relations in order to benefit the interests which control that base.

I don't know what you mean by "to have control over their own economic life". Most people if asked would IMO say that yes, indeed they do have control over their own economic lives.

Economic hegemonic corporations are themselves subject to the market. Hegemony is a fleeting thing at best admist the creative destruction that is always churning away under capitalism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


I don't know what you mean by "to have control over their own economic life". Most people if asked would IMO say that yes, indeed they do have control over their own economic lives.

So, the tens of millions of working people around the world who have lost their jobs over the last two years or so just decided to quit work did they? They weren't sacked or made redundant at all...:lol:

[Left-Reasoning]

I say centralize as much as possible. Best case, every little lemonade stand should be collectively owned and administered by the entire human race.

That's absurd.

[Endomorphian]

Then how come I've been a socialist since 1968 and I have never supported decentralization?

I say centralize as much as possible. Best case, every little lemonade stand should be collectively owned and administered by the entire human race.

Expropriating wealth from an underclass of workers, bad. Expropriating wealth from a workers' council five thousand miles away in which you had not aided in the least, good.


But seriously. What. El. Fuck?

[Left-Reasoning]

"...what we always meant by socialism wasn't something you forced on people, it was people organizing themselves as they pleased into co-ops, collectives, communes, unions... And if socialism really is better, more efficient than capitalism, then it can bloody well compete with capitalism. So we decided, forget all the statist shit and the violence: the best place for socialism is the closest to a free market you can get!" - Ken MacLeod's The Star Fraction

[Left-Reasoning]

Wrong thread.

[CartCollector]

Economic hegemonic corporations are themselves subject to the market. Hegemony is a fleeting thing at best admist the creative destruction that is always churning away under capitalism.
That's like saying feudal estates lead to political freedom because each estate competes for more land and wealth.

Also people, maybe mikelepore was being sarcastic. Maybe.

[Dean]

I don't know what you mean by "to have control over their own economic life". Most people if asked would IMO say that yes, indeed they do have control over their own economic lives.
I've already addressed that point - are you indicating that a social organization that succeeds in making people "feel in control," while in reality relying on very strict systems which disempower most of society, is an decentralized system of economy? Firstly, that's categorically false. Secondly, I don't see any value in polling people on those terms, except to see how delusional the corporate propaganda has succeeded in making people.


Economic hegemonic corporations are themselves subject to the market. Hegemony is a fleeting thing at best admist the creative destruction that is always churning away under capitalism.
Again, this is a false dichotomy you're dealing with. It's not a case of "corporations aren't beholden to the market," but rather that the market explicitly dictates that such hegemonic structures - lets take UBS as an example - have control over more market shares, which puts them in a position to dictate the legal and economic paradigm that defines social relations.

These are not organizations or families which are fleeting in their power. The Rothchilds, ExxonMobil, Union Carbide, Siemens, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Ford, Nintendo and IBM all have decades or centuries of control over their belt and succeed in posturing to be a key player in each new economic paradigm that manifests.

But even if that weren't the case, it wouldn't change the material character of capitalist systems, which is to concentrate economic power into the hands of a few, making social relations by and large involuntary situations which are more asserted onto people rather than freely and personally defined. We could have a completely different milieu of people in this dominant position every 5 years, and so long as market conditions continue down the same path, it will be a very similar system, albeit with much more devastating cyclical crashes, bankruptcies or other industrial falterings.

It's a deeply troubled system disassociated from the control of its stakeholders, in any case.

[Dean]

Then how come I've been a socialist since 1968 and I have never supported decentralization?

I say centralize as much as possible. Best case, every little lemonade stand should be collectively owned and administered by the entire human race.

You're dealing with a very different approach to socialist ideology which I more or less reject, but I do understand some of its underpinnings and tendencies.

First off, if we are talking about a command economy devolving from a centralized political structure that is particularly beholden to the proletariat and/or society as a whole, then you are talking about the decentralization of economic power. I think its a flawed Bolshevik kind of stance, because socialism requires an empowered, active working class personally engaged in the management of society.

The real test of this kind of "Socialist" attitude is in the concept of alienation - what you are dealing with when a lemonade stand is centrally controlled is a massive disassociation of the worker from his or her labor, and this is pretty clearly not a socialist kind of endeavor.

[Dermezel]

I think it should be up to people, after socialism, whether they want capital to centralize or not, but the benefits should definitely be spread more equally.

[Endomorphian]

That's like saying feudal estates lead to political freedom because each estate competes for more land and wealth.

Also people, maybe mikelepore was being sarcastic. Maybe.

Good catch. I recall how a few years ago such a sentiment was popular amongst particular user circles, unfortunately.

[trivas7]

That's like saying feudal estates lead to political freedom because each estate competes for more land and wealth.

I'm saying that hegemonic corporations are as much subject to the marketplace -- unless propped up by the state -- as any other economic agent.

[Dean]

I'm saying that hegemonic corporations are as much subject to the marketplace -- unless propped up by the state -- as any other economic agent.
So are sweatshops and paramilitary forces. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about - the market has proved itself to be a terrible arbiter of financial and economic relations.

[trivas7]

So are sweatshops and paramilitary forces. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about - the market has proved itself to be a terrible arbiter of financial and economic relations.
As opposed to what exactly -- slave economies, feudal relationships? Remember that Marx had a high regard for the productive and progressive powers of capitalism.

[Endomorphian]

Sweatshops only occur where labor agitation is stifled by the capitalists' use of the state to socialize property norms. It all basically comes back to simple principles about taxation.

[Dean]

As opposed to what exactly -- slave economies, feudal relationships? Remember that Marx had a high regard for the productive and progressive powers of capitalism.
What is the point of this contradiction anyways? The point of the matter is that being "subject to the market" does not make corporate entities any less totalitarian and exclusively self-interested.

Sweatshops only occur where labor agitation is stifled by the capitalists' use of the state to socialize property norms. It all basically comes back to simple principles about taxation.
The 19th and 20th century US economic conditions directly contradict this incredibly asinine statement of yours.

[Endomorphian]

No, examples from American history flaunt my point. The federal government collaborated with state militias to effectively outlaw labor strikes, sit-ins, and even collaboration efforts up until and surpassing the Progressive Era. Really not until the Great Depression when FDR issued the Wagner Act and police agencies became more hesitant about enforcing other facets of the law in the face of amassing protesters would organizations like the AFL and CIO (independent at the time) make their first significant gains. Some of the "pigs" as other users affectionately call them were even partaking in the protests! The government's then temporary and declining authority to decide contracts and property disputes fueled the labor movement.

Sweatshop conditions had already been rapidly declining prior to World War I thanks to the work of the labor movement and mutual aid societies. Progressive-era legislation was mostly retroactive, not proactive. Furthermore, state involvement in these activities is meant to control and regulate their consequences. Markets, on the other hand, are and have been the primary vehicle for radical transformation of power away from a small class of elites into the broader community.

Paramilitary forces is a scary term when taken out of context, until you realize that describes organizations like the Black Panthers.

[IcarusAngel]

Markets are and have been the primary vehicle for radical transformation of power away from a small class of elites into the broader community.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

It's obvious there's no political scientist in the country that could substantiate this.

[Endomorphian]

Argumentum ad verecundiam?

Markets allow for minority opinions to be represented without the possibility of suppression. No other system of organization is so generous. Capitalists only maintain their privilege by manipulating the state. This is plainly obvious. If constrained in market conditions where no entity could make mandatory payments the norm (taxation), a market of cooperatives and independent ventures would arise - that has always been the market's tendency before it is violently interrupted. Mutual aid societies, small business enterprises, reclamation projects, etc. Compare these actual worker-owned (and procured) experiments to the fallacious "Leninist" experiments. Then we can get back to what is "idealistic decentralization."

[Dean]

Argumentum ad verecundiam?

Markets allow for minority opinions to be represented without the possibility of suppression. No other system of organization is so generous.
Actually, they allow (actually demand) minority control which is a much more compelling empowerment. I don't see why someone would consider that desirable


Capitalists only maintain their privilege by manipulating the state. This is plainly obvious.
No, security forces always represent the interests of extablished industrial leaders, and this establishment is decided by the amount of market shares a firm can acquire. The state acts toward the interests of propertied in order to secure more assets and control over the market, so I don't see how it could possibly act very different from a private security firm.

Maybe you think private security wouldn't work for the wealthiest firms. :laugh: Everything we know about the market is wrong! Property and market shares don't compel private firms - something else does!

How preposterous.

[trivas7]

What is the point of this contradiction anyways? The point of the matter is that being "subject to the market" does not make corporate entities any less totalitarian and exclusively self-interested.

The point is to keep your comments re totalitarian and self-interested corporate entities in some kind of historical context. Where no alternatives exist, the basis of your criticism collapses.

[Dean]

The point is to keep your comments re totalitarian and self-interested corporate entities in some kind of historical context. Where no alternatives exist, the basis of your criticism collapses.

Being subject to the market is not a particularly glorious power check. Complex liberal democracy, when it maintains sufficient control over the economy, shows itself to be a much better arbiter of democratic interests than neo-liberal systems. Nonetheless, this system is failing in the face of corporatist hegemony. Corporatist hegemony is always served by the freer market paradigms.

So, where democracy has more power, so too is socialism more proximate. I fail to see how the market plays a productive role in this, besides the infrastructure building of the 19th & 20th centuries, which decided where capital would tend in contemporary global economics. Again, the expropriation of wealth from infrastructure-poor localities is a symptom of this characteristic of capital, and so we see that the market rather explicitly deepens the economic disparity of poorer regions vs. richer ones.

The market represents the interests of the richer groups, so its nothing more than totalitarian enforcement... The ruling class is subject to its own laws in meaningless, of course. The Rothchilds, Goldman Sachs, Koch Industries and UBS have all maintained decades or centuries of power. This hegemony is manifested in some of the most pervasive and largest firms, so I don't see how its "fleeting."

[Endomorphian]

Did you really just refer to subsidized banks like Goldman Sachs as evidence that markets left by their own proliferate wealth? *Sigh*

[mikelepore]

Clarification of my very brief post of April 22nd.

No matter how small the workplace - I gave the example of a lemonade stand - it's exactly like a huge factory in the fact that it has inputs and outputs. The following three facts are inescapable:

(1) It requires intermediate products. The outputs of one workplace are the inputs to another workplace. In a socialist society, a workplace would have no way to acquire its materials without participating in the central allocation of resources. In other words, without having exactly the same role in the production network as, say, an automobile plant, the lemonade stand would have no way to acquire its lemons and sugar.

(2) Whatever people use in place of today's fiat money (I prefer the concept of labor time credits), the lemonade stand has to be plugged into society's central computer to accept these units from the buyer in exchange for the lemonade.

(3) The work time expended by the the people who operate the lemonade stand has to be registered in the central computer, so that they can be compensated for their work time with income and redeem this income at any other distribution center.

Now that the whole of society provides the materials, disburses the products, and compensates the labor, what is left over for us to decentralize? Only the questions of methods and environment. For example, we can decentralize the decision by the workers about whether they shall cut the lemons with an electric slicer, or what color the lemonade stand shall be painted, etc.

Due to this proportion between how much has to be centralized and how little may be decentralized, I would call it a situation of being centralized in general. The smallness of the workplace has no effect on this.

[Dean]

Did you really just refer to subsidized banks like Goldman Sachs as evidence that markets left by their own proliferate wealth? *Sigh*
Banks are subsidized because they have power, not the other way around. The Rothchilds and Koch Industries achieved economic empowerment without requiring subsidies.

You're a fucking idiot if you think banking firms need subsidies to maintain their corporate presence. Many capitalist firms never receive subsidies but still maintain hegemony. Even if subsidies are pervasive, its a hollow argument - they don;t prove anything.

And, as I've said before, if the state didn't exist to give these subsidies, private security would do a lot better to stifle competition and control markets. So whatever "argument" you have about "artificial empowerment" means jack-shit - they will acquire power however they need to.

That's why its a money-based economy - states, security firms, whatever, all work toward the interests of a higher bidder. It's an infantile viewpoint to look at one aspect of that, refuse to analyze it , and blame the "state" for every powerful corporate entity. It's incredibly idiotic.

[Endomorphian]

Well, looks like Mike was serious about his desire to see socialism equate to centralizing economic authority.


Banks are subsidized because they have power, not the other way around. The Rothchilds and Koch Industries achieved economic empowerment without requiring subsidies.


The success of the Rothchilds' bank is directly tied to its original involvement in funding government efforts across Europe. The Rothchilds made loans to support Lord Wellington's army, bought bonds from the British crown, and then financed large Prussian infrastructure projects without competition. Prior to these maneuvers of patronage the family bank was much less significant. Innovative, yes, but not immune to competition like it was after the Napoleonic Wars.


Even if subsidies are pervasive, its a hollow argument - they don;t prove anything.


You can't eat your cake and have it too. Subsidies clearly empower one segment of the market (or industry) above the others. If subsidies are pervasive, and you are critical of centralizing power, it's only foolish to blow off their impact whilst simultaneously ranting about the evils of a free market.


private security would do a lot better to stifle competition and control markets. So whatever "argument" you have about "artificial empowerment" means jack-shit - they will acquire power however they need to.

An unsubstantiated claim at best.


That's why its a money-based economy - states, security firms, whatever, all work toward the interests of a higher bidder. It's an infantile viewpoint to look at one aspect of that, refuse to analyze it , and blame the "state" for every powerful corporate entity. It's incredibly idiotic.

Au contraire, I am not blaming government as being the source of these issues, but rather calling to your attention that the collusion of landowners who only become friendly to free market competition until after they've gathered up a nice prize of land formerly toiled by someone else does not equate to a "free market" by any stretch of the imagination.

[Dean]

The success of the Rothchilds' bank is directly tied to its original involvement in funding government efforts across Europe. The Rothchilds made loans to support Lord Wellington's army, bought bonds from the British crown, and then financed large Prussian infrastructure projects without competition. Prior to these maneuvers of patronage the family bank was much less significant. Innovative, yes, but not immune to competition like it was after the Napoleonic Wars.
Can you give me an example of a bank that didn't finance state structures? Koch Industries built oil refineries for the USSR.

Basically, your saying that the presence of the state is going to completely change how banks operate - loans, etc. But that's bullshit and we both know it.

Its just an excuse to justify a free market paradigm when it clearly benefits a minority.


You can't eat your cake and have it too. Subsidies clearly empower one segment of the market (or industry) above the others. If subsidies are pervasive, and you are critical of centralizing power, it's only foolish to blow off their impact whilst simultaneously ranting about the evils of a free market.
No, its not, because you are saying that having no subsidies would completely change the system.


An unsubstantiated claim at best.
No, its not. The state is a market system and it provides for the empowered class. The only contrary claim would be that these firms somehow serve the interests of firms that don't have power - which we both know is absurd.


Au contraire, I am not blaming government as being the source of these issues, but rather calling to your attention that the collusion of landowners who only become friendly to free market competition until after they've gathered up a nice prize of land formerly toiled by someone else does not equate to a "free market" by any stretch of the imagination.
Yes, it does. How is it any less a "free market"? These groups don't stay out of the business until they "get land," typically, like with all power structures, they simply use the market to expand their power.

Capitalism rarely makes "new money," but the more important fact is that the free market simply empowers profiteering entities to more efficiently accrue capital. If we saw the free market competing with the government to decentralize wealth, you argument might, hold, but we both know that's bullshit. You're using the obvious collusion between empowered firms to argue something that doesn't follow.

Consider that we have two opposing viewpoints:

Me, that for-profit entities will always collude with each other to more efficiently accrue capital. Private security in this way will be a more centralizing force than the state.

You, that subsidies and government intervention are the only reason that these firms have centralized wealth.

The interesting part is that your theory will probably never be tested - private security will always graduate to a state's function, because that is a more efficient model. Feudalism is basically the primitive form of the state structure, and it experiences competition between security firms.

By calling out the state (you might as well condemn fractional reserve banking or arms manufacturing solely!) you have a certain argument: since you know the state will always exist with a free market, you will always have that excuse for the free market.

Unfortunately, its bullshit, because you have an erroneous belief that for-profit entities will not centralize wealth, though all history of capital has proven otherwise. You don't have any systemic understanding that should lead us to conclude that the free market is a balancing factor.

[mikelepore]

Well, looks like Mike was serious about his desire to see socialism equate to centralizing economic authority.

Looking at the definition of "authority" -- "the power or right to give orders or make decisions" -- where did I discuss that subject? I remember pointing out that we have to centralize the allocations of materials and products out of a single inventory and a single accounting method. The only other alternative is the capitalist market. There is no "third way" for goods to be allocated.