Gregory's Server@DrDanMarshall
The proposed solutions still operate within a hierarchical and capitalist framework, which leads with it all of the systematic problems. What would be better is a completely decentralized system based on voluntary cooperation, where resources are shared equally among all members of society without the need for taxation or insurance. Collective decision-making and direct democracy could be used to address issues of efficiency and inequality within communal and workshop systems.
|
Top-level
116 comments
@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. @DrDanMarshall @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom As a thought experiment, imagine progressive wealth taxation was taken to the limit, and every single individual had an equal amount of wealth, therefore an equal share of the means of production. (There might be a difference of incomes, resulting in unequal shares of the means of consumption, but that's a side issue.) @Radical_EgoCom Let's further say individuals pooled their wealth into small voluntary mutual aid funds, and decided how to invest or donate their wealth collectively. Further, workshops are (directly?) democratic, workers get 60% of the vote at the meetings, investors get 40% and play an advisory role. @Radical_EgoCom How would this differ from individualist anarcho-socialism or whatever version of anarchism you're evangelizing? Assuming that the progressive taxation is done by a magic fairy instead of the state's use of force, maybe. Honest question that, how would the two or three hypothetical societies differ? @DrDanMarshall @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom We *could* ensure equal shares of the means of consumption, but that would also eliminate the ability of the market to allocate scarce forms of labor! :D I leave it to you to propose an alternative method, but I'm okay with stipulating "a magic fairy does it" for the purposes of this thought experiment. Investors *might* have a disproportionate influence at a single firm, if they decide to put all of eggs in one basket. But since everybody has equal wealth... @Radical_EgoCom the investors would have the same power over society as a whole as the workers themselves. (And the investors would also *be* workers, either at the same firm or a different one.) @DrDanMarshall 1. **Equal shares of the means of consumption**: Ensuring equal access to resources doesn't necessarily mean distributing them equally; it means making them collectively owned and managed. 2. **Market allocation of labor**: Markets, as I see it, perpetuate inequalities and exploitation. Instead, I propose decentralized planning and/or participatory democracy to organize production and distribution based on need rather than profit. @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom On point three, if a mutual aid society invests in a cooperative workshop, what say, if any, should that give the mutual aid society in the internal decision of the workshop? I'm basing the 60/40 split on what Piketty says about how the share of national income gets split between capital and labor, btw. Ain't no reason capitalists should get 100% of the say, but it is their resources, so... @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? @DrDanMarshall @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom The problem isn't exchanges *within* communes, but exchanges *between* communes. An individual commune *might* be able to function as a single household, but it would be pushing the size limit. Equality *might* exist within a "household," so long as it's an autarky or there is no division of labor. But when you have exchanges between "households" and division of labor, the exchanges will *resemble* a market, and economic inequalities *will* appear. @Radical_EgoCom (Equality within an independent collective would be a lot easier if it has no division of labor *and* it's an autarky, but I think it *might* be possible with just one of those conditions.) @DrDanMarshall @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom How could decisions at the federal level affect the internal decision making of individual communes? And, if the federation *could* strongly affect the internal decision making of individual communes, what would prevent that from becoming a form of coercion? @DrDanMarshall @DrDanMarshall @DrDanMarshall Decisions at the federal level should be made through consensus among all participating communes, ensuring that no commune exercises undue influence over others, with mechanisms to prevent coercion, such as transparent decision-making processes, equal representation, and safeguards against the centralization of capital. @Radical_EgoCom What do you mean by "consensus"? Would a rich commune be able to veto a measure? Or would it be more like "accept the majority decision or there's the door"? If a commune proved stingy, would the federation be able to authorize the seizure of its capital by force? What other ways could we prevent the centralization of capital? (And, yes, poorer communes would be more vulnerable to de-federation than rich ones.) @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom The problem with "solidarity, cooperation, and mutual aid" is that it operates by the *exactly* same rules and for *exactly* the same motivations as baseline communism, only at the level of communes instead of households. Whenever a commune is asked for something by another commune, it would have a choice: Fulfill the ask, or invest in their own internal capital, thereby becoming happier and more productive. @Radical_EgoCom Most communes would usually fulfill a goodly proportion of asks, because they don't want to get de-federated, lose their trade partners, lose their insurance. And there would probably be a weak form of progressive taxation on these exchanges, since rich communes would probably be expected to pay more. But that would come at the cost of the richer communes accumulating political capital. And the "taxation" would probably still not be enough to prevent the centralization of capital |
@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.