Gregory's Server@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.
|
41 comments
@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 I have found the clarification of our positions to be helpful. Two spots we couldn't agree was on, essentially, how egoistic humans (and collectives of humans) are, and the related question of how universal nepotism is. Those questions would have to be answered by empirical investigation, so we can't do it here. @Radical_EgoCom Beyond that, I think my central thesis can be boiled down to this: Do you think purely voluntary solidarity between one commune and another could be so strong that a prosperous commune could be convinced to help a fellow commune that has suffered a disaster, not only to some decent minimum of getting back on their feet, but back to economic *equality* with the first one? Or would it require a degree of coercion equivalent to taxation? @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 @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom Very interesting conversation, thank you. By inclination, I prefer a collective ownership of goods and a consensual model of decision-making as a means for achieving equality among humans. I was startled to read that when the AMOC stalled at the end of the last ice age and people all over the Middle East starved, those who shared resources all died out. Meanwhile, in those little groups where some had more and others less, some survived. Inequality won. Ugh. @northernlights @Radical_EgoCom Not familiar with that research, sources? I like one model of organizing a household, and I think it's a good model for a society: Each member is granted a decent minimum but those who bring money to the table (or provide a valuable internal service) are given a greater share of disposable income to use at their discretion. Beats having to ask the collective to make you a sex toy! @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom John L. Brooke, Climate Change and the Course of Human History: A Rough Journey (Cambridge University Press, 2014), chapter on agricultural revolutions. @northernlights @Radical_EgoCom I'll put it on my reading list, but chances are I won't get to it this century. Sigh. Sounds similar to an Against The Grain book I have read. Its theory was that agriculture led to centralization because farmers are easier to conquer, they're tied to the land. Plus, primal civilization probably crashed several times and this was basically a good thing, survivors escaped to the hills. @northernlights @Radical_EgoCom It would be sad if "adjust your oxygen mask before helping others" would increase inequality and reduce solidarity, but I suppose it makes sense it would. @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom Yes. There must be a balance between securing your own survival and the grotesque levels of inequality we see today. I have no issues with everybody being middle class. @northernlights @Radical_EgoCom Mathematical impossibility, depending on how you define "middle class." Piketty defines the working class as the lowest 50%, middle class as between the 50th and 90th percentiles. But possible to eliminate the impoverished (less than 60% of median income) and the current rich (top 1%), as opposed to the merely well-to-do (top 10% but not in the top 1%). @northernlights @Radical_EgoCom Putting the max wealth at the Value of a Statistical Human Life would do that. Estimates for that value range from $7 mil to $10 mil, $11 mil in net worth needed to be in the top 1%. A wealth tax in that range would be about enough to pay for a UBI at 60% of the median income. @northernlights @Radical_EgoCom Been a while since I've done the math, and getting the tax structure right is non-trivial. Would suck if we got rid of all the multi-millionaires but kept the billionaires. If I remember right, the UBI budget wasn't *quite* enough to lift all Americans out of relative poverty all by itself, but it came damn close. @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom They still are, in the mountains of Thailand, Laos, Burma, thereabouts. James Scott has a book about them (The Art of Not Being Governed, maybe?) @northernlights @Radical_EgoCom I've been wondering where the maroons have gotten off to, if marronage is still necessary after the end of formal slavery. I suppose a lot of gay kids escaping their parents could be seen as practicing a form of urban marronage. And homelessness in general I suppose. Any other forms of marronage still practiced in the US that you know of? @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom If marronage is understood to mean escaping unwanted bondage, women escaping abusive marriages. Even American voters escaping a second Trump presidency in 2020. @northernlights @Radical_EgoCom In Haiti, grande marronage meant running away from slavery to a community of fellow runaways in an "illegible" territory, like swamps or mountains. Similar things happened in the antebellum US, but I don't know of any examples with the same "flavor" post-bellum. Slavers generally figured anybody who wanted freedom *that* bad was a hothead, good riddance. @northernlights @Radical_EgoCom There were lesser forms of marronage, like urban marronage. A big city can be almost as illegible as swamps and hills, and when being homeless in the big city is better than whatever hell you have going on at home... I'm just wondering why grande marronage is no longer on the table here in the US. Has the gov't gotten better at "reading" swamps, or are there fewer lives worse than shacking up in a swamp? @northernlights @Radical_EgoCom Some women escaping abusive relationships might wind up homeless, but I would hope most are housed and therefore legible to the gov't. Ideally, it would just be their exes they have to stay illegible from. @DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom Oh, hahaha, Scott wrote Against the Grain |
@DrDanMarshall
The very concept of a "free market" inherently perpetuates inequality due to its reliance on private ownership of the means of production and the commodification of goods and services. Trying to maintain market dynamics only reinforces Capitalism rather than addressing root causes of inequality.