5 ms·

> I don't know, I feel as though I don't understand the question, and I'm confused as to why there has to be "enough" at some point - in the optimal situation,

by darawk 8y ago

> I don't know, I feel as though I don't understand the question, and I'm confused as to why there has to be "enough" at some point - in the optimal situation, we'd stop producing bread once everyone who wants bread has the amount they want (barring people who want to horde it). Totally. But what is the level of material comfort at which we do that? Is it the lifestyle of an american making $60,000/year? Is it the lifestyle of a subsistence farmer in Africa? > The notion of growth in terms of what we can use rather than growth in terms of what is profitable is important, and I think capitalism only has the ability to chase what is profitable, in the sense that houses will be produced for assets rather than living in, and this trend only continues to get worse thanks to the nature of the commodity, a contradiction of use value and exchange value. It's true that everyone agrees with it, but only few would say that the qualitative issues are rooted in the production process of capital itself, something I believe to be the case. We either have a free society, or a society dominated by capital. So this is an interesting distinction. Saying "we ought only produce what we want to use" is another way of saying "produce efficiently". Capitalism is extremely efficient in this regard. Capitalist businesses tend to produce exactly the quantity of goods they believe they can sell, and any surplus they produce is loss to them, so they try to minimize it as aggressively as possible. So, if "produce the exact amount you want" is what you want to achieve, I think ruthless capitalism is the system you want to have. However, I think maybe what you mean more precisely is that capitalism also itself encourages an increase in appetite. In part through advertising, and maybe also to an extent via a culture of 'more'. Though I think I would argue that that second thing is mostly a function of the first thing combined with human nature. I think this is a real issue, and I don't have any great solution to it. Advertising is mostly deadweight loss, it's just zero-sum attrition between companies. It doesn't create any value for anyone, except in the case when it informs you of a product you want or need that you didn't know existed. This aspect of capitalism is problematic, but I guess I don't see it as an existential flaw, relative to the other benefits. > in the sense that houses will be produced for assets rather than living in, and this trend only continues to get worse thanks to the nature of the commodity, a contradiction of use value and exchange value This is a pretty significant misunderstanding of capitalism. Houses do not get over-produced as investment assets. The market logic of that makes no sense. An investment is only valuable if people want to buy it. The only reason houses are good investments is because actual people want to actually live in them. If people stopped wanting more houses to live in, their value as investments would decline precipitously. Capitalism is extremely efficient in this way, and this front is probably the worst you could possibly criticize it from. > I have to admit on this point I'm a little lost myself - as to what society without capital would look like in terms of the distribution of resources, to what extent this is mathematically possible (given the information, and going beyond the ECP) and to what extent the criticism of capitalism is addressed afterwards. Whether or not market Socialism is even a Socialism at all is up for question, as is whether schemes like those imagined by Cockshott et al. are feasible in the Marxian critique. I have kicked around a solution for this in my head that is sort of like a sovereign wealth fund. The gist of it is the state owns all the 'investable' capital, but farms out the actual investment of it to VC firms and hedge funds, just like the private markets do now for wealthy individuals. Those funds take a fee for their services, but they don't earn any of the actual return on the capital itself. However, because they take a fee that is primarily performance based, their incentives are aligned with the growth of the funds. Private citizens may invest their personal capital with the sovereign wealth fund and earn the same rate of return as everyone else. The state would avoid directing economic activity, but would end up as the primary equity owner of most businesses. Therefore, most of the surplus value produced by these entities would flow to the state (and partially back to the citizens directly, but at an equal rate). Ideally the economy would work much the way it does now. People would still have incentives to start private businesses because they would be able to retain many of the shares for themselves. But their wealth would usually not grow wildly out of proportion to everyone else, and if it did, the state and therefore the public would also benefit fairly significantly. I haven't thought through all the details, but it seems like something that could plausibly create more equitable wealth distribution, though likely wouldn't do much for the environmental externalities. > The working class is deprived of its labour I'm not sure in what sense they are deprived of their labour, though? Is someone preventing them from not working? Yes, many people feel compelled to work, because it's easier than foraging for food in the forest. But that's a free choice that they're making, and that they only can make because of all of the other people who chose to collectively pursue the same thing. I'm not sure from what comes this notion that freedom means the freedom to have things given to you that other people worked to create. > and free from the products of their own labour made with these means of production (to take what you made is declared theft, due to the mystification of means of production as provided by the capitalist rather than provided by labour) Hrm? There's no mystery. The process works like this: You start a business and you say to me: "Hey, if you make these widgets for me in my widget factory, i'll give you $10/hour, but I keep the widgets". I may either say "sure, let's make a deal", or "No i'd rather build my own widget factory and make my own widgets, thanks". You're free to build your own widget factory any time you choose. Now, there is one real catch there, which is access to land. Land is a unique type of capital in that it is fixed, very limited in supply, and not created by any person. This is why i'm strongly in favor of a "land value tax": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax Which attempts to address the inequity of land ownership, and I also think it should be levied against other 'land like' assets, such as intellectual property. > How does this take into account the fact that some people, usually the ones with the most emmissions, can pay their way out of it rather comfortably? It isn't trying to take that into account, it's trying to fix the problem. By pricing the externality, you disincentivize the behavior, and if you price it correctly, you actually pay for its own cleanup. Externalities should be priced at their cost to society. So, in theory, when you emit a unit of carbon, you pay a tax that covers the cost of remediating it. Now, if you really want to stop a behavior, you can do other trickier things like charge even more than its cost, but then rebate the surplus evenly to the general population. This would have the effect of making the tax more progressive in practice, and is a dial you can turn to whatever level you deem appropriate. > If I break your window (which is either extremely difficult to repair or even impossible to), I'm rightfully punished for it; I don't simply pay a fine and walk off. That's actually exactly how it works. If you break my window, I can sue you for damages that you will have to pay. This is actually the entire premise of externality pricing. We treat the environment as the public's property. If private actors are damaging that property, they need to compensate the collective us for that harm. And the court may choose to levy both remedial and punitive damages, which can both be baked into the externality price if you desire.

claudiawerner 8y ago
>But what is the level of material comfort at which we do that? I don't think I'm qualified to answer the question of a bare minimum for lifestyle, and I don't think such a decision is possible right now, under the influence of many people being unable to distinguish false needs from true needs; humans change according to the society they find themselves in, and according to the material conditions which drive to new societies. >Saying "we ought only produce what we want to use" is another way of saying "produce efficiently". Capitalism is extremely efficient in this regard. I disagree, by "use" I mean the satisfaction of human needs rather than the growth of capital. I accept that in many (or even most) situations, there is a close alignment between them, but the number of cases in which they align closely is a quantitative measurement, as opposed to what is in my judgement the much more important qualitative dimension by which future production is decided. My point here was much less about efficiency, but on the contradiction of what's actually happening; the material need a house serves is expressed when it is built by the concrete labour which goes into it, but the coordination of abstract labour is totally different - to the point where people "use" the exchange value of a house. Consider the term "commodification" which applies more to culture in general, but is also relevant in capital's stance that use-value can be compromised (to an extent to which it is not itself aware in the anarchy of the market) in favour of exchange value. I think your idea is interesting and worthy of consideration for those not interested in the aspects of capital as it relates to society and ideology, but it's not "the best" we can do in terms of a "market socialism" of the sort proposed by John Roemer or Thomas Sekine, or even one without capital as proposed by Peter Hudis. I can't really say I know enough about them, but your solution seems to have little to say on notions of systemic exploitation which some (like those I just named) view as core to the capitalist labour process. >Yes, many people feel compelled to work, because it's easier than foraging for food in the forest. By this it seems that you are admitting it is a farcical choice, even as you have presented it - submit yourself to this order, or forage for food in the forest as though society had never produced the riches it has. This is the poverty of Robinson Crusoe; if we were to extend the Kantian imperative to society's production, it would seem not only impossible but totally wrong to live in a society of isolated producers foraging in the forest. If everyone exempts themselves from capital, then capitalist society collapses. My point is this: even by working in the forest, you are still placed in a social relation by dint of having to work in the forest rather than sharing in the product of society. In a sense, freedom really does mean access to the general product of society, because freedom is counterposed with necessity.[0] This is the notion underlying every idea of freedom, and it was as misunderstood by Stalin ("he who does not work, neither shall he eat") as it is by the bourgeois order ("there is no alternative"). There is no "free choice" to step outside the relations of production, which is why a Communist country could not possibly exist - it's outstripped by capitalist efficiency and the totality of capital immediately. >The process works like this: You start a business and you say to me: "Hey, if you make these widgets for me in my widget factory, i'll give you $10/hour, but I keep the widgets" Where did you get the factory? Under what premise, whose threat of force and justification have you barred me from taking it or sharing in it? Did you build it yourself? How can I build my own factory without access to capital (and the credit system) and why should I either have to work for you (as you dictate my human essence, my labour, according to the exact method and timings that you dictate for the duration you dictate) or subject myself to the scrutiny of the market, and have this other authority dictate what I produce? How is it that I can only survive through these options only? The fact is that your situation carries with it ideological assumptions (wage labour is seen as not only acceptable but morally right or even righteous to offer) and historical assumptions (the right to separate me from the products I make and from the means of making products), and generalized commodity production ($10 only means something if I can spend it elsewhere, I produce not only items of use with my labour but also items of exchange, and the exchange is to be maximized over the use). I also question how you're able to sell the products I make without either tricking people into paying more than they're actually worth, or paying me less than my labour is worth. Finally there's the question of what you do with the profit (assuming you make some) - of course like a good capitalist you re-invest it. The situation is ideological thus: Imagine if I start a business and say to you: "Hey, you are a slave with little or no mobility, conditioned to this fate by your birth or regulations in society, work for me, and I'll give you some shelter and food. Otherwise you can leave Rome and find some farmland and live on that." - repeat with the feudal mode of production (you are a lord who demands my corn-tithe, but in exchange I get to work your land using your tools). And here there is a hierarchy maintained, ostensibly living on consent (as if consent were sufficient, albeit necessary). In individualising the issue, you've shifted the talk from capital to capitalists, from labour to labourers and from capitalists and labourers to individuals who are all starting off the same - an assumption which is untenable in any society. In other words, the land owned and the property of the capitalist is already justly acquired (and we should remember that the division as it currently stands traces back to what we'd both regard as unjust acquisitions of land and power, through brute force and subsequent passing down through generations in families or in contracts). Your example only makes sense in the case of any two individuals (and we must consider any two because you and I are not alone on this planet, and if there is an injustice against one, who cannot partake, we have an unjust society) if we have Socialism! I have access to the social means of widget-production, as do you. There is a fundamental asymmetry between capital and labour, which your example can't show so simply, and it's the reason why labour unions exist and why Socialists have campaigned for the past century and more for decent working conditions and to some extent acheived them. Marx knew it, Lincoln knew it and Jefferson knew it. I understand you weren't trying to model the totality of social relations with such an example, but we can't take the example and say "that's all that's happening, multiplied by 7.5 billion". The difference between this world and Crusoe's island isn't merely in size, it's in nature, which has come about through historical development. [0] “Is “free competition” then really “free?” nay, is it really a “competition” — to wit, one of persons — as it gives itself out to be because on this title it bases its right? It originated, you know, in persons becoming free of all personal rule. Is a competition “free” which the State, this ruler in the civic principle, hems in by a thousand barriers? There is a rich manufacturer doing a brilliant business, and I should like to compete with him. “Go ahead,” says the State, “I have no objection to make to your person as competitor.” Yes, I reply, but for that I need a space for buildings, I need money! “That’s bad; but, if you have no money, you cannot compete. You must not take anything from anybody, for I protect property and grant it privileges.”Free competition is not “free,” because I lack the THINGS for competition. Against my person no objection can be made, but because I have not the things my person too must step to the rear. And who has the necessary things? Perhaps that manufacturer? Why, from him I could take them away! No, the State has them as property, the manufacturer only as fief, as possession. (Max Stirner)

by darawk 8y ago

claudiawerner 8y ago

>But what is the level of material comfort at which we do that? I don't think I'm qualified to answer the question of a bare minimum for lifestyle, and I don't think such a decision is possible right now, under the influence of many people being unable to distinguish false needs from true needs; humans change according to the society they find themselves in, and according to the material conditions which drive to new societies. >Saying "we ought only produce what we want to use" is another way of saying "produce efficiently". Capitalism is extremely efficient in this regard. I disagree, by "use" I mean the satisfaction of human needs rather than the growth of capital. I accept that in many (or even most) situations, there is a close alignment between them, but the number of cases in which they align closely is a quantitative measurement, as opposed to what is in my judgement the much more important qualitative dimension by which future production is decided. My point here was much less about efficiency, but on the contradiction of what's actually happening; the material need a house serves is expressed when it is built by the concrete labour which goes into it, but the coordination of abstract labour is totally different - to the point where people "use" the exchange value of a house. Consider the term "commodification" which applies more to culture in general, but is also relevant in capital's stance that use-value can be compromised (to an extent to which it is not itself aware in the anarchy of the market) in favour of exchange value. I think your idea is interesting and worthy of consideration for those not interested in the aspects of capital as it relates to society and ideology, but it's not "the best" we can do in terms of a "market socialism" of the sort proposed by John Roemer or Thomas Sekine, or even one without capital as proposed by Peter Hudis. I can't really say I know enough about them, but your solution seems to have little to say on notions of systemic exploitation which some (like those I just named) view as core to the capitalist labour process. >Yes, many people feel compelled to work, because it's easier than foraging for food in the forest. By this it seems that you are admitting it is a farcical choice, even as you have presented it - submit yourself to this order, or forage for food in the forest as though society had never produced the riches it has. This is the poverty of Robinson Crusoe; if we were to extend the Kantian imperative to society's production, it would seem not only impossible but totally wrong to live in a society of isolated producers foraging in the forest. If everyone exempts themselves from capital, then capitalist society collapses. My point is this: even by working in the forest, you are still placed in a social relation by dint of having to work in the forest rather than sharing in the product of society. In a sense, freedom really does mean access to the general product of society, because freedom is counterposed with necessity.[0] This is the notion underlying every idea of freedom, and it was as misunderstood by Stalin ("he who does not work, neither shall he eat") as it is by the bourgeois order ("there is no alternative"). There is no "free choice" to step outside the relations of production, which is why a Communist country could not possibly exist - it's outstripped by capitalist efficiency and the totality of capital immediately. >The process works like this: You start a business and you say to me: "Hey, if you make these widgets for me in my widget factory, i'll give you $10/hour, but I keep the widgets" Where did you get the factory? Under what premise, whose threat of force and justification have you barred me from taking it or sharing in it? Did you build it yourself? How can I build my own factory without access to capital (and the credit system) and why should I either have to work for you (as you dictate my human essence, my labour, according to the exact method and timings that you dictate for the duration you dictate) or subject myself to the scrutiny of the market, and have this other authority dictate what I produce? How is it that I can only survive through these options only? The fact is that your situation carries with it ideological assumptions (wage labour is seen as not only acceptable but morally right or even righteous to offer) and historical assumptions (the right to separate me from the products I make and from the means of making products), and generalized commodity production ($10 only means something if I can spend it elsewhere, I produce not only items of use with my labour but also items of exchange, and the exchange is to be maximized over the use). I also question how you're able to sell the products I make without either tricking people into paying more than they're actually worth, or paying me less than my labour is worth. Finally there's the question of what you do with the profit (assuming you make some) - of course like a good capitalist you re-invest it. The situation is ideological thus: Imagine if I start a business and say to you: "Hey, you are a slave with little or no mobility, conditioned to this fate by your birth or regulations in society, work for me, and I'll give you some shelter and food. Otherwise you can leave Rome and find some farmland and live on that." - repeat with the feudal mode of production (you are a lord who demands my corn-tithe, but in exchange I get to work your land using your tools). And here there is a hierarchy maintained, ostensibly living on consent (as if consent were sufficient, albeit necessary). In individualising the issue, you've shifted the talk from capital to capitalists, from labour to labourers and from capitalists and labourers to individuals who are all starting off the same - an assumption which is untenable in any society. In other words, the land owned and the property of the capitalist is already justly acquired (and we should remember that the division as it currently stands traces back to what we'd both regard as unjust acquisitions of land and power, through brute force and subsequent passing down through generations in families or in contracts). Your example only makes sense in the case of any two individuals (and we must consider any two because you and I are not alone on this planet, and if there is an injustice against one, who cannot partake, we have an unjust society) if we have Socialism! I have access to the social means of widget-production, as do you. There is a fundamental asymmetry between capital and labour, which your example can't show so simply, and it's the reason why labour unions exist and why Socialists have campaigned for the past century and more for decent working conditions and to some extent acheived them. Marx knew it, Lincoln knew it and Jefferson knew it. I understand you weren't trying to model the totality of social relations with such an example, but we can't take the example and say "that's all that's happening, multiplied by 7.5 billion". The difference between this world and Crusoe's island isn't merely in size, it's in nature, which has come about through historical development. [0] “Is “free competition” then really “free?” nay, is it really a “competition” — to wit, one of persons — as it gives itself out to be because on this title it bases its right? It originated, you know, in persons becoming free of all personal rule. Is a competition “free” which the State, this ruler in the civic principle, hems in by a thousand barriers? There is a rich manufacturer doing a brilliant business, and I should like to compete with him. “Go ahead,” says the State, “I have no objection to make to your person as competitor.” Yes, I reply, but for that I need a space for buildings, I need money! “That’s bad; but, if you have no money, you cannot compete. You must not take anything from anybody, for I protect property and grant it privileges.”Free competition is not “free,” because I lack the THINGS for competition. Against my person no objection can be made, but because I have not the things my person too must step to the rear. And who has the necessary things? Perhaps that manufacturer? Why, from him I could take them away! No, the State has them as property, the manufacturer only as fief, as possession. (Max Stirner)