Microeconomics [Archive]

Umoja

18th March 2004, 00:06

I also find the basic theory of supply and demand hard to argue.

For example, raising the minium wage follows the law of supply and demand. If you raise the wage, the demand for jobs will increase with the price, but the supply of availible workers a company will hire will decrease.

My economics teacher was explaining how this affects minorities the worse, since it usually means they will loose jobs. Now, naturally I could be a socialist and blame the government for not providing jobs, but in a practical sense that's how things work.

Also, I don't see how unless we were willing to change our society to a less desireable form how we could achieve anything that resembles communism without stiffling progress. An Oligopoly leads to huge advances in technology in a market, and although they may 'create' an artificial price floor, it would violate the basic principles of supply and demand since the demand for cars would need to cause a huger surplus then exist (granted we don't have an equilibrium), if the price was so high above what most people were willing to pay.

redstar2000

18th March 2004, 01:48

For example, raising the minimum wage follows the law of supply and demand. If you raise the wage, the demand for jobs will increase with the price, but the supply of available workers a company will hire will decrease.

This assumes that employers decide to hire or not hire based on small differences in wages that are already extremely low.

If the minimum wage goes from $5.00/hour to $6.00/hour, for example, the cost is "enough" to "cause" an employer to reduce the size of his workforce.

It seems to me that there are "macro-causes" that are far more important than trivial differences in minimum-wages.

Only if the minimum wage were completely abolished would it make any significant difference...as minimum pay-scales fell to $3.00 or $2.00 an hour. And they wouldn't do that, of course, because people can't live on that. Those jobs would find no takers except illegal immigrants.

As it is, there are quite a few minimum-wage workers who are homeless, living in their cars, sleeping on the couches of friends, crashing with their relatives, etc.

What really determines hiring practices for a corporation is the demand for what they make. If their product "has legs", then they'll hire as many more people as they can find. If they can't give their crap away, then it wouldn't matter if wages were $1.00 a day...they still wouldn't hire.

My economics teacher was explaining how this affects minorities the worse, since it usually means they will lose jobs.

In other words, he's admitting that this is a racist society...that deprives people of color of any opportunities except "minimum-wage" jobs.

Oligopoly leads to huge advances in technology in a market...

Oh? Like what? Is Windows XP© a "huge advance" over Windows 95©?

I suggest that 99% of these "huge advances in technology" are incremental improvements, cosmetic changes, and marketing.

A 2004 car is still operating in basically the same way as a 1915 Ford "tin lizzy". A really "new" car hasn't been massed produced since the early years of the 20th century.

As to technological advances under communism, naturally we can only speculate. Humans are inventive by nature, but we have no way of predicting what or how they will go about the process when profit is no longer a motivation.

To suggest that "no one" will invent "unless" they see a profit coming out of it is just bourgeois foolishness. To them, nothing happens unless someone is personally "making a buck" from it.

Which kind of poses the question: why do people ever become economics teachers? The work is easy but the pay sucks. If you're going to spend that much time in academia, why not go for the MBA? Get a shot at the big money, etc.

Bourgeois economics can't even explain the existence of bourgeois economics professors.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Umoja

19th March 2004, 00:17

Okay, I'll be sure to come to you Redstar whenever I have any doubts about Bourgeoius economics.

antieverything

20th March 2004, 04:19

It is certainly hard to argue that economics are wrong since so many economists come to so many different conclusions. We can for certain say, however, that orthodox neo-classical/liberal economics are flawed because the track record is awful!

I think that the supply/demand example points out an important aspect of economics as a science--human behavior is not so simple that it can be narrowed down to a sentence. Not all economists...or indeed most...agree that minimum wages are a bad idea.

antieverything

20th March 2004, 04:23

Oh, and I agree that markets are the best method of distribution. There is a large and growing body of economic theory now on a very broad topic called "market socialism". Of course, these ideas have been around since Lange and WWII but the developing theories are interesting and worth checking out.

Read "After Capitalism" by David Schweickart...I've read it three times. Absolutely amazing read combining an indictment of capitalism with a workable market socialist alternative! It used to be free on the internet but once he published it he had to remove it...bummer.

redstar2000

20th March 2004, 12:00

Oh, and I agree that markets are the best method of distribution.

Yeah, provided you have money and plenty of it. If you don't, markets really suck!

California's a garden of Eden;
a paradise for you and for me.
But believe it or not,
you won't find it so hot,
if you ain't got that dough-ray-me.

So Woody Guthrie sang 70 years ago...but it could apply to any market economy anytime.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

pandora

20th March 2004, 16:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 04:50 AM
After taking a few weeks of an introductory economics class, I'm confused to how anything outside of a market would be more efficient then something within a market.
Of course you didn't who wrote the book, reading a book by say "Blinder" the name says it all doesn't it is going to embrace only government and market values towards systems. I do like what John Maynard Keynes and Keynesian ideology had to say, now that's macroeconomics not micro, but he spoke to the idea that the system of the market was not self-sustaining, actually it was constantly bottoming out and having spikes, more like a drug addict or an alcoholic between benders.

a.) First if we had a real market half if not all the large corporations would have been destroyed a long time ago, they get more government bail outs period. Where do you think all your tax money goes.
b.) Second even the market knows the market doesn't solve social or environmental problems. The market demands constant growth, ie.) exploitation of natural resources and people to acheive continual profits on top of profits ie.) growth.
It will never provide for the poor, disabled, elderly, the environment, tribal people, etc. The closest thing to free markets existed in the timeof slavery and not without reason.
c.)Adam Smith's ideas on mechanization idealize the Taylor system of production ie.) cog in the machine which according to Marx and I agree with creates alienation between man and his labour.
d.) The market bottoms out without support because according to Keynes there is no such thing as TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS prices will never go down, really, it's a real fluke when they do and it's only because people are so depressed finicially they can't buy period.
Rich people hide their money. Period, they sit in fenced off areas and have no dealings with the rest of humanity, they have found in the global economy more ways to buy things and sustain themselves without having to ever touch another human beings. Going to a store for sustance is insane, we live in insanity. One must touch earth to survive I believe this.

antieverything

22nd March 2004, 17:45

Yeah, provided you have money and plenty of it. If you don't, markets really suck!
That is precisely the market socialist argument, redstar!

Guest1

23rd March 2004, 10:30

Please enlighten us on the bastard child of capitalism and socialism.

AC-Socialist

23rd March 2004, 18:55

OK, this is the problem i encountered. It is argued that competition is more efficient, which regardless of externalities and improved industrial climates is appa

The natural monopoly can be applied in this argument of market vs nationalization. It is said that the economies of scale in many industries are perhaps soo great that the tendancy torwards a monopoly of that industry can be termed natural, suffice to say that any competing provision of these 'services' would clearly be wasteful of resources.

The theory of the 'firm' (you should have been told this) suggests that in this scenario monopolies may enjoy supernormal profits, therfore charging higher prices and producing lower output than a competitive industry would. But, were there are these economies of scale the monopoly price COULD be lower and output higher than implementing competition - monopoly might then be said to be the most EFFICIENT market form - but only if it is regulated.

Nationalization or the state runnning of the industry is therefore one way of appliying this regulation. It is also the ultimate way of applying this regulation as the industry is brought into common ownership - greater democracy, and profits can benefit the people instead of the :rolleyes: "BASTARD CAPITALISTS!!!" <_<

PS - chairmain mao is wrong. You may not belive this but economics is the same. There is no 'seperate' dimention for marxist economics or some BS like that. Our role as advocates of a certian ideology is to pick holes in there critique of left economics. ohh yeah, and redstar is a pretentios egotistical materialist. ;)

antieverything

24th March 2004, 02:28

Please enlighten us on the bastard child of capitalism and socialism.
Obviously, the term "market socialism" covers a wide range of ideas...anywhere from the Yugoslavian experiment in worker's councils to the bureaucratic profit-based state management proposed by Yunker and others.

When I use the term market socialism or the related term economic democracy, I am refering to a system based on:

1. Social ownership of the means of production
2. Nationalized and democratized banking with heavily regulated investment
3. Management of firms by the workers employed by the firm based on the principle of "one worker, one vote"
4. Abolition of the wage system in most cases. Workers are instead guaranteed a minimum income or a percentage of the firm's profits
4. A relatively free market based on free and profit-oriented exchange

Umoja

25th March 2004, 01:53

Sounds like a more or less ideal system to me.

It's like pure competition with a huge number of safety nets built into it.

Guest1

25th March 2004, 14:46

Doesn't sound half bad, though only as a stepping stone towards the abolishment of money all together.

Reminds me of Syndicalism, and like I said, it seems like the best way to bring about Anarcho-Communism.

antieverything

25th March 2004, 16:07

Yes, it does resemble something of a market syndicalism, doesn't it? Of course, it does retain a good bit of central planning as well...so perhaps we can call it a compromise. :D

While I do agree that such a system would best be viewed as a temporary phase in the development of a more rational and humane economic system, I don't think that the abolition of money is desirable at any point in the future. There will always be scarcity and people will always have differing wants and needs. Thus, there must always be exchange. Moneyless exchange is highly innefficient in that it requires someone to trade an object...plus they must find someone who has exactly what they are looking for and who is also willing to trade for exactly what the first person has! I do agree, however, that money should eventually play a much smaller role in the system of distribution.

Still, I see much more freedom and flexibility in a system where enterprises and consumers are able to decide what they want and need through individual consumption decisions rather than have this placed upon them by a central authority. This is one of the problems I see in the ever-so-popular alternative economic model "Parecon". It actually requires people to plan out their consumption a year in advance!!!

redstar2000

25th March 2004, 16:46

In any economic system in which access to consumer goodies depends on the amount of money you have, you have thereby created a direct material incentive to do anything you can to get more money!

Forget all this crap about "regulation", "safety nets", etc. They will all inevitably be subverted by the circulation of money and production for profit.

"Market socialism" is an oxymoron, period.

"Market Socialism"--Are We "For Sale"? (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1060612688&archive=1062413506&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

ohh yeah, and redstar is a pretentious, egotistical materialist.

I try! :P

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

antieverything

25th March 2004, 17:08

In any economic system in which access to consumer goodies depends on the amount of money you have, you have thereby created a direct material incentive to do anything you can to get more money!
I disagree. You are subscribing to the silly economic law that wants are infinite and greed is normative. This assumption actually undermines any economic system you try to build without money! I'll say it one more time: it is inequality within a market system that is bad, not the market system itself. If, within a market socialist scheme, all have their basic needs met and there is no real upper class when it comes to power, what is the problem? I think the real problem is my backing away from Marxism's primitive and unrealistic conception of economics!

antieverything

25th March 2004, 17:29

But let's take your linked argument apart, shall we...(by the way, very nicely written, I like it!)

It's not altogether clear to me where the initiative for those changes will originate. In a capitalist market, the capitalist himself initiates those changes from the profit-motive. Perhaps a "socialist enterprise" would develop a "management structure" capable of those kinds of decisions or perhaps the enterprise employees would make such decisions democratically. It's also possible that the state apparatus itself might intervene, saying directly "you must make more of this and stop making that".
Some combination of all three, I would imagine. I see it as more of the second and first (elected management much like in some real-world cooperatives) with a small amount of the third (state intervention).

For employed workers, the key is their paycheck. The more they make, the better off they are, the greater their access to consumer goodies in the marketplace. They have a direct incentive to mobilize in whatever ways they deem effective to increase their pay. This could take the form of votes in an assembly of employees, a special resolution in a regional or national parliament, or even a strike...the refusal to produce some product in high demand unless they receive a greater share of the proceeds.
Since money distribution is the same as resource distribution, this can happen (and has happened) in any form of economic system. It is not a result of a "market system" but rather the result of the real and inescapable real market. Also, remember that in my proposed economic system, there is no "wage", only a cut of the profits made by an enterprise.

Your assumption that there has to be unemployment and poverty is certainly flawed!

There's no reason, in principle, of course, that "market socialism" cannot have a "social safety net" just as some capitalist countries have one now. How generous it will be is problematical; some workers express considerable resentment of non-workers and presuming that "market socialism" is democratic, the "safety net" might be closer to that of the United States (almost none) than to that of Scandinavia (fairly decent).
Resources are limited in any system...this argument is by far the weakest I've seen you put forward, ever, and it falls apart without much help from me. In fact, it has very little to do with market socialism at all and a lot to do with ANY system of economic democracy! The idea that a progressive, socialist society will eliminate safety nets so that the working majority can live in luxury is laughable. What is the difference between an income tax for social safety nets in capitalism and in socialism? Even in capitalist countries, any real democracy would immediately impliment broad and comprehensive social security measures. America doesn't have them, not because the majority are greedy, but because the ruling class doesn't find them to be economically or ideologically beneficial!

There is no doubt that "market socialism" would initially be far more egalitarian than any class society that exists now...though perhaps slightly less egalitarian than the centrally-planned economies of the 20th century.
Are you kidding me? The rather generous 10 to 1 ratio of maximum inequality proposed by Schweickart is much better than anything seen among the elites of any "communist" country! It is no harder for the electorate to limit the pay of government employees in market socialism than it is in any other kind of system...unless you propose the suicidal idiocy of moneyless exchange! :lol:

Your argument that inequality necessarily rises is also flawed. Cooperatives have a strong tendency to resist inequality, even in the face of market pressures. If a level of equality is actually legislated, this tendency has no opposition in the market. More skilled workers have the same power to exact resources in "communism" as they do in market socialism. Do you propose killing them when they strike?

Communism proposes, of course, the complete abolition of markets, wages, prices, etc. Since anyone has access to the necessities and luxuries of life regardless of what they do (even if they do nothing at all), the motives of accumulating wealth--security and status--are rendered meaningless. It is thought that people, being rational, will no longer bother with an activity (accumulation of wealth) that has become pointless.
You dream, I'll build for the future. ;)

AC-Socialist

25th March 2004, 17:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 05:46 PM
In any economic system in which access to consumer goodies depends on the amount of money you have, you have thereby created a direct material incentive to do anything you can to get more money!

Forget all this crap about "regulation", "safety nets", etc. They will all inevitably be subverted by the circulation of money and production for profit.

"Market socialism" is an oxymoron, period.

"Market Socialism"--Are We "For Sale"? (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1060612688&archive=1062413506&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

ohh yeah, and redstar is a pretentious, egotistical materialist.

I try! :P

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
It is competition in which profit takes presidence. Have i not suggested a system in nationalization that encourages co-operative production in which profits are irrelevant?

PS - i was being satirical redstar - i love you really :D

Guest1

25th March 2004, 20:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 12:07 PM
Yes, it does resemble something of a market syndicalism, doesn't it? Of course, it does retain a good bit of central planning as well...so perhaps we can call it a compromise. :D

While I do agree that such a system would best be viewed as a temporary phase in the development of a more rational and humane economic system, I don't think that the abolition of money is desirable at any point in the future. There will always be scarcity and people will always have differing wants and needs. Thus, there must always be exchange. Moneyless exchange is highly innefficient in that it requires someone to trade an object...plus they must find someone who has exactly what they are looking for and who is also willing to trade for exactly what the first person has! I do agree, however, that money should eventually play a much smaller role in the system of distribution.

Still, I see much more freedom and flexibility in a system where enterprises and consumers are able to decide what they want and need through individual consumption decisions rather than have this placed upon them by a central authority. This is one of the problems I see in the ever-so-popular alternative economic model "Parecon". It actually requires people to plan out their consumption a year in advance!!!
You completely miss my point.

If there is no need for money, why is there a need for bartering? Communism does not entail trading three sheep for a car. It entails giving away the food you can produce to all those who need it, in return for what you need.

You completely ignore the possibilities of mutual cooperation, and fall victim to the mass hallucination known as "scarcity". Scarcity, at least in the sense commonly referred to, is merely a result of markets. It is true that any market system will have to deal with this gaping flaw, but that is precisely why we don't need a market system.

I would still see your system as an improvement, though I would approach it through a much more decentralized, and therefore more realistic method.

Once you abolish private ownership of the means of production and democratize every factory, farm and business, you have a good recipe for the beginnings of Anarcho-Communism. This beginning would be as fair and just as a market system could be, really, then from there we could begin to abolish money and markets all together.

The real dreaming is in believing that any market system could hold to its ideals for long. Once you've injured the tiger, don't allow it to recover, go for the kill before it rises again more ferocious than before.

antieverything

25th March 2004, 21:13

Alas, just as markets are not a creation of capitalism, scarcity is not a creation of markets. Scarcity is simply a fact of life. You assume that society can always produce exactly what everyone wants at any given time. That isn't true at all. There is enough food to go around but what if everybody wants to eat beef? That isn't possible. That is why meat is more expensive than grain! Let's be realistic, we aren't going to have everything that everybody wants all the time in every place on earth! Scarcity is what gives things value...which is represented through money. That is why I don't deck my car out with new rims or give it a supercharger. That is why I don't eat prime rib (or wouldn't if I actually ate meat) every night. Ignoring scarcity (you can't get rid of it, only ignore it) leads to wasteful consumption and shortages. Eliminating the market leads to wasteful production. Wasteful production and consumption result in a system more damaging to the environment than capitalism...the soviet experiment confirms this...at least on the production side!

Let me put it this way: suppose everyone had a set amount of money per month. Each person could decide how much they wanted to consume of any product they wanted. They could choose what food to eat and how much of it. They could choose what house they wanted to live in and how much to spend on luxuries. This is a very efficient system of distribution as it allows each person to consume what they need in the amount they see fit without allowing anyone to overconsume. Those who put higher priority on certain rare items are the ones who end up buying them at the expense of other consumption. Assuming a level of equality, this system doesn't get out of hand but remains efficient.

Eastside Revolt

25th March 2004, 22:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 01:06 AM
My economics teacher was explaining how this affects minorities the worse, since it usually means they will loose jobs. Now, naturally I could be a socialist and blame the government for not providing jobs, but in a practical sense that's how things work.
Yeah you could be a socialist or you could just be critical of the capitalist system, and admit that in a practical sense people would be less likely to consume, consume, consume. With this you build a surpluss, and that allows for vacations and relaxation, rather than unemployment and starvation.

Guest1

26th March 2004, 03:40

Well, let me put it this way, you come to me asking for prime rib day after day, and I'm never gonna feed you again.

There's your solution to scarcity without markets. Once again, scarcity in the sense commonly used is a fictional problem. When you get everything for free, but rely on everyone's goodwill to get it, it would be suicidal to test that good will. If you become enough of a burden, the contribution you make to your communtiy is no longer worth it.

Since the system is bottom-up and very decentralized, there is no crisis caused by people's mood for meat. The most that will happen is there will be a little less meat in that collective, and they'll move to deal with the problem accordingly.

You my friend, also don't seem to understand that no markets means, no markets. Raising the Soviet system here does nothing to dispute a decentralized, collective-based system of mutual cooperation. In fact, I would say it's a good argument against not finishing the job and allowing the market to continue.

redstar2000

26th March 2004, 09:41

...suppose everyone had a set amount of money per month. Each person could decide how much they wanted to consume of any product they wanted.

And suppose they run out of money before the end of the month?

It's the common assumption in bourgeois economics that "everyone" has a tiny little "Certified Public Accountant" residing in the back of their brains, carefully calculating the cost/benefit ratio of every expenditure, noting the rise and fall of "marginal utility", processing and storing all of the relevant information about each commodity, etc., etc.

They make this assumption because without it, all of their theories about "market rationality" totally collapse.

Instead of everyone "maximizing" their self-advantage in a "rational" way, bourgeois economics becomes a series of lotteries conducted mostly in the dark. (!)

Nobody really knows what the hell they're doing...or what the consequences of their choices will be.

(Every so often, some financial publication will invite a small group of "stock-market experts" to each select a portfolio of investments -- their selections will be followed over the next year to see how each of them did. But along with competing with one another, they'll also be competing against a portfolio selected by throwing a dart against a page of all the stocks on the market. Is it really a surprise to anyone that the "dart-board portfolio" usually wins?)

In my opinion, the proposition that the market "efficiently" and "accurately" allocates scarce resources is a bourgeois conceit, period.

In "real life", it stumbles and bumbles its way through a myriad of "disequilibriums"...getting it "wrong" far more often than ever getting it "right".

After the initial difficulties of establishing communism are overcome, I think that communism will probably be more "efficient" and "accurate" in allocating "scarce resources"...it would be really hard to do "worse" than the "free market".

As to that poor sod who ran out of money before then end of the month...well, he could always beg, couldn't he?

Spare change? :unsure:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

antieverything

26th March 2004, 14:59

Sorry, redstar, but your post fails to put forward a single fact. Frankly, planning consumption for the month is not hard at all. The problem of running out before the month is over is almost always an issue of extreme poverty or stupidity coupled with our culture of blind consumption!

Chey y Marijuana, if you seriously propose that everyone living in autonomous communes would solve the complex problems of international, national, or even regional resource distribution then you are fooling yourself. Do you think that everyone who wants something is going to get on their bike and ride to the factory/plant/farm that produces it? Even in a commune, a central market is a no-brainer!

redstar2000

26th March 2004, 20:58

Sorry, redstar, but your post fails to put forward a single fact.

Quite so. I'm attacking a "line of reasoning" -- market theory -- on the basis of its fundamental assumptions.

If you want a critique of its actual practice, try this...

The Manifest Idiocy of Capitalism January 14, 2004 (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1074028587&archive=1075295090&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Umoja

26th March 2004, 22:27

It's a Technocratic principle to allocate a limited amount of "energy units" to every citizen each duration of time (it could be every week or every month). Everything 'cost' a certain amount of energy units, so people can buy both their needs and wants with this limited amount. Every time duration, the people in charge of statistics (since labor is essentially autonomous from humans in a Technocracy) will change how much a certain thing cost based on the demand for it. It's a pretty complicated principle, since it requires people not to labor, but it seems like an idea that would be friendly to market socialism.

Also, doesn't it seem overly paternalistic to not trust the populace with any money and just give them things? It creates a dangerous psychological method, if you just give people everything they need and provide limited wants for them or simply treat their wants as irrelevant. That could also potentially create a large problem over a long period of time. It's a classic argument against socialism that rarely get's mentioned here, 'is socialism overly paternalistic'?

Don't Change Your Name

27th March 2004, 01:30

Well, in first place I don't think markets are sooooo perfect. Markets (at least in capitalism) end up regulated by the cappies responding to supply and demand. On a socialist system, I don't think markets will be very good. I reject the concept of money, especially paper money.

Ideally, in an Anarcho-Communist society, people would go and take as many tomatoes as they will approximately eat for, let's say, a week, using some system such as putting a "workers card" on a computer at the local food storage site. But what happens if in such a futuristic society technology let's us down and there's some kind of crisis (such as an ecological disaster)? Of course that what will happen then is that money will have more value (from being useless to have a certain value compared to scarce and there will be trade because people will realize that keeping such a moneyless economy will mean that some people will try to guarantee their subsistence on such a complicated situation, so they might end up very greedy. On the worst situation, people will start taking things claiming they are their "private property" and we are back at a primitive society, but not a nice one, one where people kill each other as animals for food, and history will start again. Anyway a moneyless economy will make people cooperate and interact in a respectful way, but still I wouldn't completely reject money because as I said it can be useful, but not on every single product.

There is enough food to go around but what if everybody wants to eat beef?

Rationing, and an order is sent to produce more. If that isn't possible (which will happen), it's time to tell "I'm sorry, but there isn't any more meat. Would you like to take this nice eggs instead to compensate for the lack of it and the lack of proteins in your diet?"

Ignoring scarcity (you can't get rid of it, only ignore it) leads to wasteful consumption and shortages.

So, how does the magical hand of supply and demand creates more cows???
There will always be someone left out of what they want anyway.

Guest1

27th March 2004, 16:41

Sigh, I really don't know why it's so hard for people to reply to what is written.

Umoja, centralized governments are paternalistic, stateless communist societies can't be. People aren't "given" what they need, and need does not mean the bare minimums either. People give each other what they need. If I want to get sweaters and food when I need it, I'm going to have to keep making wine and giving it away when others need it.

Get it?

Mutual Cooperation.

antieverything

27th March 2004, 22:23

People give each other what they need.
What a silly idea! If I want an orange, do you suggest I travel to Florida and beg someone to give me one? How is this a better system than going to the store? Even most Communist Anarchists don't propose something so silly...rather producers give the product of their labor to a common storage facility from which each takes what they need. Of course, without a central state to coordinate this in some way, a national or international economy--necessary to prevent starvation in the modern world--would be just short of impossible, especially in times of crisis where regionalism would take over!

If I want to get sweaters and food when I need it, I'm going to have to keep making wine and giving it away when others need it.
And what if the person making sweaters doesn't want any of your wine? That's exactly why money is superior to good for good trade! Come on, it isn't going to work without some sort of organization even if it is at the local level. This sort of thing would surely grow out of Anarchism anyway as what you propose simply wouldn't work!

Rationing, and an order is sent to produce more. If that isn't possible (which will happen), it's time to tell "I'm sorry, but there isn't any more meat. Would you like to take this nice eggs instead to compensate for the lack of it and the lack of proteins in your diet?"
Sorry, but if we want to feed everyone we must limit our production of beef. Beef production as it is now damages the environment. More ecologically friendly forms of beef production require more land, hence more expensive beef. In a socialist society, there would be less meat available to people in the first world than there is currently!

Rationing is less efficient as it produces an underground market where those who don't want the full allotment of a product sell it to others who want more. If prices simply went up, only those who wanted it most would buy it in the first place while those who attached less value to eating beef would forgo consumption. Giving people eggs instead would be ridiculous. First-come-first-serve is not a just way of organizing an economy and it too would result in underground markets.

I feel that technocracy (and the related Parecon idea) involve insane amounts of centralized planning that is simply not possible to do effectively and would result in excessive state control as well as wasting resources on bureaocracy made unnecessary by the market.

I'll get to redstar later.

AC-Socialist

27th March 2004, 23:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 09:58 PM

Sorry, redstar, but your post fails to put forward a single fact.

Quite so. I'm attacking a "line of reasoning" -- market theory -- on the basis of its fundamental assumptions.

If you want a critique of its actual practice, try this...

The Manifest Idiocy of Capitalism January 14, 2004 (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1074028587&archive=1075295090&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
You seem to be trying to construct a critique of a total free market. You also seem to be saying that people dont know whats good for themselves, can this really be the case from such an obviosly principled person?

You also seem to try and cover up holes in your argument with rhetoric, how is this monthly income idea any different to how a capitalist economy works? You dont see people becoming tramps before their next paycheck do you?

Don't Change Your Name

28th March 2004, 04:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 11:23 PM
Sorry, but if we want to feed everyone we must limit our production of beef. Beef production as it is now damages the environment. More ecologically friendly forms of beef production require more land, hence more expensive beef. In a socialist society, there would be less meat available to people in the first world than there is currently!
So that won't change too much with a market system. It's either not having enough meat or not everyone eating it. So it's about the same. There's not magical solution to this.

Rationing is less efficient as it produces an underground market where those who don't want the full allotment of a product sell it to others who want more. If prices simply went up, only those who wanted it most would buy it in the first place while those who attached less value to eating beef would forgo consumption. Giving people eggs instead would be ridiculous. First-come-first-serve is not a just way of organizing an economy and it too would result in underground markets.

You are probably right but this would depend on the situation. Is there money or not? Who controls that area of the economy? Why would those who "don't want the full allotment of a product" just sell it instead of following the fact that someone has asked for more meat?

Of course, without a central state to coordinate this in some way, a national or international economy--necessary to prevent starvation in the modern world--would be just short of impossible, especially in times of crisis where regionalism would take over!

Why the "central state"? Why the hierarchical institutions?
Concerning the regionalism in times of crisis I'd say that's it's highly possible for such things as that and "survival of the fittest" to happen on an Anarchist society. So? They can happen on every single political/economical system. Plus this would ignore that a certain region can't really sustain itself without the others so they may keep cooperating in order to keep getting the resources they need.

antieverything

28th March 2004, 05:16

Exactly, they would have to cooperate to survive...well, some regions would need others to cooperate with them, anyway. Others might not!

Still, even in anarchism, I would imagine a central organizing body...this isn't to say it is a "state" rather than the organizing body of cooperating decentralized industrially democratic collectives.

redstar2000

28th March 2004, 05:23

You seem to be trying to construct a critique of a total free market.

Yep. But the same criticisms would apply to a "partially free market"...though perhaps not as forcibly.

You also seem to be saying that people don't know what's good for themselves...

No, I'm saying that in order for bourgeois market theory to "make sense", they must assume "perfect knowledge" on the part of workers, consumers, capitalists, etc.

In the real world, there is no such thing as "perfect knowledge" and therefore bourgeois market theory is bullshit.

What are put forward as "rational economic decisions" turn out to be, more often than not, a gamble.

...how is this monthly income idea any different to how a capitalist economy works? You don't see people becoming tramps before their next paycheck, do you?

Well, my criticism of "market socialism" is precisely that it does replicate the features of a capitalist economy...especially the bad ones.

If your access to consumer goodies is determined by the amount of money you have, then you must prepare yourself to do anything to get more money!

How do people avoid "becoming tramps" between paychecks under capitalism? They go to the neighborhood "Payday Loan Company" and borrow enough to carry them to their next check...and pay outrageous interest on the loan.

Just one of the "good ideas" that would flourish under "market socialism".

Others would include prostitution, gambling, bribery, nepotism, the deliberate manufacture of shoddy or dangerous commodities for profit, monopoly and oligopoly, deliberate and calculated shortages to raise profits, the shift of production to areas of "cheap labor", disregard of environmental concerns, etc., etc., etc.

Frankly, I can see no possible motive for anyone dissatisfied with capitalism risking a broken fingernail for "market socialism"...it would be the same old shit!

More ecologically friendly forms of beef production require more land, hence more expensive beef. In a socialist society, there would be less meat available to people in the first world than there is currently!

Well, there's a slogan that will inspire the masses to rebel: "Revolution Means Less! Join Us!"

The supply of beef (or anything else) in a communist society depends on how many people want to do that -- engage in that particular form of activity producing that particular good/service.

If people want it...then they have to figure out a way to produce it, period. "Market socialism" gets stuff produced in the same way that capitalism does: the whip of economic compulsion -- also known as wage slavery. The least skilled and least educated part of the proletariat is driven into the shitty jobs by the threat of starvation or beggary.

Communism appeals to the rational self-interest of the working class; what do we really need and what's the fairest way to produce it and give everyone a fair share of what gets produced?

The details of this would have to be worked out in practice...with much confusion and with many shortages and half-measures in the early years after the revolution.

And, who knows? Maybe the capitalists are right! Maybe no one will lift a finger unless driven by the whip of economic compulsion or the hope of extraordinary personal gain.

As a communist, I think that's an erroneous picture of "human nature"...I think we actually could figure out a way(s) to have something we could call a civilized society with a straight face.

Under "market socialism", we'd never get the chance to find out.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

Guest1

28th March 2004, 15:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 01:16 AM
Exactly, they would have to cooperate to survive...well, some regions would need others to cooperate with them, anyway. Others might not!

Still, even in anarchism, I would imagine a central organizing body...this isn't to say it is a "state" rather than the organizing body of cooperating decentralized industrially democratic collectives.
My explanation was simplified, because it seemed everytime I said anything, you took it completely the wrong way. I never said you would have to give things face to face. Of course there would have to be massive cooperation between collectives, facilitated by the internet.

I don't imagine it woudl be centralized though. It woudl probably be more like taxi radio systems on the internet. A collective calls out that it needs this much steel, another collective sees this and says "hey, we have a surplus of steel", so they meet the order.

The fact that collectives can't make do on their own is not an argument against having collectives.

Don't Change Your Name

28th March 2004, 16:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 06:16 AM
Still, even in anarchism, I would imagine a central organizing body...this isn't to say it is a "state" rather than the organizing body of cooperating decentralized industrially democratic collectives.
So?
People doesn't need to follow what some "think tank" style of organization says.

God of Imperia

28th March 2004, 16:33

No, they don't. But how would life be if everyone just did what they wanted without thinking ...

Umoja

30th March 2004, 02:10

The idea of a completely stateless society is outdated, as always, technology will provide a more efficient answer, and more problems.

Communication on our planet is more or less instant in advanced areas. This would make the idea of a state, perhaps, something more then geographical. At the same time, this would make democracy far easier, and allow a centralized government that incorporated everyone's needs.

If people want it...then they have to figure out a way to produce it, period. "Market socialism" gets stuff produced in the same way that capitalism does: the whip of economic compulsion -- also known as wage slavery. The least skilled and least educated part of the proletariat is driven into the shitty jobs by the threat of starvation or beggary.

Redstar, I must disagree. Again with the technology. With massive automation, most menial jobs won't require people to do them at all, and even in Capitalist countries this would get confusing. If a country is facing a natural unemployment of about 20%, it would only be natural for a huge amount of complex social programs to be ennacted. Market Socialism would likely end up in the same rut, even if you sent the "lowest class of workers" to fix the automated devices they'd each only need to work a few minutes likely.

Beyond that, a competitive spirit isn't inherently bad, nor does it instantly cause people to fall into monopolistic competition. Arguably, Pure Competition (take farmers for example) is beneficial in a way. The purpose of money is to satisfy wants, which are essentially (at least I believe) unlimited. Besides that, a government (a centralized representative or direct democratic body) can provide for all basic needs, which prevents people from not only from going hungry, but also provides them with proper shelter. I'm sure this would cause a huge restructuring of the economic system (since the producers of wants would essentially be the only people who used currency) but it could be workable if you used a technocratic system of exchange (which could potentially just make using money useful for all things).

Guest1

30th March 2004, 02:40

Fuck, Technocrats telling Anarchists they're dreaming.

God of Imperia

4th April 2004, 12:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 05:10 AM
Beyond that, a competitive spirit isn't inherently bad, nor does it instantly cause people to fall into monopolistic competition. Arguably, Pure Competition (take farmers for example) is beneficial in a way. The purpose of money is to satisfy wants, which are essentially (at least I believe) unlimited. Besides that, a government (a centralized representative or direct democratic body) can provide for all basic needs, which prevents people from not only from going hungry, but also provides them with proper shelter. I'm sure this would cause a huge restructuring of the economic system (since the producers of wants would essentially be the only people who used currency) but it could be workable if you used a technocratic system of exchange (which could potentially just make using money useful for all things).
We are here to improve the whole world, not just one nation! Do you really believe that a capitalistic regime would improve the whole world???