Gregory's Server@DrDanMarshall
This toy example fails to accurately depict a communal economy. In a true Anarcho-Communist society, decisions would be made collectively through direct democracy and consensus-building processes, rather than by a limited number of decision-making entities within each commune.
|
Top-level
146 comments
@DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom "within the framework of communal goals and principles, prioritizing collective well-being over individual gain, with a balance between individual autonomy and collective responsibility." Within this framework, how much real choice do I have about which sex toy I obtain for my personal use? How would decisions about how much resources to allocate to sex toy production be made? @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom Of course, this would require me discussing my kinks in great detail in a democratic assembly rather than simply making a selection within a relatively anonymous sex toy shop. This example is somewhat hilarious, of course... but also serious. I would use sex toys as an example of economically "traveling fast." @Radical_EgoCom Indeed. But on commune, workshop system, same problem can emerge. Division of labor is more efficient, but separation implies inequality. If communes, workshops specialize, inequality would re-emerge. Solidarity, mutual aid would help, but "gifts make slaves like whips make dogs." Insurance socializes risk, but less important richer you are. Progressive taxation would help, but is it legitimate, or exploitative? @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom But if rich individuals or collectives *do* exist or come into being, how would you "encourage" them to "voluntarily" help out the less fortunate individuals or collectives? Insurance egoistically voluntary, but less important for the rich. Gifts voluntary, but translate wealth into political power. Taxation not voluntary. @Radical_EgoCom This is my root objection to anarcho-socialism and anarcho-communism, I think. Mutual aid, if it isn't a gift, *is* a form of insurance. Which is less valuable to the rich than to the poor. As a social liberal, I am okay with progressive taxation, since it is necessary to defend equality and freedom. But it violates the normative version of the labor theory of value that all forms of socialism depend on, to the best of my knowledge. @DrDanMarshall @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom The problem of inequality naturally develops from economics. Both sides of a transaction benefit, but not necessarily equally. The side that is "more inelastic in response to demand" will get more benefit in a free market. Supply of computer programmers is more inelastic than muffin-bakers, so in a free market, they'll make more. But income inequality isn't the problem. Problem is wealth inequality, which accumulates. @Radical_EgoCom Of the solutions to this problem that I see on the table, progressive taxation is the least worse. But I am open to alternatives. @DrDanMarshall @DrDanMarshall @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom And my take is that while redistribution would tend to reset the inequality clock back to zero, that clock will start ticking again the instant the dust settles unless there is progressive taxation or something that performs a similar role. Would love to be proven wrong. A Robin Hood scheme takes political will to establish and maintain, but universal social programs are more politically stable than "welfare" programs that directly benefit only a minority. @DrDanMarshall The problem with universal social programs within a Capitalism is that such programs can still perpetuate hierarchical structures and also fail to address the root causes of poverty and inequality. @Radical_EgoCom You are correct progressive taxation and UBIs won't eliminate hierarchies. But they would at least massively reduce them. And the thesis I am arguing for is that economic hierarchies would re-emerge in an anarcho-socialist society in the absence of progressive taxation, or some similar thing that performs a similar function. @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom The main constraint on progressive taxation and social spending to reduce economic inequality is political will. Also, social spending could powerfully affect *other* hierarchies. Child, elder care subsidies, public housing makes it easier for abused wives to leave their husbands. Individualistic social spending from the bureaucratic state makes personalistic religious charity less important. Etc. @Radical_EgoCom Free market dynamics do *not* contribute to economic equality, to the extent that a slogan of mine is "nature abhors a free market." The free market is an idealized model of voluntary exchange between independent collectives (households, firms, communes, royal palaces). A working hypothesis of mine is that exchanges between independent collectives are best modeled as a market. Would be open to a counterexample, an alternative model that does not result in inequality. @Radical_EgoCom David Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years strongly suggests to me that there is a limit to how large a collective can be before an internal market develops. (The evolution of actuarial currencies within palace economies.) And inequality in the market will create inequalities within the independent collectives, since the labor of certain individuals will be more valued than others. @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom Then what is the alternative? How would exchange between communes and workshops be managed and negotiated? How would a workshop allocate its output, assuming that there is a limit to how much it can produce? (Graeber's "baseline communism" is a form of mutual aid, but it can *also* be modeled as a slightly constrained market exchange. Same for his example in a different book of gambling as a form of exchange.) @DrDanMarshall @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom Allow me to reframe things, to make the argument that "market" exchanges lead to inequality more clear. Exchanges can be perceived as equal or unequal. Marginal utility theory plus differences in elasticity of supply implies that certain commodities will be more valuable than others, despite less labor being invested in them per unit. @Radical_EgoCom Graeber's baseline communism provides an example of roughly "equal" exchange. I'll give you my ax today, you give me a cup of sugar tomorrow. Chronic moochers are eventually "de-federated," households that demand interest on their loans are reprimanded, eventually de-federated. Threat of de-federation plus desire for insurance motivate participation in the system. @Radical_EgoCom Threat of de-federation and the desire for insurance motivates participation in the system. However, if investment in the internal capital of the household is more profitable than accepting a given external exchange is likely to be, motivation to say "nope, sorry, gave at the office." And the richer the household, the better it is at self-insuring. @Radical_EgoCom Unequal exchanges do happen, but they are gifts, exchanging economic capital for political capital. If the gift is too large for the recipient to ever pay back, the recipient becomes the donor's "slave," to some extent. So how could equal exchange between communes not lead to unequal investments in internal capital? How could unequal exchanges not become slave-making gifts? @Radical_EgoCom Hence "toy." Commune is a collective decision making entity, rich dude individual decision making entity. Different methods, different strengths and weaknesses. (I.e., discursive dilemma vs. individual akrasia.) But both single decision making entity, functionally speaking. @DrDanMarshall @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom Capitalism encourages sociopathy. Communal body more human. But perhaps less likely to discuss the profitablity of sex toys in public meetings. Power dynamics within the collective more complex, but can be disadvantages to that as well. An inequality between individuals in terms of charisma, for example. You yourself mentioned problem of incorporating minority povs. In theory, "pinks may be pink, but their money is green." @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom According to anthropologists, one of the human universals practiced by all cultures is that sex is done in private rather than public. "Realistically," there would probably be other taboos that people wouldn't want to discuss with their neighbors, but might be willing to transact with their dealers. @Radical_EgoCom As for solidarity, humans are not egoistical homo economicii. But it's a useful approximation. Kin selection promotes familial solidarity... and also sibling rivalry. Imagined communities promote solidarity, but are built on familial concepts, and blood generally trumps religion and nationality. (Imagined communities also have a nasty habit of defining themselves in opposition to The Other.) @Radical_EgoCom Economic incentives at least have the advantage of being able to bind agents who *are* egoistic together. @DrDanMarshall Also, I don't believe that solidarity primarily stems from kin selection and imagined communities. Solidarity is based on shared collective interests. It is oppressive hierarchies that reinforce familial ties over broader social connections. @Radical_EgoCom "I don't believe that idea of keeping sex private is a universal practice" Talk to the anthropologists about that one, I just work here. I'm a bit hesitant about proclaiming that anything the anthropologists tell us is a human universal will magically go away come The Revolution. When it comes to things like that, I would like to see an existence proof first, y'know? Kin selection: Nepotism is also on the list of human universals, unfortunately. @Radical_EgoCom "Solidarity is based on shared collective interests." What does "shared collective interests" mean, exactly? I'm assuming that it's not just an interest that every single individual member of the collective happens to have in common? @DrDanMarshall Regarding "shared collective interests," it is the interests that benefit the community as a whole, rather than just individual members. @Radical_EgoCom If I am an egotist, why should I care about the needs of the collective so long as my own needs are being served? If I am not egoist, what causes me to not be an egoist? (We have two, three, answers: kin selection, the bond between married co-parents, imagined communities. Do you have another?) "Nepotism is not a human universal." Again, talk to the anthropologists, and show me an existence proof. @DrDanMarshall @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom Humans are ethical, but our concern for fairness can probably be traced to tit-for-tat games between egoists, as mediated by our selfish genes. Compassion does exist, partly because of tit-for-tat, but also kin selection, imagined communities. I'm not saying humans don't help strangers, but we would generally put a higher priority on kin. And that, in itself, is a source of inequality. @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom Humans are hypersocial *because* of our selfish genes, plus the mental "memetic" hack of imagined communities. (Graeber and some other David argue that imagined communities are not limited to nations and religions, and that they have been around for as long as behaviorally modern humans have.) You are correct that nepotism doesn't entail inequality. However, unequal *clans* + nepotism = reinforced inequality. @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom Indeed :) Memes are a bad model, difficult to apply. But they at least allow us to take historical contingencies into account. If we see a cultural feature, we can investigate the conditions under which that "meme" tends to "evolve." The cultural traits that are universal persist across a wide range of environments, and are quite probably genetic rather than memetic. Change the conditions, change which "memes" are "fit." |
@DrDanMarshall
The hierarchical economic model described, where 1% own everything, even if distributed evenly within that 1%, still perpetuates inequality and exploitation. The abolition of private property and the establishment of common ownership of the means of production would lead to a more equitable and just society.