Lets talk about capitalism

[Osterbaum]

Capitalism is the system wherein we humans organize ourselves and our society based on the principles of competition, profit making and self-interest.

The profit motive is the driver behind this capitalist system. It can manifest itself in different forms, that is profits aka accumulation of wealth in our society often means accumulating money in one form or another. Capital attracts more capital and those with the most of it have the most power or at least the most advantaged position in society.

There are several wide spread, almost universal myths about capitalism as an economic system. This is all part of capitalist realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_realism#Mark_Fisher), the pervasive global atmosphere where it is 'easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism'. I'm going to briefly try and debunk a few of the most common myths here. I wont go into much detail, I'm hoping to spark a discussion which might then lead to further elaboration of several topics.

myth the 1st
Capitalism is human nature.

No.

Whenever someone claims something in the name of 'human nature' it's good to get skeptical as hell. It is an extremely complicated concept, largely abstract and certainly not easily quantifiable. Not to mention that there are a ton of historical and contemporary examples of people acting differently from what our current ideas about 'human nature' would suggest.

Proponents of capitalism would have us believe that they know humans are greedy, competitive and only self-interested by nature. What's their proof? Often it amounts to little more than some kind of social darwinism, which I hope I don't have to tell everyone why it's bullshit. A large part of their 'proof' is the way our world functions. But I don't have to tell you that's a circular argument: Capitalism is best because people are greedy ---> we know people are greedy because capitalism?

Is it in fact more likely, that the world we live in molds our 'nature'? Many people act greedy or self-interested, because we live in a world that promises to reward such behavior. Because in our world the driving motive for most things is making profit.

myth the 2nd
Capitalism is efficient.

A system in which we throw out food while people starve.
A system in which people are homeless while there are empty buildings.
A system where planned obsolescence is a thing.

There is nothing efficient about any of that.

And this is the way it works because by capitalist logic business doesn't care about producing for need, only for profit. Food is worthless to capitalism if no one buys it. Homes are useless unless someone pays to live in them. Designing long lasting products generates less profit than selling people a new consumer toy every few years.

In short, there is nothing efficient about producing for profit.

myth the 3rd
Capitalism is fair.

What does the value of a product consist of?
- raw materials
- wear & tear of machinery and tools
- work

The raw materials are worth what they're worth. The wear & tear costs are more or less constant, they certainly can't generate new value. So it is the work done to transform raw materials into products, using the necessary knowledge and tools, that creates this extra value.

If we accept that the extra value is added to raw materials via work done on them, then we accept that this is the source of profit. If we accept work as the source of added value, then how would it be fair that this generated value should go into the pockets of """job creators"""?

myth the 4th
Capitalism is freedom.

Work for someone else or starve.

That's not a choice, that's a threat!

myth the 5th
There is no alternative.

The famous TINA argument.

But history is again full of examples of people struggling to create their own alternatives that they feel are best for them and their communities.

Hunter gatherers lived quite differently from us. We had alternative communities in Europe in the middle-ages (http://libcom.org/library/caliban-witch-silvia-federici). We've had several more0contemporary revolutions where people sought to take matters into their own hands and create their own world; the revolutionary waves of 1848, Paris Commune in 1871, the Russian and Ukranian revolutions (1917-1921, after which they became something else entirely), the German revolution (1918-1920), the Spanish revolution (1936-37), Hungary in 1956, the revolutionary wave of 1968 and the social movements all over the world that have risen out of the anti-globalisation movement of the late 90's/early 00's and the present capitalist crisis.

We have the Zapatista movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation).

And these are just the examples I can name off the top of my head.

After all, even capitalism didn't just pop into existence out of nowhere. Feudalism was quite a different system. There is always an alternative, we just need to be willing to imagine it and then strive towards createing it. Discuss.

[Aerozord]

I forget who said it, but it is the one I find to be the most true and drives my views on all systems. "All models will be corrupted". I agree, capitalism isn't human nature. What is human nature is the drive to get the most out of something. Human will always seek to find ways to exploit something. The original Bioshock demonstrated this perfectly. The reason a pure capitalistic-objectivist society would implode is it only takes one guy to realize the lower class can be effectively motivated through a simple "offer of a better life" and out number the upper class 100 to 1.

The other is someone is going to be in charge. Part of this is practicality. When dealing with hundreds of millions, or even billions, you need some oversight. Memes would drive an alternative as macro-psychology has shown us society grabs onto certain things and propagates them. Even ignoring all that, your average person just doesn't have the time to become educated on every detail of economics and government.

With all that out of the way, I go with the economic model that creates a utilitarian effect. The most good for the most people. I believe in a world run by scarcity, a mixed economy is best. Just to get this out of the way YES this is a scarcity market. The major driving forces in our economy are energy, man power, time, and IP. People starve on a large scale because of the first two reasons. Food is not scarce. We have enough for everyone, but getting food to them is very difficult.

A mixed economy places restrictions on businesses and offers support to the lower and middle class to allow upward movement. "Old money" doesn't work too well as what is scarce keeps shifting. Its why many of todays wealthy are involved in media and technology. This limits the foothold specific individuals can maintain. Of course this is a rolling shift of growth and recession. New laws and limitations need to be created as humans discover ways around the old one. Like how Google has gotten around anti-trust laws by expanding outwardly.

I am of course open to alternatives, but I believe new systems is what we need not old ones. In time I am hoping we can have a transitive economy where base needs are met and economy is driven purely by luxury.

[Kim]

My perspective is that Capitalism is Evil and I would like it gone forever.

Also that hierarchies lead to exploitation and abuse, and capitalism is just the latest form of that. I think of capitalism in many ways as an attempt at a secular, merit-based hierarchy.

Thing is I don't know how to structure things in ways that won't inevitably form new hierarchies, and those hierarchies will always lead to abuse and exploitation.

Even if you get down to the family unit, families are hierarchical. Parents effectively own their children, and because we live in a patriarchy the father is at the top of the pyramid. I think this encourages abuse in many forms.

I don't like it, but I don't know how to fix it, and I've resigned myself to the fact that even if I get to live a long life we probably won't fix this problem in my lifetime.

[Aerozord]

Thing is I don't know how to structure things in ways that won't inevitably form new hierarchies, and those hierarchies will always lead to abuse and exploitation.



This is true, which is why we should focus on systems that mitigate abuse instead of people constantly trying to push idealized versions of their model.

You need to think of how your model can be broken and exploited, worst case scenario situation. Because eventually your system will be that. Right now our mixed economy is at its worst, but at its worst your average person still enjoys a standard of living thats better than the rest of the world.

[Kim]

This is true, which is why we should focus on systems that mitigate abuse instead of people constantly trying to push idealized versions of their model.

You need to think of how your model can be broken and exploited, worst case scenario situation. Because eventually your system will be that. Right now our mixed economy is at its worst, but at its worst your average person still enjoys a standard of living thats better than the rest of the world.

I disagree immensely with your last statement.

[Osterbaum]

The other is someone is going to be in charge. Part of this is practicality. When dealing with hundreds of millions, or even billions, you need some oversight.
Oversight might be necessary, but I do not think this oversight needs to be authoritative. People are perfectly capable of getting together and reaching decisions about subjects that affect them all, even on a global scale. Though the logistical hurdles to overcome should not be underestimated!

People starve on a large scale because of the first two reasons. Food is not scarce. We have enough for everyone, but getting food to them is very difficult.
What's so difficult about getting the food to people? We have the technology to efficiently both grow and transport food. There is also no reason why food production could not be localized. It is again the search for profits that has lead to food production centering in the hands of large corporations, often more or less tied to some specific geographic area.

Capitalism is a broken system. One that leads to human misery, to environmental destruction and for what? For the profits of a relative few? That right there is enough reason for me to abolish it once and for all.

My perspective is that Capitalism is Evil and I would like it gone forever.

Also that hierarchies lead to exploitation and abuse, and capitalism is just the latest form of that. I think of capitalism in many ways as an attempt at a secular, merit-based hierarchy.

Thing is I don't know how to structure things in ways that won't inevitably form new hierarchies, and those hierarchies will always lead to abuse and exploitation.

Even if you get down to the family unit, families are hierarchical. Parents effectively own their children, and because we live in a patriarchy the father is at the top of the pyramid. I think this encourages abuse in many forms.

I don't like it, but I don't know how to fix it, and I've resigned myself to the fact that even if I get to live a long life we probably won't fix this problem in my lifetime.
As an anarchist (greek "an-" = without + arkhos = leader), it is indeed a big part of my opposition to capitalism that it is an immensly hierarchical system. It not only creates it's own economic based hierarchies like boss/employee & rich/poor, but also supports the existence of other hierarchies.

I would suggest you look more into anarchism if hierarchies piss you off. That is unless you already have.

It's a difficult thing to structure things in ways that wont lead to hierarchies. It would require a complete change in thought, in the way people view things. But I believe it's possible. By striving towards a world free of hierarchies we can at least get as close as is humanely possible. You mention family hierarchy as an example, but I believe that in our current society it's at least possible these hierarchies are informed by the existence of other hierarchies. Hierarchy is also something we learn, they are largely social constructs or based on such.

And in questioning all authority it does not mean anarchists necessarily reject all authority. As demonstrated by this Mikhail Bakunin quote:

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker.
In a sense one could think that a child defering to the authority of their parents would be similarly justified, at least until they reach an age where they can understand and choose for themselves.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Right now our mixed economy is at its worst, but at its worst your average person still enjoys a standard of living thats better than the rest of the world.

People in a Capitalist society might enjoy a standard of living that is a bit more than the people who live in the societies which said Capitalist society has plundered and looted and stomped all over in order to provide that standard.

[Doc ock rokc]

My personal thoughts on the matter are this

Capitalism isn't evil nor is it good. It is merely a system. An organized way to trade things of equal value.

That being said, it isn't the most effective or fair system. Just the most resistant system. Its easy to set up and easy to keep going. It offers a centralized concept with decentralized controls.

When done right it can work. However their is always the debate in how it is done right.

You see the Free-market has always failed. Too many monopolies. Too little "Trickle downs." Poor safety conditions to cut costs. Workers not getting or having rights. The money just stops circulating right.

On the flip side Socialist economics hasn't worked well ether. No incentives. No Ownership. Overwhelming costly regulations. Workers not getting or having rights.

That being said, Having both of them together is the only logical choice. Competition breeds innovation, but Collaboration breeds progress.

The issue we have now is that the market has stagnated. Too few are holding too much. Too many are captive audiences. This isn't because of the lack of competition mind you. The problem stems from the ease it takes for larger companies to crush and absorb other ones. The large ones have become "Too Big To Fail" which in turn ruins the system. if we want money to move around properly we need giants to fall. we also need an evening of the scales every once and a while. a flat tax could do it. as well as eliminating some tax loopholes for corporations.

That being said mom and pop places are not dead. Far From it. You can work for yourself, but remember you just trade one boss for several hundred thousand. The internet has provided a medium for many mom and pop's to flourish. For as long as it is impartial they will continue to do so. That being said ISP's need to be labeled Common Carriers like Telephones or else the entire internet will suffer.

[Osterbaum]

People in a Capitalist society might enjoy a standard of living that is a bit more than the people who live in the societies which said Capitalist society has plundered and looted and stomped all over in order to provide that standard.
This. And in addition, there are tons of people in advanced capitalist societies as well who dont enjoy a middle-class or higher standard of living.

One thing you often hear these days is how the (industrial) working class is practically non-existent. But really it's just located elsewhere, in the factories where they make our clothes and where they refine the raw materials we use to make our smart phones etc.

Capitalism isn't evil nor is it good. It is merely a system. An organized way to trade things of equal value.
Sure, it's not evil as such. But the logic of it that dominates our society leads to some pretty evil shit too. However it is not a way to trade things of equal value; if all trades were of equal value, then where would the profit be? In order for someone to profit from a trade, someone else has to lose.

That being said, it isn't the most effective or fair system. Just the most resistant system. Its easy to set up and easy to keep going. It offers a centralized concept with decentralized controls.
Resistant perhaps, but even capitalism can't survive the environmental catastrophe it is creating. Bureucracy is also rampant as all hell in our capitalist societies, so I wouldn't say it's all that easy to keep going either.

On the flip side Socialist economics hasn't worked well ether. No incentives. No Ownership. Overwhelming costly regulations. Workers not getting or having rights.
Are you thinking of the USSR or other self-proclaimed "communist" countries? The USSR and it's allies were mostly state capitalist. They did not abolish private property, they did not abolish the wage system and they did not abolish the boss-worker relationship. All they did was transfer ownership to the state, replace individual capitalists with the state and bosses with bureucrats.

There is a lot more to socialist/communist/anarchist economics. I suggest you do some research if you have the time. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system#Types) is as good a place to start as any other on the internet. I identify as an anarcho-communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism#Economic_theory) myself.

The issue we have now is that the market has stagnated. Too few are holding too much. Too many are captive audiences. This isn't because of the lack of competition mind you. The problem stems from the ease it takes for larger companies to crush and absorb other ones. The large ones have become "Too Big To Fail" which in turn ruins the system. if we want money to move around properly we need giants to fall. we also need an evening of the scales every once and a while. a flat tax could do it. as well as eliminating some tax loopholes for corporations.
This is a natural development for capitalism: further concentration of wealth. It is the direction where the profit motive motivates businesses to go.

[Doc ock rokc]

Sure, it's not evil as such. But the logic of it that dominates our society leads to some pretty evil shit too. However it is not a way to trade things of equal value; if all trades were of equal value, then where would the profit be? In order for someone to profit from a trade, someone else has to lose.
Not necessarily. When I go to the store to buy milk. I value the milk more then I value the money I spend. The store clerk values the money more then the milk he sells. I think he "Loses," He thinks I "lose."

The only time you have a "Winner" is when you chose between two similar products.

Resistant perhaps, but even capitalism can't survive the environmental catastrophe it is creating. Bureucracy is also rampant as all hell in our capitalist societies, so I wouldn't say it's all that easy to keep going either.
As long as people think the money has value it does. As long as it holds a value it can be traded for goods/services. That is why Capitalism has worked across the ages. It doesn't need the bureaucracy in the end.


Are you thinking of the USSR or other self-proclaimed "communist" countries? The USSR and it's allies were mostly state capitalist. They did not abolish private property, they did not abolish the wage system and they did not abolish the boss-worker relationship. All they did was transfer ownership to the state, replace individual capitalists with the state and bosses with bureucrats.

There is a lot more to socialist/communist/anarchist economics. I suggest you do some research if you have the time. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system#Types) is as good a place to start as any other on the internet. I identify as an anarcho-communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism#Economic_theory) myself.A) - few of these economies to work on a state level let alone a Global scale. Some or theories and have never been successfully practiced

B) - To get to a functional level of even distribution one would need extensive bureaucracy to function. Leading to a possudo-Goverment in order to manage resources. To spread these resources out one would need oversight to ensure proper delivery. In the end a Anarchic-Communistic state would devolve into a...State communistic state...Its a nice idea but it can't take off on paper let alone reality.


This is a natural development for capitalism: further concentration of wealth. It is the direction where the profit motive motivates businesses to go.
Unfortunately yes that is the problem...however with the right measures one could increase the circulation and thus the GDP of everyone making EVERYONE wealthier. Capitalism succeeds if the money keeps flowing. The more that flows and the faster the more the market flows and the harder the market hits. If we even had 60% of the total us money supply moving we would see the markets change in a flash and "Voting with the dollar" would be even more effective. But that is if we can actually get it moving instead of this stupid trickle down shit. Currently the bottom 80% (who hold up the economy) are wielding ~5% as of 2010. With 5% we have kept the us economy afloat.

With a little bit of fair even taxing, we get more money flowing (as well as pay off the US Debt)

[Osterbaum]

Not necessarily. When I go to the store to buy milk. I value the milk more then I value the money I spend. The store clerk values the money more then the milk he sells. I think he "Loses," He thinks I "lose."

The only time you have a "Winner" is when you chose between two similar products.
But you don't just pay what the value of the milk is, you also pay for the profit someone gains for of selling the milk. And if the milk is sold at a price that is less than it costs to make, then the person selling it loses.

That is why Capitalism has worked across the ages.
Across the ages? Let's not forget that capitalism has existed as an economic system for about 200+ years, which is only a fraction of human history.

A) - few of these economies to work on a state level let alone a Global scale. Some or theories and have never been successfully practiced
How do you know? When have we ever tried any of these on a global scale? Economies not based on capitalism have worked with various degrees of success on various levels of organization many times in history, including recent history. People started distributing food and products to everyone for free in the Spanish Revolution for example, and the economy didn't collapse or anything. What ended it, as is almost always the case, was state repression. The capitalist state can not accept any alternatives to capitalism to endure, because nothing says things can be done differently quite as well as an existing alternative.

B) - To get to a functional level of even distribution one would need extensive bureaucracy to function. Leading to a possudo-Goverment in order to manage resources. To spread these resources out one would need oversight to ensure proper delivery. In the end a Anarchic-Communistic state would devolve into a...State communistic state...Its a nice idea but it can't take off on paper let alone reality.
I disagree, in case that wasn't already obvious. It is entirely possible to cease production for profit and produce for needs instead. Why wouldn't it be? You mention global co-ordination as the major problem, but doesn't that problem already exist in capitalism and to a higher degree at that! Individual capitalists don't co-ordinate between themselves about how much they should produce. It constantly happens that products are thrown away because it wasn't anticipated correctly how much people would buy them or how much of them someone else would produce at the same time for the same markets.

As to fair taxing, that's all well and good. But at the end of the day it's a relatively minor fix. After all capitalists would still continue to oppose and try to roll back any reforms that bit into their profits. The problem of environmental destruction wouldn't go anywhere, even a green tech and market "revolution" would only delay the inevitable: you can not sustain a system based on endless growth in a ecosystem with finite resources.

The problem of (unnecessary) hierarchical relations also wouldn't change at all.

[Overcast]

I'd adore to live in a post scarcity world where capitalism literally cannot work in the same fashion that it does now. Where resources are so readily available that trying to attach a value to them above free is completely impossible. I'd love to see exactly what we as a species would create in an effort to create worth in such a situation, I feel overtly tied to the idea of creativity becoming the new aspect by which we measure things, an advanced memetic market where a person is judged by their capacity to create original content. A whole world of 4chan. A wildly insane and dangerous concept.

But then I don't know a lot about economics and am a disgusting extropian. I don't know what I would do about capitalism without 'post scarcity' to help me out. What I do know is that with the resources we have available it is possible to reduce the total net suffering in the world significantly, and even maintain a worldwide bottom variable much higher than we have it set right now. I am also aware though that we don't exactly feel inclined to work together to attain this, in more extropian hoo hah if we had some kind of benevolent dictator I feel maybe that might be attainable.

So I want the world to be dominated by one all powerful being with unlimited resources who oversees the coordination of a worldwide ratrace for popularity.

[Kim]

Overcast, one of the points Oster makes is that the scarcity is manufactured. It is deliberate scarcity, because capitalism requires it. You can't become post-scarcity when your economic structure forces it. There are farmers who literally get paid not to use some of their farmland because too high of supply would cause price to plummet and fuck up the economy.

[Overcast]

Really? If that is the case I'd totally be willing to watch my economy collapse if it would inspire suitable fear in the regular populace to try to conduct business differently. Food scarcity is just one aspect, water is harder to come by but not impossible, energy is hardly scarce but very difficult to move across wide spaces and moving our surplus to where it is scarce would do wonders to improve the standard of life. I know I'd dig if we could find a way to make a huge global energy grid. Though that is likely an astronomical endevour.

I've got more dreams than realities though.

[Aerozord]

I am just popping in because this is something I considered writing an article about. I'd say energy is very scarce (to be more exact our production with current technology and culture is limited). In fact its the primary cost of most products. Much of the manufacturing process is done by machines that take power. Lighting, computers, AC, heating, cooking, ore refining, recycling, transportation, all of this uses electricity. The cost of physical materials is very low, and robots have greatly reduced labor costs as well. The energy to manufacture and transport goods is the major cost. As AI advances and oil becomes more scarce power will become a larger limiting factor on our economy.

Now I'm sure some will fire back that wind and solar can completely replace oil and its just greedy corporations that wont let it. Ok lets say thats correct. If you actually believe those vested in oil have that much power you are naive if you think they wouldn't leverage that influence into any other economical model through non-capitalistic methods like they have been. Because if solar and wind is cheaper and safer it would mean oil is suppressing these alternatives through politics and media. Guess what those factors wont disappear just because you use a different economic model.

China isn't capitalist but it burns fossil fuels at an ever growing rate.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Really? If that is the case I'd totally be willing to watch my economy collapse if it would inspire suitable fear in the regular populace to try to conduct business differently. Food scarcity is just one aspect, water is harder to come by but not impossible, energy is hardly scarce but very difficult to move across wide spaces and moving our surplus to where it is scarce would do wonders to improve the standard of life. I know I'd dig if we could find a way to make a huge global energy grid. Though that is likely an astronomical endevour.

I've got more dreams than realities though.

One of the biggest issues with Capitalism is waste in general. There are fields upon fields of thousands of abandoned cars that were produced, worked perfectly fine, but couldn't be sold due to an unexpected drop in demand. http://news.distractify.com/culture/unsold-cars/

These companies strictly speaking didn't want to keep producing cars, but they have to. To do otherwise means laying off thousands of workers, shutting down serviceable factories and rippling the effects of those shutdowns through the resource and component sectors of the economies in which those factories exist. That is capitalism. Money is so important that its transfer is what matters, not the goods that the money itself represents.

The amount of resources that go into waste and military spending and military waste are what is actually astronomical. By comparison the resources needed to produce such a grid are small, the food, clothing, housing and medicine requirements of the entire human race are a fraction of what we are capable of producing.


Aero what the fuck are you even talking about. China is capitalist. Oil companies have their influence because they are functioning in a capitalist society. Capitalism values their wealth and permits the exchange of that wealth for influence, other systems, specifically systems to avoid the problems capitalism has, would not.

[Aerozord]

Where we spend the money would be an issue with culture and government, not capitalism economic model. Plenty of capitalist nations that spend little on military and plenty of non-capitalist nations that spend alot on it

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Where we spend the money would be an issue with culture and government, not capitalism economic model. Plenty of capitalist nations that spend little on military and plenty of non-capitalist nations that spend alot on it

Right, because culture and government are wholly and entirely separate from the capitalist system.
Never mind the introduction of consumer culture or influence of money into politics.

Are you talking about China again with that last part? Because, again, China is engaging in the use of capitalist policies. Russia is at best a mixture, but still heavily leans toward capitalist principles.

[Aerozord]

Right, because culture and government are wholly and entirely separate from the capitalist system.
Never mind the introduction of consumer culture or influence of money into politics.

in theory, yes. In practice, no. In practice no system would be divorced from culture and government. Thats my point, these would remain no matter what system you used.

Are you talking about China again with that last part? Because, again, China is engaging in the use of capitalist policies. Russia is at best a mixture, but still heavily leans toward capitalist principles.

Well any non-capitalist nation I could think of. China, Russia, North Korea, I think Cuba still has a strong military focus. But you do have me curious, what are some non-capitalist nations that don't have alot of military spending?

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Well any non-capitalist nation I could think of. China, Russia, North Korea, I think Cuba still has a strong military focus.

I'm going to ignore the entire rest of your post to reiterate this:

Russia and China are capitalist nations.

[Overcast]

Well when I say astronomical I more mean the resources needed. Lines and lines of copper wiring, huge capacitance centers to store the surplus at waystations, computer networks for utility control and maintenance oversight. It'd be pretty huge.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Well when I say astronomical I more mean the resources needed. Lines and lines of copper wiring, huge capacitance centers to store the surplus at waystations, computer networks for utility control and maintenance oversight. It'd be pretty huge.

Right, and what I am saying to you is we have an astronomical amount of resources. We have more than enough. We're just not putting them to that particular use.

Instead we're making cars.

[Aerozord]

I'm going to ignore the entire rest of your post to reiterate this:

Russia and China are capitalist nations.

ok, fine, please list the non-capitalist ones then

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

ok, fine, please list the non-capitalist ones then

I legitimately cannot be assed. At all. I don't believe you actually care one whit.

[Aerozord]

I legitimately cannot be assed. At all. I don't believe you actually care one whit.

I sincerely do. Its needed for an accurate depiction of alternative economic models in practice and how they hold up. You dismissed two that I name so I take it Cuba and North Korea are not capitalist. Now I know propaganda against both nations is high so hard to take depictions of those nations as accurate. So I am asking you to name some other nations so we can see how their own resources are distributed.

If you give me names I'll happily look for statistic myself, I just want to know which nations I should be looking up

[Osterbaum]

Aero, there is no non-capitalist country currently in existence and there wasn't at the time of the USSR. Even the old "socialist" block countries were only state capitalist.

I can't stress this enough: In today's world of global capitalism, there is no country that isn't capitalist. Dictatorships are capitalists, social democracies are capitalist, monarchies are capitalist etc.

Capitalism is the right for individuals to claim ownership over shared land and resources, it is the logic of wealth-makes-right, it is the system where we use an artificial construct with no real value in itself (money) to measure the worth of everything else. In other words capitalism is a system of private ownership, wealth accumulation, seeking profit and money. If you don't think China has all of those, you're just not looking hard enough. It applies to all countries, because this system has been made (often forcibly) global in the course of contemporary history. Countries can't simply choose to opt out even if they wanted to, they can at most tweak it a little and then spout rhetoric about how non-capitalist they are.

If you actually believe those vested in oil have that much power you are naive if you think they wouldn't leverage that influence into any other economical model through non-capitalistic methods like they have been.
The whole point is to replace capitalism with a system that doesn't allow elites to control limited resources, with a system that doesn't allow for the easy exploitation of people and the environment. The so called "big oil" or "big coal" would no longer have the power that they now have to influence politics.

Overcast, one of the points Oster makes is that the scarcity is manufactured. It is deliberate scarcity, because capitalism requires it. You can't become post-scarcity when your economic structure forces it. There are farmers who literally get paid not to use some of their farmland because too high of supply would cause price to plummet and fuck up the economy.
Exactly. In short, capitalism requires scarcity because people don't buy anything if they already have an abundance of what they need (or want).

[Aerozord]

I try to remain open minded. So as I said before, what one should do when creating a new model is think of how it can be exploited. I would like to hear what you believe would be an effective solution as well as how it will be corrupted by those who have leverage. Keeping in mind physical resources are not the only things that can be exploited. Skills and social capital (celebrities) also give an edge as well. Including motivating factors that allow for psychological feedback and a sense of agency

[RawBot]

In short, capitalism requires scarcity because people don't buy anything if they already have an abundance of what they need (or want).
That abundance comes from somewhere though, so there is a rather objective need for commerce and money.

The whole point is to replace capitalism with a system that doesn't allow elites to control limited resources, with a system that doesn't allow for the easy exploitation of people and the environment. The so called "big oil" or "big coal" would no longer have the power that they now have to influence politics.
Well, state capitalism in a democratic state has norms and rules that companies must abide to. Such rules are made in the interest of the people or the nation, assuming the democracy is healthy.

A healthy democracy among other things forbids any one individual or company to contribute more than a rather low amount of money to electoral campaigns, in order not to skew the weight of anyone's voice. The rest of the money needed is given back by the State afterwards. The State also ensures that political campaigns aren't excessively skewed between parties by setting an absolute ceiling on spendings.

Private powers must not get as powerful as the State, because they have no legitimacy and no responsibility towards the people or the nation.

So basically, money, commerce and private powers are not a problem if there is a structure strong enough to protect the interests of the people.

It is more difficult to make it work internationally. Globalization can easily turn into colonialism, with all its up and downsides. It's a difficult issue but I doubt the current Free Trade shit is good in any way except for the strongest private powers.

Btw, is there any discussion in the US over TAFTA (TTIP) ? If so, what's the dominant opinion about it ? Because this is the very embodiment of what modern capitalism has become.

[Osterbaum]

That abundance comes from somewhere though, so there is a rather objective need for commerce and money.
There certainly is no 'objective need' for these things. They are necessary, or in the case of money at least helpful, in the current economic system. But there is no objective natural law that says trade must be based on a system of 'commerce'; that is private ownership of natural resources and land, accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few, manufactured scarcity, poor co-ordination of large scale production and behind it all the need of a capitalist system to generate ever more profit (for the few).

As a preliminary response to all that, here's a short text titled The Economic Organism as Panopticon (http://antilibertariancriticism.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/the-economic-organism-as-panopticon/). It's written as an anarchist critique of right-libertarian ideas, but it functions perfectly well to shed some (philosophical) light on how our current system functions to keep us all dependent (materially and psychologically).

A few more specific comments:
The State also ensures that political campaigns aren't excessively skewed between parties by setting an absolute ceiling on spendings.
The main thing the state ensures is always it's own survival and that of capitalism. Everything else is ultimately secondary, as evidenced for example by the response of the state to any protest movement seeking to challenge the state or capitalism or other existing power structures that benefit someone (hint, it's police repression; look up Spain, Turkey, Greece, the US just everywhere basically).

Private powers must not get as powerful as the State, because they have no legitimacy and no responsibility towards the people or the nation.
Private powers are already as or more powerful than a bunch of states. The function of any existing state is very much tied to the logic of capitalism, and private capitalists have much more power at their disposal than one measly vote. Again, as evidenced by how 'austerity' means boons for the rich and business and cuts for the poor and working people.

So basically, money, commerce and private powers are not a problem if there is a structure strong enough to protect the interests of the people.
But the state exists primarily to protect private property and the existing status quo.

It's a difficult issue but I doubt the current Free Trade shit is good in any way except for the strongest private powers.
I agree. And the TTIP is a good example. It has been negotiated in secret with representatives of the US and EU as well as the business world (but no other groups or citizens). It's proponents claim it will bring a bunch of jobs, 160 000 for all of Europe! Which sounds great, but it's apparently only a tiny rise in the time frame it is supposed to happen, and on top this is the most optimistic estimate (by those with the most interest to see it happen). The EU Commission leaked PR strategy stated to "focus on the positive" effects, completely ignoring any and all criticism. Things such as "invester protection" undermine the ability of countries to implement legislation restricting business efforts in any way (including environmental regulations, labour laws etc.). It's an elite project, for elites by elites to put it simply.

I try to remain open minded. So as I said before, what one should do when creating a new model is think of how it can be exploited. I would like to hear what you believe would be an effective solution as well as how it will be corrupted by those who have leverage. Keeping in mind physical resources are not the only things that can be exploited. Skills and social capital (celebrities) also give an edge as well. Including motivating factors that allow for psychological feedback and a sense of agency.
Response forthcoming, I'll edit it in later. Just too busy right now to write more, sorry!

[Red Mage Black]

Honestly? I'm perfectly A-okay with barter system. I use it all the time, since I have no cash to spend and it works for me. I do a service for someone or trade them something I think is of equal value and we both get what we want, pretty simple stuff. I completely agree it's a fair system practiced with the right oversight.

When I first read about Anarchism and how it functions, I thought it was a pretty neat idea. Everybody works, no leaders and everybody contributes their fair share to the well being of the community. This doesn't just mean food, but defense and education as well. That sounds like a pretty self sufficient society to me.

However, maybe I have the wrong idea? Its been a while since I read up on Anarchism, but I do remember it sounded fantastic at the time. What's 'too bad' about it is changing everything to fit what needs to be done(Communist-Anarchism), as you'd need to convince people it's a better alternative to what we have now. That means taking on not only the media, but political pundits and politicians alike. People I'm sure who would rather keep their cushy jobs that Capitalism afforded them.

I've yet to see an idea that wasn't shot down due to Communism's previous incarnations and the people that headed them, but I'd be interested to see it in its purest form. As for Anarchy, people seem to visualize mass riots and burning buildings. I'm not sure I agree with letting people police themselves either. Since all laws are made by people, they're not perfect. If we're going to use an example, the United States is a big one. It goes for quite a few countries, but it's the one everyone seems to use as a measuring stick. So, how do you enforce law without placing anyone a station above their fellows?

[Osterbaum]

Honestly? I'm perfectly A-okay with barter system.

A-okay indeed! In an anarchist or communist (communism =/= leninism/stalinism) society some kind of barter would no doubt be going on, especially at first before there is time and experience to create something more suitable for meeting the needs of everyone. Besides that there are some ideas such as mentioned in the wikipedia article I link to in the first post.

However, maybe I have the wrong idea? Its been a while since I read up on Anarchism, but I do remember it sounded fantastic at the time.
You seem to have a right idea. Everybody participates, or at least is given the possibility to participate and be heard, in all matters affecting them. This means that emphasis is put on the opinions and ideas of those most affected by a given situation or decision, while still taking all perspectives into account. Often it can mean some kind of consensus decision making.

Anarcho-communism can mostly be summed up with the phrase "From each according to ability, to each according to need". So for example basic necessities like food and water are distributed equally, according to household size and composition for example. Other non-essential resources would be distributed as fairly as possible as well, though the concept of personal property (as opposed to private property) usually pops up here. The idea is that you can still own stuff, things that maybe you made yourself or traded from someone that are more or less of a personal nature would still be considered yours. However you would not be allowed to lay claim to a piece of land or natural resources for example. A house is yours as long as you use it, but if you move away, someone else can move in; maybe you agreed to it with someone specific or maybe the community at large (in this case the neighbourhood, village, town, city) decided who needed it the most.

There is a lot more to cover of course, but luckily there is a mostly excellent source: The Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/AnAnarchistFAQ). It answers pretty much any question you might have.

What's 'too bad' about it is changing everything to fit what needs to be done(Communist-Anarchism), as you'd need to convince people it's a better alternative to what we have now. That means taking on not only the media, but political pundits and politicians alike. People I'm sure who would rather keep their cushy jobs that Capitalism afforded them.
You are absolutely right, it is tremendously difficult. A lot of powerful people benefit from capitalism and they'd propably like to keep it that way. It just so happens that these same people usually control a large part of the "ideological machinery" i.e. media and just generally control the framework of any large scale political dialogue. It is a struggle, mostly a class struggle at that, but ultimately a struggle for a better, more humane and environmentally sustainable society for everyone. Especially for the last reason I believe it is necessary to dismantle capitalism! A task so huge will never be easy! But it has to start somewhere!

If not you, then who? If not now, then when? (Hopefully not alone, of course!)

So, how do you enforce law without placing anyone a station above their fellows?
Again, not an easy task and one that will surely change our approach to it once we learn more by building an alternative! But to your question and Aero's as well, I direct you to this part of the FAQ: What would an anarchist society look like? (http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionI)

---------- Post added at 04:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:46 PM ----------

I'll be back with more later!

[Aerozord]

Just to be clear, you say "I create something so its mine" well what if that thing created isn't physical? Is intellectual property taken away from the creator or do they have the right to trade their idea for other things? If it is traded can they continue trading it, or does the new person have all claims to it now?

[Kim]

Intellectual property should be public property.

[RawBot]

I'm reading this late and a lot has been said to which I would have replied. But it's piled up and I don't feel like taking the trash out today :p

I'll just move on the discussion instead.

Out of curiosity, how would the Anarcho-communism you described work large scale ? How would it sustain large and complex projects like creating and spreading new technology, or doing heavy investment like ITER ?
If there is no State AND no money, which do have a purpose, what would fill their purpose ?


Edit: The FAQ you provided is so huge, and one needs to go through several different parts in search for answers to unmentioned questions. It's probably hard for you to reply to every single thing as well. Oh well! Knowledge isn't supposed to be easy to grab! I'll pass this once and remain ignorant on the inner details of Anarcho-communism.
I'm sticking to "state capitalism under a healthy democracy"! (with money :rolleyes:)

[Osterbaum]

What Kim said. You come up with an idea, maybe for some new technology for example. Why wouldn't you share it with everyone? Your needs are already covered, you don't need to make extra income by privatising and selling your idea.

If there is no State AND no money, which do have a purpose, what would fill their purpose ?
The gist of the anarchist critique of these things is that both are unneccesary. They have a purpose, but that purpose is to (violently) enforce existing property laws and faciliatate capitalist commerce, respectively. Both things would be unneccesary in a non-capitalist society, especially an anarchist or communist one.

So how would it work large scale? I couldn't give you a detailed answer, because details you can only work out by actually building something new. But generally speaking, not sure if I already mentioned having a sort of federal system. That is, decision making from below with ever increasing levels of organization from neighbourhood or village to town or county to area. Or maybe it's based on industries and work instead of geography, or maybe it's based on both simultaneously.

To give the simples example, you and your fellow members of say a neighbourhood council elect your recallable representatives to the city level council, where they do the same to the next level of organization. All decisions come from below, but co-ordination is a must so that mostly falls on the higher levels of organization.

The FAQ is divided into parts, which makes it easier to find the answers to specific questions. But yeah, it is pretty huge. That's what I love about it though, it's so extensive and useful.

Here's part 5 out of 6 of a documentary series on the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). It deals mostly with the beginning of the creation of a new society within the anarchist dominated areas of Catalonia and Aragon. It might give some idea to the immediate changes in moving from capitalism to an anarchist society, but by no means does it represent achieving the end goals. It was also a time of war, so that always complicates things.

XN5TbqzxQBg

Also part 1 of G.A. Cohens nice, relatively short piece on why capitalism sucks. Part 2 can be found in the doobledoo (or whatever).
yA9WPQeow9c

[RawBot]

I can't discuss a book I didn't read.

But I've had glimpses on various aspects of Anarchy over time, in different places and different cultures, and possibly my understanding of it doesn't correspond to what's described in the FAQ.

With that disclaimer, I came to the assumption that an Anarchist community would always fall apart and automatically spawn another system because it assumes everyone can be satisfied. Unfortunately no, there will always be unsatisfied people with a drive for this and that, and an ability to move people along one way or another.


Edit in reply to your edit: Thanks for taking the time. I'll spend some time to dig your answer and the FAQ as I go - it will take a long time though, because digging political systems necessitates a lot more than reading a book !

[Osterbaum]

Well we already have the technological and logistical capacity to satisfy the basic needs of everyone alive. The idea is to give people the ability not only to voice their dissatisfaction, but to collectively act on it by directing their community.

Anarchy is often used as a synonym for chaos. This has been a very intentional mainstream redefinition of the term, starting at least as far back as late 1800s. As an anarchist I would reply that capitalism is a lot more chaotic, where as anarchists are interested in creating a more socially and environmentally susteinable system.

[RawBot]

Well we already have the technological and logistical capacity to satisfy the basic needs of everyone alive. The idea is to give people the ability not only to voice their dissatisfaction, but to collectively act on it by directing their community.
Guess I'll have to dig the FAQ some more to see how it proposes to do it then :)

Anarchy is often used as a synonym for chaos.
That is the simplistic view you give to children based on etymology, yeah :)
The Anarchy I know fails in a similar way as various experiments that ran across the last two centuries: It falls apart due to being a construction of the mind and as such, fails to fit human nature properly.

For a different society to exist in a sustainable way, there needs to be a very slow evolution from the starting point, and it needs to be very much based on contemporary culture and thought process. Proposing right away what the end result should look like is unrealistic and there's most likely no way it will gather people around the concept, no matter how shiny it looks on paper.

You can't just plan a society like you can an architecture. So instead of focusing on a doctrine that we try to apply, we can only move one step at a time and attempt to solve issues as they come.

Here, it would be fixing capitalism one speck at a time by proposing a narrow solution to a narrow problem. (Narrow but easy to describe and rally around.)
Random examples: Women should be allowed to vote. The English monopoly on salt should end in India. We must protect ourselves from terrorist attacks.

It seems to be the only realistic way to generate a somewhat reliable evolution of a society. Anything more drastic and all odds are up. Heck, even those 3 simple examples have had completely unpredicted results, so imagine more serious shit like people overthrowing a government all at once ? You just can't know what you'll get, all odds are up. And that's just a revolution, i.e. it's basically destroying, which everyone knows is a hundred times simpler than creating.

Of course utopias are still interesting and useful, like with any research you never know what benefit you can get from just researching.

[Osterbaum]

That is the simplistic view you give to children based on etymology, yeah
To my knowledge the etymology of the word is; Greek an = against + archy = hierarchy so against hierarchies. Most anarchists would tell you that anarchism is anti-capitalist because capitalism creates and maintains hierarchies.

The Anarchy I know fails in a similar way as various experiments that ran across the last two centuries: It falls apart due to being a construction of the mind and as such, fails to fit human nature properly.
Human nature is a complicated, nebulous and abstract concept. You see it trotted around to justify a lot of things. But just like "animal nature", human nature is directed and molded by the world we live in, by our experiences since birth. So it's not surprise then that in a world based on greed and competition, people might often turn out greedy and competitive. Change the way our society encourages and directs people and you change the way people view the world and act in it.

You can't just plan a society like you can an architecture. So instead of focusing on a doctrine that we try to apply, we can only move one step at a time and attempt to solve issues as they come.
Agreed! We need a revolution, but a revolution isn't an event it's a process. We do however need some kind of end goal, such as an anarchist society, in my opinion. It's impossible to make a ready blueprint because things will change on our way there and we will no doubt encounter unexpected challenges. But there must be some kind of goal, if for nothing else then to motivate us to move forward.

Here, it would be fixing capitalism one speck at a time by proposing a narrow solution to a narrow problem.
This I do not agree with. Capitalism isn't broken, it's functioning the way it's supposed to. There's no fixing what isn't broken. Reform isn't useless, but it is not enough to achieve a different society. A system will never reform itself out of existence, the rich will never allow us to vote their wealth away and states will never relinquish their monopoly on violence if we simply ask them to.

[Overcast]

I feel as though the Internet as a medium serves as an effective means of maintaining an anarchistic way of living since it opens up lines of communication and record of action. Never before has the world been so capable of allowing an individual to create and speak than now, and it could rise to the creation of alternative economies based on the way Internet society functions.

For its credit it responds to why people would come together for a large scale project. Because they want to be known. On the Internet popularity is power, and while any one action may not ultimately increase your reputation with everyone, a suitably distinctive action that calls to certain people can net you support in the future. I can dig a socially fluid meritocracy as a subtle inspiration to do anything.

[Kim]

There are several problems with meritocracy, tho.

1. Meritocracy requires hierarchy. Hierarchy's are based on a selfishness of wanting better than what others have. People will try to maintain their position in that hierarchy or to elevate themselves in it. I believe once you make that sort of selfishness a necessary part of things functioning, you will inevitably have people trying to use their position in the hierarchy to make it harder for people lower in it from advancing. A level playing field is actively against their interests.

2. Ideas of what "merits" a higher position in a particular meritocracy are going to have biases. Certain things will be overvalued. Others will be undervalued. You can try and change this, but will ultimately only change which things are overvalued and which are undervalued.

3. To restate from my addled memory, "Meritocracy only measures whether or not someone has crossed the finish line, not how far they had to run to get there." An "ideal" meritocracy should value things according to the work it took to accomplish it or create it or whatever. However, in practice, that's not how things work, and people in society have disadvantages and others advantages. There is no government or economic system that changes this, because these things can be completely out of our control. A meritocracy would end up valuing achievement over the individual work it took to achieve that.

I know I make a lot of assumptions above without really citing evidence that things would necessarily happen this way, so if you disagree I'm not gonna get bent out of shape or anything over it.

I would also like to note that while the internet has increased the ability of anyone to have a voice and be visible, it still favors existing hierarchies a lot, meaning the loudest voices are very often those already benefited by the existing hierarchies.

[Overcast]

I will not disagree I don't think. Though I like to think that a person in that kind of situation who achieves elevation in hierarchy will have to maintain their position via continued achievement, similar to the publish or perish idea present in active science degrees. Unlike in the current hierarchy where the capital you have earned allows you to maintain your presence without needing to produce anything worthwhile, this actually needs you to continue giving to the net total or else be tossed to the wayside by the next big achiever.

I also recognize that biases are present, its why I said that while your actions may not always please anyone, if you can get the attention of enough people you gain a certain degree of power based on your reputation. Unlike now where there is a sort of forcible universal valuing system in the sort of loose meritocracy I'm thinking of the value is instead based more on that support, and it becomes difficult to claim something as over/undervalued when it can be both depending on who you talk to. That bias would be a very important part of what makes the system work because people will be inclined to chase things they are actually interested in and develop with others who are equally driven about it.

Which of course also leads to potential troubles when we consider the ignorant. But the Internet always allows that as a risk.

As for the work/achievement appreciation ratio, it is difficult to really convey that even now. Updated crowdfunding projects like Patreon allow for you to pay the individual by the progress they make in producing material, in a similar way I imagine that might be an interesting means of valuing what work goes into projects. The Internet allows us to have a semi-constant oversight about progress, and sharing progress of a project not only gives a bit of quality control, it also keeps interest up for the potential finished product.

Though at the same time it is difficult to really appreciate the work put in if the end result ends up somewhat lacking. To work very hard toward a failure can be a very upsetting thing, I know I've done it, and as much as you'd like people to validate the hard work you put in to TRY, people are going to judge you for what you didn't do more often than not. That is something I am unsure about solving, because I don't see much of an alternative.

The funny thing about the most powerful voices in the Internet today is they seem to be on both sides of the fence of the existing hierarchies thing. From the Chairman of the FCC, to coders who maintain peer to peer filesharing by breaking encryptions, to non profit foundations that attempt to protect the rights of those who use the internet, to big name corporate entities that control the speed of the internet you receive. It is literally all over the place and often based on the amount of impact they have over the current state of affairs, and right now I'll admit the side of LAW is pretty scary to me because while the side of CHAOS is doing the best it can to maintain the status quo or even improve it, the restrictions being shadowed over the horizon by those people who are empowered by the hierarchies you are talking about are not anything to joke about. We are on the tipping point of seeing which voices matter most, the collective masses or the highest on the pyramid, and the end result could cause a pretty big ruckus.

[Fifthfiend]

1. Meritocracy requires hierarchy. Hierarchy's are based on a selfishness of wanting better than what others have. People will try to maintain their position in that hierarchy or to elevate themselves in it. I believe once you make that sort of selfishness a necessary part of things functioning, you will inevitably have people trying to use their position in the hierarchy to make it harder for people lower in it from advancing. A level playing field is actively against their interests.


Like social justice, except with merit

[Azisien]

Aristocracies are almost as old as recorded human history. As soon as tiny villages became towns, nobles and kings appeared (comparable to today's celebrities, CEOs, politicians, etc, or HEY today's nobles and kings/queens). Hierarchies are even older. These are ancient beasts that are far more pervasive than little toddler capitalism, and though I loathe to suggest it, I believe have some part in human nature.

On the bright side, current technology does allow us to theoretically achieve new heights that did not exist in previous eras of human history. Alternatives to capitalism already exist, but we might have to get a little more innovative for the bigger two.

[Osterbaum]

But hierarchies are not universal in human history, not at all. There's also a big difference between someone being an authority on something and having authority over others.

The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or individual.

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. [...]

I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labor. I receive and I give — such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination.

[Azisien]

Universal, no. Ancient, common, and prone to arising independently of one another in early civilizations and continuing in various forms for nigh on ten thousand years, yes.

I love that quote, it makes much more sense to me than the status quo and it's basically how I try to work with people in my own life (though I am, of course, trapped in a variety of hierarchies due to existing in this society of mine).

I would fear that, even if we temporarily broke hierarchies up completely (there is no current solution on how to do even this monumental, global task), they would arise again anyway because maybe not everyone or even most, but SOME one would want authority over others.

[Kim]

But hierarchies are not universal in human history, not at all. There's also a big difference between someone being an authority on something and having authority over others.

One thing I'm curious about is like management and stuff. Because I think managing things is an important role. Overseeing what goes on in a particular area or system. Like say managing a team of construction workers.

My concern is basically would such positions maintain hierarchy? Are there other ways of doing things or would we just have to have to work to keep that from becoming a hierarchy?

[Osterbaum]

Universal, no. Ancient, common, and prone to arising independently of one another in early civilizations and continuing in various forms for nigh on ten thousand years, yes.
Prone maybe. To be honest, I don't know as much about the origins, history, development and theory of hierarchical social relations as I'd like. Being an anarcho-communist and all I accept and support the anti-hierarchical approach of anarchism but have also concentrated more on the communist and therefore specifically anti-capitalist side.

I do how ever know that there's a bunch of research into less or completely non-hierarchical societies. Often these are hunter-gatherer societies. But there are contemporary examples where people have strived towards a horizontally organized, non-hierarchical society (see for example the Zapatistas in Mexico). At the very least we can create a society structured in such a way as to prevent the institutionalisation of hierarchy.

I also know there's a bunch of people to whom civilization is basically the origin of hierarchy.

I would fear that, even if we temporarily broke hierarchies up completely (there is no current solution on how to do even this monumental, global task), they would arise again anyway because maybe not everyone or even most, but SOME one would want authority over others.
Again, instead of the current system which not only maintains but even encourages existing hierarchies (and new ones), we create a society which does the opposite. True economic equality would abolish most hierarchies then and there. Not just the most obvious ones, like rich vs. poor and boss vs. worker. But also any other hierarchy that is made possible by a material dependence on the person excercising authority.

And again, I wouldn't necessarily count it as a hierarchy if parents try to educate their kids or if people listen to the suggestions of the person most knowledgeble on a given subject.

I love that quote,
It's kinda like how in the matter of building a solid gaming rig, I defer to the authority of the Azisien.

One thing I'm curious about is like management and stuff. Because I think managing things is an important role. Overseeing what goes on in a particular area or system. Like say managing a team of construction workers.

My concern is basically would such positions maintain hierarchy? Are there other ways of doing things or would we just have to have to work to keep that from becoming a hierarchy?
Personally I most support a system of (workers) councils for co-ordinating production and the running of society. I believe they wouldn't maintain or create a hierarchy, or at least that it's possible to design them in such a way as to minimize that. I mentioned before the idea of these councils electing instantly recalable delegates to represent them in higher levels of co-ordination. Instantly recalable is key here, because that way we prevent these representatives from establishing themselves as a power above us, as managers.

[Kim]

Okay, I guess just like, when coordinating between multiple groups it can be useful to have someone overseeing the multiple groups and overseeing things is itself a skill unique from the work being done. I think a council thing could work. I bring this up not as a criticism just as, "I'm curious about this aspect cuz I haven't thought about it before."

[Osterbaum]

"Won't anarchist society be vulnerable to the power hungry?" (http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionI5#seci513)

Here's a few excerts from that part of the FAQ:

The only way in which a state of Anarchy can be obtained is for each man [or woman] who is oppressed to act as if he [or she] were at liberty, in defiance of all authority to the contrary . . . In practical fact, territorial extension is necessary to ensure permanency to any given individual revolution. In speaking of the Revolution, we signify the aggregate of so many successful individual and group revolts as will enable every person within the revolutionised territory to act in perfect freedom . . . without having to constantly dread the prevention or the vengeance of an opposing power upholding the former system . . . Under these circumstance it is obvious that any visible reprisal could and would be met by a resumption of the same revolutionary action on the part of the individuals or groups affected, and that the maintenance of a state of Anarchy in this manner would be far easier than the gaining of a state of Anarchy by the same methods and in the face of hitherto unshaken opposition . . . They have it in their power to apply a prompt check by boycotting such a person and refusing to help him with their labour or to willing supply him with any articles in their possession. They have it in their power to use force against him. They have these powers individually as well as collectively. Being either past rebels who have been inspired with the spirit of liberty, or else habituated to enjoy freedom from their infancy, they are hardly to rest passive in view of what they feel to be wrong.

An anarchist society, by empowering all, would make it more difficult, not less, for a would-be leader to gain power -- few people, if any, would be willing to sacrifice and negate themselves for the benefit of another.

Ethical behaviour would become the norm in an anarchist community; those people who act ethically would be rewarded by the standing they achieve in the community and by others being more than happy to work with and aid them. People who cut corners, try to exercise power over others, refuse to co-operate as equals or otherwise act in an unethical manner would lose their standing in an anarchist society.

There's also a text talking about the dangers of invisible hierarchies in horizontally organized activist groups, but I can't for the life of me remember what it's titled. I'll post it if I remember the title, because it's a good critical look at how informal hierarchies within a group are still hierarchies. Recognizing these things and learning how to combat them is essential for ever achieving a society free of hierarchy.

[Kim]

I would love to read that text, as I've seen that issue arise in communities I've participated in.

[Osterbaum]

I'll try to digg it up. I know I've seen it posted by at least Anarchist Memes on facebook. Maybe it's on their forums too... In the meanwhile, this interlude:

[Red Mage Black]

I'm not sure this is worth listening to, because of what Oster posted, but I thought I'd toss out my own shot at the whole 'management' thing.

You're talking about someone like a Foreman, right? Well, I think it might come down to the person with the most work experience. However, like that quote explains the bootmaker(Cobbler?), architect and savant, people might respect and abide by the knowledge and character of said senior worker, they are by no means without their own right to disagree with them. So, it sounds less like management at this point and more like advisory(as is the same with oversight?) to me. Where everybody takes tips and pointers from the person with more experience, but are by no means obligated to use or live by them.

Of course, this is only my take on it. So, don't take it as truth. If it sounds redundant towards the end, I apologize. Uh, as for the councils thing, I don't really have a take on that. I think the idea behind it would be to prevent someone from creating loopholes in the system, however that would work.

EDIT: Of course, now this thread is also moving faster than I anticipated and now I could be 'completely' wrong?

[Satan's Onion]

Like social justice, except with merit

Fifth, man, you've just been warned about this. This is entirely unwarranted. She hasn't even said anything to you. Maybe some time off will help you cool down so you don't swipe at people like this.

[Osterbaum]

So, it sounds less like management at this point and more like advisory(as is the same with oversight?) to me. Where everybody takes tips and pointers from the person with more experience, but are by no means obligated to use or live by them.
That's pretty much the gist of it.

Also, I'd just like to point out that while I've been talking about/advocating anarcho-communism, it is not the only strand of anarchism.

There's collectivist anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism):

...money would be abolished to be replaced with labour notes and workers' salaries would be determined, in democratic organizations of voluntary membership, based on job difficulty and the amount of time they contributed to production. These salaries would be used to purchase goods in a communal market.[2] This contrasts with anarcho-communism where wages would be abolished, and where individuals would take freely from a storehouse of goods "to each according to his need."

In addition I also consider myself a council communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism), which is a big part of why I emphasize councils as a form of organisation. There are other ideas about organisation within anarchism and the broader radical left, such as anarcho-syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism).

Anarcho-syndicalism (also referred to as revolutionary syndicalism[1]) is a theory of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and, with that control, influence broader society. Syndicalists consider their economic theories a strategy for facilitating worker self-activity and as an alternative co-operative economic system with democratic values and production centered on meeting human needs.

Anarchism being a pretty plural ideology and all, usually anarchists accept some combination of the different strands of anarchism. And to be sure, they have a lot in common with the one principle unifying all of the being anti-hierarchy (and consequently anti-capitalism; you might have heard of "anarcho-capitalists" but that term is an oxymoron seeing as a capitalist mode of production inevitably creates and maintains hierarchies based on wealt). For example I'd be at least willing to accept some ideas of collectivism as a step towards an anarcho-communist society or could be possibly see some forms of syndicalism co-existing with a council system of organisation.

Finally a lot of people identify themselves as queer-anarchists (black & pink) or green-anarchists (black & green) or anarcha-feminists (black & purple) etc. This is to put an emphasis on combating a specific form of oppression, not at the expense of other fights (solidarity, after all you know) but to ensure each gets the attention they deserve.

[Kim]

I think of these two I'd prefer anarcho-communism

[Aerozord]

A thought occurred to me during breakfast, because if there is one thing I have learned to appreciate its the simple pleasure of eating. Which is admittedly harder for me since my personal preferences are difficult. See not only does food vary in quality objectively, but also subjectively.

Now there is enough food for everyone if by food you mean digestible biomass. There isn't enough filet for everyone, the cow for example is not uniform some cuts are better than others and individual cows vary as well. Then there is the matter of preparation, something that can take skill and affects the taste of the food. So you then have the added issue of skill altering its quality.

Unless you render all food into a uniform gruel some people will get higher quality food than others. Suppose you could allot it, so you might eventually get the high quality stuff but that eliminates choice so you might as well have gruel in my opinion. Of course you cant trade for it either because then those with more marketable skills will leverage it to eat better than others regularly and you've created a secondary capitalist market.

[Premmy]

One thing I'm curious about is like management and stuff. Because I think managing things is an important role. Overseeing what goes on in a particular area or system. Like say managing a team of construction workers.

My concern is basically would such positions maintain hierarchy? Are there other ways of doing things or would we just have to have to work to keep that from becoming a hierarchy?
I was discussing different military cultures with a friend and he brought up that The US. system of beating "take and follow orders" into the heads of soldiers runs counter to Other Countries(Australia in his case) system of "Take, Consider, and then follow if best". It makes me think that the value of management or overseeing is inversely relative to the education and training of the people being overseen. After a certain level of widespread education and skill, coupled with automated systems of organization, The people giving orders can have a less and less valuable/powerful role in things.

[Osterbaum]

Speaking of military cultures, there's the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine#Orga nisation)

The structure of the RIAU was not that of a traditional army. Instead, the RIAU was a democratic militia based on soldier committees and general assemblies. Officers in the ordinary sense were abolished; instead, all commanders were elected and recallable. In theory, the RIAU relied on voluntary enlistment instead of conscription, however in practice conscription was used.[17] Regular mass assemblies were held to discuss policy. The army was based on self-discipline, and all of the army’s disciplinary rules were approved by soldier assemblies.

Unless you render all food into a uniform gruel some people will get higher quality food than others. Suppose you could allot it, so you might eventually get the high quality stuff but that eliminates choice so you might as well have gruel in my opinion. Of course you cant trade for it either because then those with more marketable skills will leverage it to eat better than others regularly and you've created a secondary capitalist market.
I don't really see it as a huge problem if everyone doesn't get to eat filet mignon, as long as everyone gets enough food and there isn't an involuntary imbalance between what different people in different places are eating. Number one important thing is that nobody starves of course. The goal isn't to create a society where everyone gets the same all the time to such an extent that things will deliberately be made worse so that nobody gets their feelings hurt.

And you can indeed trade food between communities, in fact it might even be necessary. This trade just wouldn't be based on making a profit and thus it wouldn't be based on money.

You propably picked filet as a random example, but I'm going to use the opportunity to point out that moving towards a more vegetarian diet might be necessary to achieve a society that is environmentally sustainable. I know a lot of anarchists specifically big on animal liberation would want to see the explotation of animals (speciesm) dissappear alltogether.

[Aerozord]

I don't really see it as a huge problem if everyone doesn't get to eat filet mignon, as long as everyone gets enough food and there isn't an involuntary imbalance between what different people in different places are eating. Number one important thing is that nobody starves of course. The goal isn't to create a society where everyone gets the same all the time to such an extent that things will deliberately be made worse so that nobody gets their feelings hurt.

And you can indeed trade food between communities, in fact it might even be necessary. This trade just wouldn't be based on making a profit and thus it wouldn't be based on money.

You propably picked filet as a random example, but I'm going to use the opportunity to point out that moving towards a more vegetarian diet might be necessary to achieve a society that is environmentally sustainable. I know a lot of anarchists specifically big on animal liberation would want to see the explotation of animals (speciesm) dissappear alltogether.

Then you have heirarchy, those that get filet and those that dont. Now I wont get into why "money" will exist in all systems because its a pain to try and get people to understand the concept of "value". So I'll keep it as a pure trading system for the sake of argument.

Say I am a sculptor able to create great art people want. That makes my art valuable, people want it, people will trade for it. Now what do they trade? Food is one example I gave, another can be clothing also made of rarer materials like silk, objects made of rarer materials such as jewelry. My art is made of mundane materials, all I really lose out of it is time but can amass things that are scarce by trading my creations.

Contrast to a writer, whom you said would not have copyright laws to grant him ownership of his work. So upon creating it anyone can take it and copy it or alter it without providing him anything. Thus leaving him with base food, clothing, ect that everyone else has.

These are of course mere examples. Think there is a way to keep a sculptor from amassing wealth, sure ok. What about other fields, pretty much any entertainer could leverage their talents to get things, or athletes? Then you have people that are simply charismatic and know how to manipulate people into giving them things they want.

---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------

Oh and this also creates employees and servants. "Hey I'll trade you this sculpture if you agree to be my chef/drive/whatever for a week"

[Osterbaum]

Then you have heirarchy, those that get filet and those that dont.
Eating filet is a hierarchy that exists between humans and animals, but not between humans. Those who eat filet do not exercise any authority over those who don't because of it thus not a hierarchy.

Now I wont get into why "money" will exist in all systems because its a pain to try and get people to understand the concept of "value". So I'll keep it as a pure trading system for the sake of argument.
Money hasn't always existed. And I understand value well enough to know that the source of value is labor.

Contrast to a writer, whom you said would not have copyright laws to grant him ownership of his work. So upon creating it anyone can take it and copy it or alter it without providing him anything. Thus leaving him with base food, clothing, ect that everyone else has.
The idea there is that the author or creator of something participates in the running of society and in the work available as much as anyone else. However there would be more free time for everyone to devote to the things they love doing. You wouldn't make music or write a book because you needed to survive because your needs are already met. You would do it simply because you wanted to do it. And sure, other people might enjoy your book or song and they'd be free to copy and spread it. They couldn't just claim it to be theirs though.

[Aerozord]

You are missing the point, or maybe not and I'm mistaken about your goals. I am saying, you will have wealthy. You will have those that have a higher standard of living than other people. That free time is not spent in leisure, that free time is spent on producing goods and services to earn you wealth because your job is no longer able to do that. However performing for others or making items for trade will. You might be thinking "why wont they just be content as they are" because when you see someone thats living better than you thanks to their excellent singing voice you'll go "hey, I want me some of that, how do I get that?"

You said you still have personal property, you still own things, and some people will own more than others. The desire for wealth was never about meeting base needs, if it was we wouldn't even have an upper class. Its about a simple desire for more than you have, its about status.

Speaking of didn't you read my last little bit? You will have hierarchy because people will trade goods for skilled labor. Thus you will have a contracted for services. You could make this illegal but there would be no way to enforce it because its hard to prove thats the reason and neither party wants it to stop.

This leads me to the money thing. I didn't say money has always existed, I said money will (as in eventually) always exist. Remember we used to have a bartering system. People of exceptional skill will start trading in items of higher scarcity to simple save room. Ideally materials that are uniform and thus can be easily divided to trade back. Such as gold or silver. As this becomes more common a standard is created based on the metal. The issue with this however is its TOO valuable. Its hard to subdivide gold enough to trade for a sandwich. Even a high end one you'd be dealing with less than a milligram. So it becomes easier to liquify those assets with an independent party who can give you bills of sale. People then begin trading these bills instead of the gold itself. It has the extra advantages of giving people a shared reference point and making it easier for people to trade services for goods since the one they are providing the service for doesn't need to present the same good. This is why we call them dollar "bills". Its a bill representing your ownership of one dollar worth of gold.

Value isn't labor, value is resources. Not just physical resources like wood or stone but abstract ones too. Energy, time, skill. Not everyone is created equal, some people have talents or learned skills others dont, this gives their services more value than others. By trading their service plus the added value of their skill they get more than someone without that skill. Keeping the sculptor example. A sculptor has clay which he shapes into a work of art. He will then trade this sculpture for more clay plus something else, and repeat this to continue to get more goods and services. You'd recognize this as "profit" and I've seen nothing in your description from stopping this. In practice this would be anachro-capitalism.