Anti-Economics

[BIXX]

I basically want pieces to read, as well as some discussion of what it means to be truly against the economy.

Any thoughts/recommended reading?

[Krasnyy]

So you support the economy of chaos and nothingness? Well that's still a type of economy.

/thread

[cyu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dispossessed

I never could really imagine how a gift economy could work until I read The Dispossessed. The stores there were more like warehouses - instead of going there to "buy" stuff, you just went there to pick up whatever it is you wanted to use.

Their abolishment of the concept of "property" went so far that they didn't even use possessive pronouns:

"You can share the handkerchief I use," rather than "you may borrow my handkerchief"

[Sinister Intents]

So you support the economy of chaos and nothingness? Well that's still a type of economy.

/thread

Lol what? Are you referring to anarchy?

[BIXX]

So you support the economy of chaos and nothingness? Well that's still a type of economy.



/thread


I cannot believe you are this fucking stupid.

How is a non-economy an economy? It isn't "an economy of chaos and nothingness", it's an actual lack of economy.

[tallguy]

I cannot believe you are this fucking stupid.

How is a non-economy an economy? It isn't "an economy of chaos and nothingness", it's an actual lack of economy.
Please define a lack of economy as I am unable to imagine it myself. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean.

[BIXX]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dispossessed

I never could really imagine how a gift economy could work until I read The Dispossessed. The stores there were more like warehouses - instead of going there to "buy" stuff, you just went there to pick up whatever it is you wanted to use.

Their abolishment of the concept of "property" went so far that they didn't even use possessive pronouns:

"You can share the handkerchief I use," rather than "you may borrow my handkerchief"


How have I not heard of that? That sounds awesome.

On another note, are there any things that explain what an economy is, why it's bad more specifically? Again, I have my own theories but they aren't very nuanced.

[bropasaran]

C1:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secCcon.html

[BIXX]

C1:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secCcon.html


Thank you, that's an awesome link.

[IWantToLearn]

I basically want pieces to read, as well as some discussion of what it means to be truly against the economy.

Any thoughts/recommended reading?

Can you please define what you mean with economy?, it sounds to me that you are refering in some way to currency or private property alone.

According to wikipedia:
"An economy or economic system consists of the production, distribution or trade, and consumption of limited goods and services by different agents in a given geographical location."

Doesn't that means that communism is an economy?

[cyu]

How have I not heard of that? That sounds awesome.



For the longest time, people in anarchist circles kept recommending it, but I just kept putting it on the back burner and never got around to reading it. Eventually I did though, and I'm happier for it.

Now if only I would get off my lazy @$$ and read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia :lol:

[reb]

"What is Economics?" by Rosa Luxemburg because you seem slightly unsure as to what an economy is.

[BIXX]

"What is Economics?" by Rosa Luxemburg because you seem slightly unsure as to what an economy is.


I can't seem to find it anywhere, do you have a link?

As far as a working definition, I've been saying that an economy is the system of management of wealth (which is perceived value of private property), often benefiting the ruling classes (hence a capitalist economy is organized on the lines that help capitalists, a feudalist economy helps feudalists, and a communist economy (if is can be called a true economy) helping "the commune".)

This should be pretty self explanatory as to why that is an issue, but I just wanna make sure I'm correct and if not, change my mistakes.

[reb]

I can't seem to find it anywhere, do you have a link?

As far as a working definition, I've been saying that an economy is the system of management of wealth (which is perceived value of private property), often benefiting the ruling classes (hence a capitalist economy is organized on the lines that help capitalists, a feudalist economy helps feudalists, and a communist economy (if is can be called a true economy) helping "the commune".)

This should be pretty self explanatory as to why that is an issue, but I just wanna make sure I'm correct and if not, change my mistakes.

I will see if I can find one, but Rosa's argument in it was that economy just means making things. She applies this from hunter gather societies up to modern bourgeois society. Rosa then explains that bourgeois economy is different because it is alienated, and presents itself as a force outside the control of human interactions. The point then isn't to end economy, but to end alienation in society.

[The Jay]

Economics is the study of the flow of goods and services within a population. You cannot be rid of an economy unless everyone is dead.

[Vilhelmo]

I never could really imagine how a gift economy could work until I read The Dispossessed.
Their abolishment of the concept of "property" went so far that they didn't even use possessive pronouns:

I would just like to note that every human society has some System of Property Rights.
Even "Gift" societies have some concept of "property".

[cyu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

If everybody else believed the earth was the center of the universe, would you believe it too? From http://www.revleft.com/vb/human-nature-and-t176995/index.html?p=2549876#post2549876

Property as a concept does have its uses in some situations - instead of having to argue everyday over who uses what spear, it's already been decided, so there's a level of efficiency to be had by introducing primitive concepts of property. However, the problem arises when these concepts of property starts accumulating power in people that have no real excuse to deserve such power - once they have that power, they can hire mercenaries, buy land, make weapons, build armies, and thus establish feudal empires.

[Vilhelmo]

I am assuming, hopefully correctly, that the following comments were directed towards myself.
If everybody else believed the earth was the center of the universe, would you believe it too? On many issues I tentatively accept the scholarly consensus unless there are compelling reasons not to. I'm not an expert in anything & thus must rely on the work of others. I cannot personally confirm every factual claim, repeat every experiment, retest every test or compute every calculation. I have no choice but to accept most things on faith. This isn't blind faith but faith informed by experience, observation, logic, the expertise of others, multiple attestations, repeatability, falsification, other hallmarks of the scientific method & gut instinct. Regarding your question specifically, I think that there is an argument to be made that in some sense the earth is the centre of the Universe. Think of the surface of a sphere. All points see itself as the center. Whether this argument has any validity or supporting evidence is beyond my expertise.
Property as a concept does have its uses in some situations The concept of property is not universal but varies from each society & System of Property Rights. Why do I hold that that every human society has some System of Property Rights? I rely on the work of anthropologist, ethnographers & other experts. Every human society yet documented has a System of Property Rights, the nature of which vary extremely from system to system, society to society. All evidence indicates that this is a fundamental characteristic of human societies. But I do not hold it as an article of faith & will change my views if new evidence or arguments indicate a more plausible alternative. Why do you hold that not all human societies have a System of Property Rights? Ideology, doctrine?

[cyu]

Do you believe it is a good thing when concepts of property allow some people to accumulate power who have no real excuse to deserve such power? If not, how would you prevent such a scenario? To me, it just sounds like you're basically trolling, so in an effort to inject some real value into this discussion, let me say this:

Obviously capitalists want to preserve the power they have accumulated through their property claims, and will promote property "rights" in an effort to maintain their domination over the lives of the poor.

Thus http://cjyu.wordpress.com/article/demand-is-not-measured-in-units-of-gcybcajus7dp-4/

If wealth is concentrated in stocks, then employees should assume democratic control over their companies, thus rendering stocks worthless.

If wealth is concentrated in the hoarding of commodities, then people who will actually use those commodities should just take them from the storage areas where they are just being held for speculation.

If wealth is concentrated in paper money or gold, then people should just stop accepting that paper money or gold as legal tender, and start using something else as legal tender.

[ckaihatsu]

If wealth is concentrated in paper money or gold, then people should just stop accepting that paper money or gold as legal tender, and start using something else as legal tender.


This just begs the question, though, since all of the accompanying politics of managing a state / currency then gets reintroduced -- *how much* of the currency should be created, how will it be treated as a commodity unto itself, should it more-favor savings vs. equity-investments, etc....

We happen to have a contemporary example at our disposal, for examination:





[B]itcoin advocates are of the *monetarist* (anti-Keynesianist) economic faction, since the only conception of investment mentioned is strictly about an independent arbitrary conservative interest rate, and based on already-existing savings.

Compare this to the fractional reserve banking that's the nationalist norm, and is a mainstay of the larger conventional economy, not to mention government spending.

I wonder if Bitcoins are going to somehow be made the basis for more-liquid financial instruments, if it hasn't happened already, and then what the effects and consequences will be of breaching *that* firewall...(!) (See: 'derivatives'.)

[cyu]

This just begs the question, though, *how much* of the currency should be created


Here's a bit from http://www.revleft.com/vb/violence-venezuela-heavy-t186979/index8.html

For countries who do a lot of trade in oil, they could just abandon the "middle-man" currency, and conduct trade directly in oil - for example, if you want to import 5000 shipments of wheat, offer them a certain number of barrels of oil - if your partner doesn't actually want to use the oil, just write it down on a ledger - if your partner is really after construction equipment, they can get it from another country that can then "withdraw" the oil you've "saved" for them on the ledger.

This of course assumes it's still necessary to trade with other areas with different economic systems. If the concept of "property" were abolished in both areas, then actual "trade" would be kind of meaningless, since trade assumes both sides have "rightful" control over goods until the transaction is finalized, at which time the "rightful" control swaps sides.

If two areas went "full communist" / abolished "property" completely, then either they'd just ship stuff back and forth for fun, for goodwill, for an "insurance policy" (in case my area is destroyed by an earthquake, I'd like there to be other great areas), or if nothing was being shipped, I'd imagine "immigrants from outside" would simply arrive to settle down or to take stuff back, since there wouldn't be any claim of "rightful" control over things and objects anyway...

[ckaihatsu]

Here's a bit from http://www.revleft.com/vb/violence-venezuela-heavy-t186979/index8.html

For countries who do a lot of trade in oil, they could just abandon the "middle-man" currency, and conduct trade directly in oil - for example, if you want to import 5000 shipments of wheat, offer them a certain number of barrels of oil - if your partner doesn't actually want to use the oil, just write it down on a ledger - if your partner is really after construction equipment, they can get it from another country that can then "withdraw" the oil you've "saved" for them on the ledger.

This of course assumes it's still necessary to trade with other areas with different economic systems. If the concept of "property" were abolished in both areas, then actual "trade" would be kind of meaningless, since trade assumes both sides have "rightful" control over goods until the transaction is finalized, at which time the "rightful" control swaps sides.

If two areas went "full communist" / abolished "property" completely, then either they'd just ship stuff back and forth for fun, for goodwill, for an "insurance policy" (in case my area is destroyed by an earthquake, I'd like there to be other great areas), or if nothing was being shipped, I'd imagine "immigrants from outside" would simply arrive to settle down or to take stuff back, since there wouldn't be any claim of "rightful" control over things and objects anyway...


This is all well and good for 'stuff' -- natural resources, materials, finished goods, and infrastructure, but what would you say regarding *labor* -- ? What if it's not practical for someone to travel for the sake of picking up some construction equipment from somewhere else? Certainly a fully developed post-capitalist political economy could provide for some kind of give-and-take regarding various needs for labor -- ?

(I have my own approach to this question, of course, at my blog entry.)

[cyu]

I think we've talk over stuff like this many times, and I'd probably be pretty happy with your suggestions - at least happier than living under capitalism anyway - so let's just leave it at that ;)

[Dodo]

I cannot believe you are this fucking stupid.

How is a non-economy an economy? It isn't "an economy of chaos and nothingness", it's an actual lack of economy.

I think you should apologize for the attitude here.
What you are referring to is perhaps "bourgeouisie" economics. Economics is generally linked to the concept of scarcity. And scarcity is a relative term.
Essentially, economics is the study of managing distribution of resources.
An economy of chaos or whatever that even means could also be understood within this framework, where the economist would say nothing is being handled(distributed) based on this analysis. (not referring to anarchist economics)

Which is going to be there as long as humans live in social environments.