Libertarian Socialism

benway

So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state.

Hayek? Rand? Nozick? Ron Paul?

That's actually V.I. Lenin, Vladimir Illich Ulyanov, in The State and Revolution, where he argued, following Marx, that a proletarian revolution would lead to such a profound shift in the economic system that the state would "wither away". Of course, we all know that he changed his tune once he got a taste of power, which should be a warning to all utopian visionaries.

These days, libertarian socialism seems like a contradiction in terms, with the right having claimed a virtual monopoly on the rhetoric of freedom, and claiming, unjustifiably in my view, to be the true torch-carriers for classic liberalism, the likes of Adam Smith, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, etc.

However, libertarianism and anti-statism has a far longer tradition on the left. In 1887, Karl Fischer put it that:

Every anarchist is a socialist but every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist.

Even in 1970, Noam Chomsky, today's most prominent libertarian socialist, could sketch the ideological landscape in terms of classical liberalism, libertarian socialism, state socialism and state capitalism.

Today, libertarian socialism is almost invisible in mainstream discourse, at least in the Western world, outside of Spain, The idea seems to have gone to the electric chair with Sacco and Vanzetti, squeezed out between the state socialist and capitalist behemoths.

So, what's it about? My reading is that it, in common with today's "libertariansm", libertarian socialism calls for minimal state intervention, and freedom of action extending to those actions that do not infringe upon the rights of others.

Crucially it differs in its insistence that social organisation should be strictly non-hierarchical, and in terms of the role of labour and the economy. In common with the Marxists, libertarian socialists believe that the proletariat should own the means of production - that no-one should be merely a cog in someone else's machine, that labour should be meaningful and personal, "not only a livelihood but life's prime want", per Marx. While it is an individualistic philosophy, the right to property is subordinate to the rights of human beings, as Oscar Wilde put it:

The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely anyone at all escapes...

...Socialism, Communism, or whatever one chooses to call it, by converting private property into public wealth, and substituting co-operation for competition, will restore society to its proper condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and insure the material well-being of each member of the community. It will, in fact, give Life its proper basis and its proper environment...

...With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.

It's quite hard to get a grip on libertarian socialism for four reasons, I think. Firstly, there aren't well funded think-tanks or plump academics to formalise, disseminate, and sell the idea, as "libertarianism" has in abundance. Secondly, there are a bewildering array of shades of libertarian socialism - anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, collectivist anarchism, anarchist communism. I suppose that this is to be expected in a movement that emphasises freedom of thought above all else, and it's reasonable to assume that the non-hierarchical nature of libertarian socialism doesn't much lend itself to mass organisation. Thirdly, these ideas, as above, were squeezed between the two great ideologies of the last century, the Spanish experience is a poignant testament to this, and they don't much lend themselves to power grabbers, either - what nascent despot will promote non-hierarchical organisation? Finally, one of the great failings of the left is that we're really good at critique, not so good at proposing workable alternatives - seems to be a problem with the Occupy movement, for example, that while they've nailed the failings of capitalism, albeit in slightly hysterical terms, in my view, they have yet to outline a vision of their own.

I haven't really had many dealings with these ideas for years, I've tended to dismiss them as utopian, and in my dotage I tend towards more orthodox social democracy or traditional republican socialism. I find myself often becoming an unwilling apologist for state power, given my dystopian perception, rightly or wrongly, of the implications of the more fashionable "libertarian" ideals of today.

Think it'd be interesting to maybe find out more, would be great if people could suggest readings, theories, and critiques. Not exactly an expert here, so I think Chomsky's Government in the Future (pdf, youtube) and Notes on Anarchism (pdf) are as good a place to start as any.

It reflects the intuitive understanding that democracy is largely a sham when the industrial system is controlled by any form of autocratic elite, whether of owners, managers, technocrats, a vanguard party, a state bureaucracy, or whatever. Under these conditions of authoritarian domination, the classical liberal ideals which are expressed also by Marx and Bakunin and all true revolutionaries cannot be realized.

Man will, in other words, not be free to inquire and create, to develop his own potentialities to their fullest. The worker will remain a fragment of a human being, degraded, a tool in the productive process directed from above. And the ideas of revolutionary libertarian socialism, in this sense, have been submerged in the industrial societies of the past half century. The dominant ideologies have been those of state socialism and state capitalism.

KyussBishop

Had been debating in the past whether or not to make a topic on this myself, but have not researched it enough yet to make a good start at it

Libertarian Socialism does indeed have quite a wide array of variety to it (with many fractious groups), and it is very very hard to get a solid grip on; the impression I have of it, is that it holds a very interesting seed of a template for the future, but any model of practical implementation is far from complete.

The ideas behind it are interesting, but it needs a lot of work to develop it further, in both a theoretical and implementation sense; it would requires a broad redefining of the social structure, and there hasn't been a solid model found yet of how to go about doing that.

To develop on it further, would require experimentation with varieties of different social orders, probably in experimental communes or other ways of setting up distinct grounds for testing (hopefully more successful than those in the 60's/70's counterculture), but the ideas behind it are very incomplete, and practicality of it uncertain.
It's something that should become a topic of increased study in my opinion, academically and publicly, as it may turn out to be some kind of a good template for the future.


Some interesting reading there; I'll take a look when I can Appreciate anyone with more suggestions of stuff, particularly a recent well-defined book on the subject.

SupaNova

benway wrote: »

Crucially it differs in its insistence that social organisation should be strictly non-hierarchical, and in terms of the role of labour and the economy. In common with the Marxists, libertarian socialists believe that the proletariat should own the means of production - that no-one should be merely a cog in someone else's machine, that labour should be meaningful and personal, "not only a livelihood but life's prime want", per Marx.

How is it different to Marxism, rather than having things in common with it?

While it is an individualistic philosophy, the right to property is subordinate to the rights of human beings, as Oscar Wilde put it:
The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely anyone at all escapes...

...Socialism, Communism, or whatever one chooses to call it, by converting private property into public wealth, and substituting co-operation for competition, will restore society to its proper condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and insure the material well-being of each member of the community. It will, in fact, give Life its proper basis and its proper environment...

...With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.

With this quote from Oscar Wilde(and other utopian socialists) I find it hard to see why Capitalism has such a bad rep for selfishness where I have to produce what others want to consume what I want. This makes me a cog in someone else's machine as you put it.

benway

KyussBishop wrote: »

Some interesting reading there; I'll take a look when I can Appreciate anyone with more suggestions of stuff, particularly a recent well-defined book on the subject.

+1 on that, I've looked over the past few weeks, but I haven't found anything.

SupaNova wrote:

How is it different to Marxism, rather than having things in common with it?

I think it's virtually identical, open to correction, it's just that Marx has been so debased by association with the Soviet debacle, that perceptions of his thought have become synonymous with state socialism. I'm sure that Marx would have been equally critical of Soviet state oppression as he was of capitalism.

The abolition of private property seems like an impossible dream to me, and I'm not so sure about how workable non-hierarchical approaches are, either, but I'm interested to learn more. I thing I do agree wholeheartedly with is the reading of corporate structures - not production, not industry, not global trade - as an authoritarian impediment to true freedom.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

benway

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is a huge problem, probably the greatest single problem that I see with libertarian approaches - it seems blind to interpersonal power relations - Adam Curtis has a great treatment of this in the second part of All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace, focussed on 60s countercultural experiments, where "free individualism" was obligatory, and which apparently invariably ended up being dominated by bullies. I'm a starry eyed fanboy over here, but that series is so great, he managed to annoy each of libertarians, state capitalists, state socialists and Occupy types over the course of three episodes, what's not to love? Seriously, though, anyone who has any interest in big ideas should watch all his stuff, and follow his blog, whether you agree with him or not.

Permabear wrote: »

The rhetoric is quaintly Marxist. In an age when the "means of production" can be a €500 laptop in the hands of a computer programmer, how do we ensure that it is all owned by the "proletariat"?

Good question, I think the fundamental idea is that workers should have a personal interest in their labour, above and beyond alienating it for a wage - worker ownership, worker's councils, etc. I'm not at all sure that the mechanism of exchange and assignment of resources could be much better organised than a variation on the capitalist market, though.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Another good question. I suppose that worker ownership and non-hierarchical sharing of tasks is supposed to ameliorate this. Seems a bit absurd to have, say, your rocket scientist taking turns at cleaning the jacks, though.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

benway

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think that a true libertarian socialist would believe that there should be no government? I suppose the myth is that the idea of property as collective wealth should be so deeply ingrained that no-one would tolerate an individual or individuals attempting to usurp the commons? Now how exactly powerful and aggressive individuals or groups could be held in check, I do not know.

But, would it necessarily become dominated by these businesses, though? We don't know, because our societies have emerged and evolved from hierarchical power structures, it's impossible to know how well a large-scale anarcho-syndicalist, arrangement would match up with a corporation. Kibbutzim account for nearly 10% of Israel's industry, and 40% of agriculture, but I'm not sure how representative a sample that is. Not sure exactly how anarcho-syndicalist they really are, either.

It is a point that hierarchical organisations seem much better at collective action than more egalitarian arrangements - so long as the controlling mind or revolutionary council or whatever are competent. But I do think that hierarchies, power and authority are fundamentally opposed to freedom, and human development, whatever form they take.

Definitely need to read up more on their proposed approaches...

BOHtox

benway wrote: »

Hayek? Rand? Nozick? Ron Paul?

Ron Paul is not a socialist in fact he's the complete opposite

SupaNova

benway wrote: »

Good question, I think the fundamental idea is that workers should have a personal interest in their labour, above and beyond alienating it for a wage - worker ownership, worker's councils, etc.

This doesn't answer the question though, a laptop can be a means of production or a final product to be enjoyed. A single person might use it for both. There are many more examples of this. Someone has to decide what is and what isn't a means of production, how do they decide? And once decided this has to be dictated. It is utopian to believe this could be done in any other way than by force, just like Marxism.

I'm not at all sure that the mechanism of exchange and assignment of resources could be much better organised than a variation on the capitalist market, though.

Mises explained why a socialist economy could not allocate resources better than a capitalist market:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7zzH8ruLDc

Valmont

Crucially I think the sticking point is whether the powerful state could, having achieved some socialist end-point, actually relinquish its power. Looking at the various Marxist experiments around the world, I think the answer is a resounding no.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

That's fairly simplistic; from what I can tell, Libertarian Socialism opposes the use of state power in achieving ownership of the means of production (note that I don't think it is necessarily opposed to private residential property, just private commercial property i.e. private companies/factories etc.).

Part of any Libertarian Socialist model needed to complete it, is a fairly significant modification of societal morals (or so I read); an alternative enforcement in that society, might be labour action (on a principled level, possibly based on these modified morals) refusing to work or trade with (i.e. boycotting) such a company.

RichieC

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Lets not kid ourselves, in both models power will flow somewhere and become autocratic in an attempt to maintain its self. You just seem to refuse to acknowledge that in your American libertarian utopia.

The moneyed elites for all of history have been authoritarian. That would not change because we suddenly call our system libertarian.

I'm of the opinion that we have to strike a balance somewhere between the two extremes. I think were fairly close to what we should be aiming for at the moment, though we certainly need to neuter the power of those with huge amounts of money and influence. we are free in this country, with both private and public land and property.

Channel Zero

RichieC wrote: »

Lets not kid ourselves, in both models power will flow somewhere and become autocratic in an attempt to maintain its self. You just seem to refuse to acknowledge that in your American libertarian utopia.

The moneyed elites for all of history have been authoritarian. That would not change because we suddenly call our system libertarian.

I'm of the opinion that we have to strike a balance somewhere between the two extremes. I think were fairly close to what we should be aiming for at the moment, though we certainly need to neuter the power of those with huge amounts of money and influence. we are free in this country, with both private and public land and property.

Exactly Richie. That's why Chomsky, although expresses his ideals when asked, is also a realist -some pejoritavely label him a 'statist'.
He realises that government, if flushed of corporate tentacles and corruption subverting it (those which he has spent his career brilliantly pointing out), can be a voice for the people.
He thinks government should provide adequate welfare services, health care, and education etc. Statist stuff like that.

Dr Galen

Can we try and keep the tone & quality of this thread nice and high please and thanks. It's off to a good start in fairness and it'd be great if we can keep that up.

I really really really hate sounding like schoolteacher Mod but if it descends into the usual trench warfare and/or pettiness, there will be sanctions being handed out, no further warnings etc.

Cheers

DrG

benway

Just speaking for myself here, but I think a certain amount of trench warfare is actually useful and certainly inevitable, when talking about these kinds of things - I think there's a danger that over-zealous modding will lead to a stage where it'll be virtually impossible to put a dissenting opinion on a thread for fear of insulting people's sensibilities. It's in the hard questions that you find the strengths and weaknesses of a particular approach.

The "moneyed elites" thing is a valid point, in my view, there's a great quote from Tony Benn

It was presented scientifically, but then they always present it scientifically, as being the only way of doing it, "there is no alternative", and this gripped people. But at the same time you must never forget that politics is in the pursuit of an interest, and an ideology, and if the scientist helps you with the ideology you use him, if he doesn't you disregard him. So, the conflict between, as it were, Milton Friedman and Keynes was a political conflict. It wasn't really that it was people solemnly assessing the values of two sets of ideas, one benefited one group, the other benefited another.

I think that the "qui bono" question is something that should be on the table, even if people take exception to the implication, it's a critical element to the debate.

Again, I personally think that, so long as people aren't openly insulting each other personally or accusing all adherents of a certain ideology of being authoritarian monsters or baby killers, and so long as there's some verifiable basis in the materials or evidence for a viewpoint, no matter how tenuous, then it should be let slide. People should just remember to respect each other's right to hold a particular viewpoint, even if you don't much respect the viewpoint.

Also, I know this is heavy stuff and everything, and people feel strongly, but can we lighten up a little about it?

Just my 2c.

Back on topic, I had a read of Bakunin last night, seems that the difference between the anarchists and the "Marxists" (how honestly this derives from Marx himself is open to question), is that the latter believed that the state apparatus would have to be maintained for a time following the revolution, so as to destroy the bourgeoisie and to establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat", before it would wither, the anarchists wanted to destroy both the state and bourgeois domination simultaneously, quoted in the Chomsky piece:

"Take the most radical revolutionary and place him on the throne of all Russia", he said in 1870, "or give him dictatorial power, and before a year has passed he will become worse than the Czar himself."

Don't think there's any question about who's been vindicated on that one. Another great Bakunin quote, just for the hell of it:

Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.

The other thing I've been getting into is Michael Albert's participatory economics, which seems to be about the most comprehensive libertarian socialist model going at the moment:

The first value is Solidarity. Economies affect how people interact. They affect the broad attitudes people have toward one another.

The second value we want a good economy to advance is Diversity. Economies affect the range of options that people have in their work and in consumption.

The third value we want a good economy to advance is Equity. Economies affect the distribution of output among actors. They determine our budgets or what share of the social product we receive.

The fourth and final value on which Parecon is built has to do with decisions and is called self-management. Economics affect how much say each actor has in decisions about production, consumption, and allocation.

K-9

Discussion of modding and posting standards are for the feedback thread on the main forum. Better having it one place.

Eliot Rosewater

The central question is Permabear's: in the absence of a government how can a non-hierarchical society be maintained? The response that it will be socially unacceptable doesn't float, because social unacceptability is never universal prevents action. People will always buck societal norms - especially when there's money involved. In order for a non-hierarchical society to be maintained there has to be a point when a group intervenes and prevents people from "getting ahead". This is government action.

The €500 laptop example is funny, because it's me - I purchased a laptop for €499 last month and over the summer will be using it to make money, through programming, for a company. The exchange is, of course, totally voluntary. How would a libertarian socialist society prevent me from doing what I'm doing?

These questions are probably addressed in the libertarian socialist literature, and I'd be interested in chasing them up.

In a Participatory Economy for those who can work, remuneration is for effort and sacrifice.

If two people go out in the field to harvest some crop and one of them is much stronger, or has better tools, and they both work the same length of time at the same level of exertion under the same sun…then even though the one with better tools has more crop harvested at the end of the day, in a Parecon they get the same pay for their equal effort and sacrifice.

This exposes a central problem: that of incentives. If I'm not going to paid more for working better or producing something of quality, why should I bother?

KyussBishop

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The central question is Permabear's: in the absence of a government how can a non-hierarchical society be maintained?

Yes that's the central unresolved question in Libertarian Socialism I believe, that requires more research; the model of how to undergo that transition (and the actual end-game societal model) is incomplete.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The response that it will be socially unacceptable doesn't float, because social unacceptability is never universal prevents action. People will always buck societal norms - especially when there's money involved. In order for a non-hierarchical society to be maintained there has to be a point when a group intervenes and prevents people from "getting ahead". This is government action.

Well in any semi-anarchist society people will be free to do this if they want, and it is simply up to the people to oppose it (in the form of boycotting perhaps), or to put up with it.

It's perfectly possible that a capitalistic drive could take over in a particular commune or region, and become dominant there, but it is up to other regions to decide if they want to do business with them or boycott.

If other regions decide to accept and emulate that, then it's a democratic change in the functioning of society, and you don't need or want a state or any other entity to use 'violent' means to try and enforce their standards on others.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

These questions are probably addressed in the libertarian socialist literature, and I'd be interested in chasing them up.

Ya would be interested in that myself.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

This exposes a central problem: that of incentives. If I'm not going to paid more for working better or producing something of quality, why should I bother?

You will get paid more though; the more work is done and more profit is gained, the higher everyones wages will be.

SupaNova

KyussBishop wrote: »

You will get paid more though; the more work is done and more profit is gained, the higher everyones wages will be.

You won't get paid more than someone that does less work. How long could you work hard for while someone else falls asleep on the job and does very little only to be paid the same? Is it not naive to think hard workers would continually support their opposites with no extra reward?

KyussBishop

SupaNova wrote: »

You won't get paid more than someone that does less work. How long could you work hard for while someone else while someone else falls asleep on the job and does very little only to be paid the same? Is it not naive to think hard workers would continually support their opposites with no extra reward?

Here's the quoted bit:

In a Participatory Economy for those who can work, remuneration is for effort and sacrifice.

If two people go out in the field to harvest some crop and one of them is much stronger, or has better tools, and they both work the same length of time at the same level of exertion under the same sun…then even though the one with better tools has more crop harvested at the end of the day, in a Parecon they get the same pay for their equal effort and sacrifice.

In that system, if you put more exertion/effort in you (personally, directly) get more money; if you are more productive (produce more/better goods) everyone gets more money.

If you are stronger than another person, and exert yourself the same amount as them, you will be more productive than them but will get the same money as them; this is because you put in the same level of effort, you're just stronger.

The incentive to put in more effort, and be more efficient (i.e. better tools), to produce more product, is that everyones wages (including yours) are increased. If someone is asleep on the job, they are not putting in effort and won't be compensated for the time they wasted.

SupaNova

KyussBishop wrote: »

The incentive to put in more effort, and be more efficient (i.e. better tools), is that everyones wages (including yours) are increased. If someone is asleep on the job, they are not putting in effort and won't be compensated for the time they wasted.

How do you measure effort and strength and decide the output each person should meet. What if I pretend to be weak and naturally lazy when being measured for output capability?

benway

SupaNova wrote: »

You won't get paid more than someone that does less work. How long could you work hard for while someone else while someone else falls asleep on the job and does very little only to be paid the same? Is it not naive to think hard workers would continually support their opposites with no extra reward?

At base level, I think it's reasonable to suggest that workers would be more inclined to work harder when they actually own their workplace and everyone is literally working for themselves, rather than having a majority of the population working for the least amount of money their employer can get away with paying them, with the employer obtaining most of the benefits of their labour.

Marx' theory of alienation is still one of the strongest elements, anecdotally I know that when I'm in a wage relationship, I rarely overexert myself - the employer pays me the least they thinks they can get away with, and I do as little work as I think I can get away with.

I don't get paid any more for extra exertions, and slaving away for a couple of years to get a promotion and maybe €5k bump doesn't much appeal to me ... I'm personally aiming to escape the employer-employee relationship altogether, I think it's a rotten system. When I'm working on my own account, though, things are very different, and infinitely more satisfying, even though it's more of a struggle to get money in.

I think that reducing a complex reality to terms of a wage incentive is a very, very narrow view of human nature.

KyussBishop

SupaNova wrote: »

How do you measure effort and strength and decide the output each person should meet. What if I pretend to be weak and naturally lazy when being measured for output capability?

Well that's definitely a valid practical consideration with the implementation of the theory and ideals, but it's a problem in valuation rather than incentives; I would imagine most workplaces would demand a certain minimum level of effort, and you would still need some traditional leader roles in a workplace to enforce that, to a degree.

It's an equivalent problem with jobs in the current economy really, I don't have a hard-set solution to it so would need to research that more.

SupaNova

benway wrote: »

At base level, I think it's reasonable to suggest that workers would be more inclined to work harder when they actually own their workplace and everyone is literally working for themselves, rather than having a majority of the population working for the least amount of money their employer can get away with paying them, with the employer obtaining most of the benefits of their labour.

This doesn't get around the problem of incentives. We are all in joint ownership of the means of production and output which is to be split equally regardless of efforts. We are not working for ourselves but the collective.

benway

SupaNova wrote: »

This doesn't get around the problem of incentives. We are all in joint ownership of the means of production and output which is to be split equally regardless of efforts. We are not working for ourselves but the collective.

I think that you're viewing this quite narrowly. Again, the problem of incentives is by no means as clear-cut as to suggest that work rates, or productivity, must be a correlate of remuneration, simpliciter. I need to dig further into the proposed approach, but it's abundently clear that when it comes to the commons, power matters, culture matters, and that mainstream economic thinking on incentives is so distorted by the homo economicus myth as to be almost useless. Rational choice theory is dead in the water, and newer bounded rationality type approaches are very much in their infancy - I'm personally unconvinced whether they'll ever reach maturity, because I'm unconvinced that there is any unitary "human nature", beyond the imperative to provide for the very basic essentials. I personally believe that culture patterns behaviour to an extent that economic "science" will never be able to come to terms with.

Further, I don't think that libertarian socialist type approaches would necessarily entail strictly equal remuneration, there's nothing incompatible with an hourly rate or piece work in this approach, so long as remuneration remains relatively even. There's simply no justification for a manager earning a multiple of what a front line worker does, no matter how much "value" they may add ... granted, in my experience, hierarchical management tends to not so much add value as the exact opposite.

In fact, it seems to me that any scheme of remuneration, institutions of "governance" or binding rules could be agreed, so long as it was on an equal basis, and respected the rights of each participant. Norm enforcement is another issue entirely, but I think that today's real-life libertarian socialist enterprises use one-man one vote for these kinds of decisions. There's also some literature on norm emergence in relation to the commons, in particular Elinor "she won a Nobel so you have to take her seriously" Ostrom's Governing the Commons, seems to be quite similar to Hayek's Law Legislation and Liberty, albeit with an entirely different end state in mind.

Eliot Rosewater

KyussBishop wrote: »

If other regions decide to accept and emulate that, then it's a democratic change in the functioning of society, and you don't need or want a state or any other entity to use 'violent' means to try and enforce their standards on others.

In which case anarcho-socialism becomes anarcho-capitalism, it seems? In a perfectly anarcho-capitalist society individuals are free to pool together their resources and set up socialist communes. This is the opposite of the system you described, but the cumulative result is the same: pockets of socialism and pockets of capitalism. I suspect that anarcho-socialists don't really support this?

KyussBishop wrote: »

You will get paid more though; the more work is done and more profit is gained, the higher everyones wages will be.

More work in terms of time -- but there's far more to productivity than mere hours pitched in. Suppose I'm working in a factory and I see that some kind of automation system can be implemented, saving me time. Why would I bother? If the system is implemented then I'll lose hours and work and hence money, or I'll have to assume more tasks to make it up. Either way, it's not in my interest to improve.

Now, one can argue that the factory will benefit, and hence that the individual will. I think that there are two problems with this. First, people simply don't work as hard for others as they work for themselves. If the benefits are being pooled the individual benefit is reduced and so is the incentive to work. Second, if people did work hard for the factory, would that factory not become more wealthy than all the others, breaking the non-hierarchical nature of the society? Surely "equalization" doesn't stop at factory level?

Eliot Rosewater

benway wrote: »

I think that you're viewing this quite narrowly. Again, the problem of incentives is by no means as clear-cut as to suggest that work rates, or productivity, must be a correlate of remuneration, simpliciter. I need to dig further into the proposed approach, but it's abundently clear that when it comes to the commons, power matters, culture matters, and that mainstream economic thinking on incentives is so distorted by the homo economicus myth as to be almost useless. Rational choice theory is dead in the water, and newer bounded rationality type approaches are very much in their infancy - I'm personally unconvinced whether they'll ever reach maturity, because I'm unconvinced that there is any unitary "human nature", beyond the imperative to provide for the very basic essentials. I personally believe that culture patterns behaviour to an extent that economic "science" will never be able to come to terms with.

benway, it's impossible to debate with this kind of post. Do you honestly expect people to read one Wikipedia page and two academic publications in order to understand one paragraph of your argument? I think this is bordering on argument from authority. By all means reference external material, but I think if you want people to engage with you you need to create posts that work by themselves.

benway wrote: »

Further, I don't think that libertarian socialist type approaches would necessarily entail strictly equal remuneration, there's nothing incompatible with an hourly rate or piece work in this approach, so long as remuneration remains relatively even. There's simply no justification for a manager earning a multiple of what a front line worker does, no matter how much "value" they may add ... granted, in my experience, hierarchical management tends to not so much add value as the exact opposite.

If you think that's the case, why don't you establish a competing business that uses a less managerial model? Or create a consultancy firm to advise businesses on how to improve? Your argument here assumes that markets have built-in means of organization, but the defining point is that they don't. If a better model can be devised you can implement that within the market framework. You don't need to overturn capitalism to prove that fewer managers would yield higher productivity.

benway

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

benway, it's impossible to debate with this kind of post. Do you honestly expect people to read one Wikipedia page and two academic publications in order to understand one paragraph of your argument? I think this is bordering on argument from authority. By all means reference external material, but I think if you want people to engage with you you need to create posts that work by themselves.

Is a fair point, but if I don't provide sources, then I'll have people bawling at me that I'm just pulling it off the top of my head. As a great prophet once said, "you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't".

I guess it comes down to a thing that you can either take it from me that there's a basis behind what I'm saying here, or you can check my sources if you don't believe me. It's fascinating stuff ... if you're in to that kind of thing.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

If you think that's the case, why don't you establish a competing business that uses a less managerial model? Or create a consultancy firm to advise businesses on how to improve? Your argument here assumes that markets have built-in means of organization, but the defining point is that they don't. If a better model can be devised you can implement that within the market framework. You don't need to overturn capitalism to prove that fewer managers would yield higher productivity.

I think that this is the way forward, I'm far too long in the tooth to be hankering after a proletarian revolution, but I do think there's a pressing need to democratise the workplace, for everyone's benefit. I personally think that some kind of evolutionary hybrid is where things should be heading, but in any event it's good to explore the ideas, even in their extreme forms.

SupaNova

benway wrote: »

I think that you're viewing this quite narrowly. Again, the problem of incentives is by no means as clear-cut as to suggest that work rates, or productivity, must be a correlate of remuneration, simpliciter.

I'm not saying it must be, but that a lot of people want or need there to be a relationship between innovation, productivity, work effort and reward. And the system described kills those incentives.

I need to dig further into the proposed approach, but it's abundently clear that when it comes to the commons, power matters, culture matters, and that mainstream economic thinking on incentives is so distorted by the homo economicus myth as to be almost useless. Rational choice theory is dead in the water, and newer bounded rationality type approaches are very much in their infancy - I'm personally unconvinced whether they'll ever reach maturity, because I'm unconvinced that there is any unitary "human nature", beyond the imperative to provide for the very basic essentials. I personally believe that culture patterns behaviour to an extent that economic "science" will never be able to come to terms with.

Not sure if you are aware but a lot of the libertarians on this board don't subscribe to any of the above economics mentioned, and their views are not dependent on it. And non libertarians also see the incentive problem, which they don't base on homo-economicus or any of the above. Posting the above is just dancing around the question.

benway

SupaNova wrote: »

And the system described kills those incentives.

I'm not convinced by this in the slightest, and even if it is true, my hunch is that it would create another set of incentives, based on solidarity.

Plus, I think that the system as it stands stifles innovation and creativity for a vast swathe of the population, whose role is either to simply take orders from above, or to take orders from above and transmit them below. I think that more democratic arrangements, focussed on taking the best ideas from whichever source, would be better, more dynamic, more adaptive, etc, etc.

SupaNova wrote: »

Not sure if you are aware but a lot of the libertarians on this board don't subscribe to any of the above economics mentioned, and their views are not dependent on it. And non libertarians also see the incentive problem, which they don't base on homo-economicus or any of the above. Posting the above is just dancing around the question.

I also see the incentive problem, but, again, I don't see it as being nearly so clear-cut as economic incentives being the driving force behind all human behaviour, as some do. I'm not presuming what anyone on this forum thinks here, I'm more trying to figure out what I think myself, and how tenable these views are.

I think that Ostrom's conclusions, summarised at the link above, are interesting:

Group boundaries are clearly defined.

Rules governing the use of collective goods are well matched to local needs and conditions.

Most individuals affected by these rules can participate in modifying the rules.

The rights of community members to devise their own rules is respected by external authorities.

A system for monitoring member's behavior exists; the community members themselves undertake this monitoring.

A graduated system of sanctions is used.

Community members have access to low-cost conflict resolution mechanisms.

For CPRs that are parts of larger systems: appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises.

So, if you don't subscribe to rational choice or neocalssical models of incentives / behaviour, how do you conceptualise it?

SupaNova

benway wrote: »

I'm not convinced by this in the slightest, and even if it is true, my hunch is that it would create another set of incentives, based on solidarity.

Plus, I think that the system as it stands stifles innovation and creativity for a vast swathe of the population, whose role is either to simply take orders from above, or to take orders from above and transmit them below. I think that more democratic arrangements, focussed on taking the best ideas from whichever source, would be better, more dynamic, more adaptive, etc, etc.

As Eliot said if the current system stifles innovation like you think and your hunch is that another way is better, there is nothing stopping you from achieving this within our current society. If the libertarian-socialist model really is more innovative and productive, profits should flow to companies using that model, and then you can re-invest those profits and expand.

KyussBishop

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

In which case anarcho-socialism becomes anarcho-capitalism, it seems? In a perfectly anarcho-capitalist society individuals are free to pool together their resources and set up socialist communes. This is the opposite of the system you described, but the cumulative result is the same: pockets of socialism and pockets of capitalism. I suspect that anarcho-socialists don't really support this?

I've not researched the base political theories of anarchism in detail, but I think anarcho-anything can legitimately remould itself into any form, at the whim of the individuals in any particular region.

If regions tend towards capitalistic or socialistic varieties of anarchy or whichever, they are free to do that, but regions are also free to boycott one another.
For Libertarian Socialism to take hold, and keep a hold, requires a massive redefinition of societal morals and values (which is quite a big problem and part of the incomplete model of Libertarian Socialism), to promote the socialist model, and (maybe) to actively (but non-violently) oppose capitalistic models on moral grounds.

That's just my impression of it from my reading thus far though.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

More work in terms of time -- but there's far more to productivity than mere hours pitched in. Suppose I'm working in a factory and I see that some kind of automation system can be implemented, saving me time. Why would I bother? If the system is implemented then I'll lose hours and work and hence money, or I'll have to assume more tasks to make it up. Either way, it's not in my interest to improve.

It might not be in your personal interest if your job is at risk, but it will be in the collective interest, and the company decides collectively whether or not to implement such automation. Economic competition would still exist, so if the company does not implement this automation, they may find themselves outpaced in the market.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Now, one can argue that the factory will benefit, and hence that the individual will. I think that there are two problems with this. First, people simply don't work as hard for others as they work for themselves. If the benefits are being pooled the individual benefit is reduced and so is the incentive to work.

Again, it's not up to you individually, it's up to the collective; if greater efficiency/productivity benefits everyone, greater efficiency will be demanded.

Note that I am considering work/effort as separate from efficiency/productivity (and thus potential profit); the former determines your base-wage, the latter determines the percentage everyones wage increases by as profits (hopefully) come in.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Second, if people did work hard for the factory, would that factory not become more wealthy than all the others, breaking the non-hierarchical nature of the society? Surely "equalization" doesn't stop at factory level?

Well, companies will still be competing with each other, so if a company is particularly profitable then increased competition (as others chase that profit) will tend to drive down the prices and profit.

I don't know if that solves the overall problem though, so you may have a point; if there is an example of how such profits can still occur in the face of competition, that would be interesting to grapple with.


Note overall that I'm speculating a lot here; none of my views above are definite, just speculation as to the implementation of such a system, trying to form my own ideas of it and how to solve the (very valid) problems people bring up, so am interesting in hearing more possible issues with it all

Eliot Rosewater

I think what you're saying is sensible, but I really doubt that's what anarcho-socialists are fighting for. The market is still all-too-present in the picture. The factories are competing with one another and this will inevitably result in income stratification with different levels of success. Then, successful factories will be under incentives to establish a capitalist enclave where their advantage might yield even more. I can't see how the non-hierarchical nature of the society can be maintained just by factory level rules.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Again, it's not up to you individually, it's up to the collective; if greater efficiency/productivity benefits everyone, greater efficiency will be demanded.

But I don't think innovation works like that. Your boss can't just scream at you "innovate!!" The scenario I described involved someone spotting a potential innovation but keeping it quiet because there would be little to gain from publicizing it. In this case the collective can't demand innovation, because they don't know the person has devised a potential innovation.

Unless things work like the last 10 seconds here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=tONRlPqetNs

Eliot Rosewater

I'd be very interested in buying a book on libertarian socialism and reading through it, if you want to join me. I might pop into the library today and scope one out.

SupaNova

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think what you're saying is sensible, but I really doubt that's what anarcho-socialists are fighting for.

Yeah I'm a little confused by this, I thought the goal was for everyone to have an equal share in all means of production, rather than just an equal share of the factory you work for. Which is it?

Soldie

As I see it the biggest problem facing any collectivised economy is the efficient allocation of resources. This is an issue that has plagued every socialist economy - shortages of one thing, abundances of another, etc. - and why they are all invariably poor. In the absence of a market-based exchange economy there are no reliable laws of supply and demand, and hence no price mechanism with which to gauge said supply and demand. I have read various different 'solutions' to this problem. All of them either downplay or misinterpret the problem entirely, or propose some kind of all-knowing super computer that can distribute resources efficiently. As far as I am aware this is not a problem that has been solved.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

EchoO

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It just so happens there was a piece about worker owned businesses on Morning Ireland earlier, with David Erdal. The turnover of worker owned businesses in the UK is over 30 billion. Studies in the U.S. and Canada found that worker owned businesses are more productive, grow faster, last longer and create employment quicker.

http://www.daviderdal.net/employee-ownership/Home.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-erdal/nick-clegg-john-lewis_b_1208929.html

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

EchoO

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

According to Erdal they are becoming increasingly more common, but I haven't read his books or the reports he refered to in the interview. So to what extent they have increased or at what rate? - I don't know. But it is an alternative business model that can, and does, work.

Soldie

EchoO wrote: »

It just so happens there was a piece about worker owned businesses on Morning Ireland earlier, with David Erdal. The turnover of worker owned businesses in the UK is over 30 billion. Studies in the U.S. and Canada found that worker owned businesses are more productive, grow faster, last longer and create employment quicker.

http://www.daviderdal.net/employee-ownership/Home.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-erdal/nick-clegg-john-lewis_b_1208929.html

There's also the Mondragon Corporation that's based just outside of Bilbao. They employ over 80,000 people and run the Spanish supermarket chain Eroski, amongst other companies. I don't know an awful lot about them but they appear to have been relatively successful. I think it's nice to see a company structure that deviates from the norm and if that's something that has worked out well for them then more power to them. It may not work for every company but if it works for them then that's great.

I think the important thing to bear in mind is that although co-ops such as the Mondragon Corporation have an internal company structure that is unorthodox, they are still operating within a capitalist framework. Their businesses are all run on a for-profit basis. If you happen to find yourself in an Eroski supermarket - as I have done countless times - you'll notice that there is virtually no difference between it and a regular supermarket.

There's no reason why a co-op cannot be successful in a capitalist economic system. But I think the scope of this thread is more broad - i.e. the macroeconomics of a libertarian socialist system.

SupaNova

Soldie wrote: »

As I see it the biggest problem facing any collectivised economy is the efficient allocation of resources. This is an issue that has plagued every socialist economy - shortages of one thing, abundances of another, etc. - and why they are all invariably poor. In the absence of a market-based exchange economy there are no reliable laws of supply and demand, and hence no price mechanism with which to gauge said supply and demand. I have read various different 'solutions' to this problem. All of them either downplay or misinterpret the problem entirely, or propose some kind of all-knowing super computer that can distribute resources efficiently. As far as I am aware this is not a problem that has been solved.

Yes, even if incentives were not a problem, and even if deciding what is and what isn't a means of production was not a problem, it would all fall apart if the means of production could not be exchanged on a market.

SupaNova

For those not familiar I'll try and summarise the Economic Calculation Problem as best I can.

In a system where all the means of production are owned by one agency(the state) that agency has to make all the decisions about how to allocate resources. What to produce, how to produce, where to produce, how many of the various kinds of goods to produce, and so on. But since the state is the sole owner of all means of production, the means of production can no longer be exchanged and thus there is no prices for them.

Without prices, we have no profit and loss accounting, and no way to decide whether what we produce is demanded more or less than what is not produced. Also we have no way of comparing different methods of producing the same good. With prices an entrepreneur can determine the costs of multiple different methods of producing a good, and estimate whether the price he expects to sell the good for is greater than the costs. He will then decide whether to produce the good or not. If he thinks its worthwhile and goes ahead only to make a loss, i.e. the resources used in producing the good are in higher demand elsewhere, he will cease allocating resources to the production of that good, allowing those resources to be allocated to where they are in more demand.

To take a simplified example, if I use a 50c apple, 50c worth of strawberries, and €1 worth of icecream to produce a fruit shake that only sells for €1.50 we realise that the supply of resources used to make my shake are demanded more elsewhere. Now without profit&loss accounting we are in the dark as to whether the resources we use to produce one good are not better used in the production of something else and we continue down the path of misallocating those resources. It might seem harmless enough in the example but think about the same continuous misallocation of land labour, raw materials etc system wide and you see why such a system is impossible.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

I think what you're saying is sensible, but I really doubt that's what anarcho-socialists are fighting for. The market is still all-too-present in the picture. The factories are competing with one another and this will inevitably result in income stratification with different levels of success. Then, successful factories will be under incentives to establish a capitalist enclave where their advantage might yield even more. I can't see how the non-hierarchical nature of the society can be maintained just by factory level rules.

Perhaps; I would need to dig into this more to see if it fits any Libertarian Socialist faction.

Due to the potential to be boycotted, I don't think successful business will tend towards capitalism; whether or not some companies will inherently become more successful/imbalanced than others though is an open question/problem to me.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Kyussbishop wrote:

Again, it's not up to you individually, it's up to the collective; if greater efficiency/productivity benefits everyone, greater efficiency will be demanded.

But I don't think innovation works like that. Your boss can't just scream at you "innovate!!" The scenario I described involved someone spotting a potential innovation but keeping it quiet because there would be little to gain from publicizing it. In this case the collective can't demand innovation, because they don't know the person has devised a potential innovation.

Well, those situations would only cover not-so-obvious innovations that other people may not also figure out That situation also requires that your job be on the line (or something damaging to you would have to be on the line), otherwise you can only gain from your innovation (through increased wages).

In fact, this might even be more of an incentive for increased innovation than a privately owned business, because you don't necessarily get a raise, promotion or bonus for your efforts then, but with a worker owned business, so long as it increases profits you get more

SupaNova wrote:

Yeah I'm a little confused by this, I thought the goal was for everyone to have an equal share in all means of production, rather than just an equal share of the factory you work for. Which is it?

There's not one single way to do it, I'm just focusing on worker-owned business as a ground-up approach to grapple with the ideals.

I don't think you necessarily need to share company profits with the rest of society (outside of the workers there), but maybe there is an alternative implementation which would do this; I'm not sure.

Soldie wrote:

As I see it the biggest problem facing any collectivised economy is the efficient allocation of resources. This is an issue that has plagued every socialist economy - shortages of one thing, abundances of another, etc. - and why they are all invariably poor. In the absence of a market-based exchange economy there are no reliable laws of supply and demand, and hence no price mechanism with which to gauge said supply and demand. I have read various different 'solutions' to this problem. All of them either downplay or misinterpret the problem entirely, or propose some kind of all-knowing super computer that can distribute resources efficiently. As far as I am aware this is not a problem that has been solved.

I think you can still have traditional business and markets though, the businesses just would be owned by the workers instead of capitalists; it depends on what the ideals are of the particular configuration of Libertarian Socialism you look at (which is why a book on the topic would help more clearly define and limit the scope of things, for the discussion).

Soldie

KyussBishop wrote: »

I think you can still have traditional business and markets though, the businesses just would be owned by the workers instead of capitalists; it depends on what the ideals are of the particular configuration of Libertarian Socialism you look at (which is why a book on the topic would help more clearly define and limit the scope of things, for the discussion).

Your first sentence is a contradiction in that a traditional business is not one that is owned by its workers. Would traditional businesses be allowed in a libertarian socialist system? If so then how does this differ from a right-libertarian system? If not then who is going to enforce that rule in the absence of the state? Worker-owned businesses exist in the current system, but the fact that they are dwarfed in number by 'traditional' businesses would suggest to me that the latter has been found to have been more successful, and I would guess that they are easier to run in that they are less bureaucratic.

In any case, your response didn't really address the question I raised in my previous post. Namely, how would resources be allocated efficiently?

Soldie

SupaNova wrote: »

For those not familiar I'll try and summarise the Economic Calculation Problem as best I can.

In a system where all the means of production are owned by one agency(the state) that agency has to make all the decisions about how to allocate resources. What to produce, how to produce, where to produce, how many of the various kinds of goods to produce, and so on. But since the state is the sole owner of all means of production, the means of production can no longer be exchanged and thus there is no prices for them.

Without prices, we have no profit and loss accounting, and no way to decide whether what we produce is demanded more or less than what is not produced. Also we have no way of comparing different methods of producing the same good. With prices an entrepreneur can determine the costs of multiple different methods of producing a good, and estimate whether the price he expects to sell the good for is greater than the costs. He will then decide whether to produce a good or not. If he thinks its worthwhile and goes ahead only to make a loss, i.e. the resources used in producing the good are in higher demand elsewhere, he will cease allocating resources to the production of that good, allowing those resources to be allocated to where they are in more demand.

To take a simplified example, if I use a 50c apple, 50c worth of strawberries, and €1 worth of icecream to produce a fruit shake that only sells for €1.50 we realise that supply of resources used to make my shake are demanded more elsewhere. Now without profit&loss accounting we are in the dark as to whether the resources we use to produce one good are not better used in the production of something else and we continue down the path of misallocating those resources. It might seem harmless enough in the example but think about the same continuous misallocation of land labour, raw materials etc system wide and you see why such a system is impossible.

I would add that the above is an issue that will be experienced by any economy without market-based exchange, not just state-controlled economies. Leaving aside the fact that 'true' socialism has never existed without the help of a powerful state, the misallocation of resources will be an issue even in a supposedly decentralised libertarian socialist economy, however that may take shape. I say this because I have often seen people dismiss the calculation problem as being something that only affects state-run economies, but that is patently not true.

KyussBishop

Soldie wrote:

Your first sentence is a contradiction in that a traditional business is not one that is owned by its workers. Would traditional businesses be allowed in a libertarian socialist system? If so then how does this differ from a right-libertarian system? If not then who is going to enforce that rule in the absence of the state? Worker-owned businesses exist in the current system, but the fact that they are dwarfed in number by 'traditional' businesses would suggest to me that the latter has been found to have been more successful, and I would guess that they are easier to run in that they are less bureaucratic.

In any case, your response didn't really address the question I raised in my previous post. Namely, how would resources be allocated efficiently?

By traditional business, I primarily mean it interacts in the markets mainly as business does now; it doesn't need to be setup as a 'managed' economy, it might still have markets much as they are now.

It might best fit the template laid out by collectivist anarchism, but I think elimination of the market altogether, and wide-scale economic planning, are bad ideas (and proven so).

I don't think there's enough data one way or the other, to say definitively whether private vs worker-owned business performs better; private is certainly dominant, but it remains to be seen whether worker-owned would posit an overall advantage/disadvantage as a business.

Soldie

KyussBishop wrote: »

By traditional business, I primarily mean it interacts in the markets mainly as business does now; it doesn't need to be setup as a 'managed' economy, it might still have markets much as they are now.

It might best fit the template laid out by collectivist anarchism, but I think elimination of the market altogether, and wide-scale economic planning, are bad ideas (and proven so).

I don't think there's enough data one way or the other, to say definitively whether private vs worker-owned business performs better; private is certainly dominant, but it remains to be seen whether worker-owned would posit an overall advantage/disadvantage as a business.

I would disagree that it remains to be seen. As I said in my previous post, there is absolutely nothing stopping people setting up worker-owned businesses. The fact that the number of these pales in comparison to regular privately-owned businesses is testament to which company structure most people find to be more effective.

In any case, I think you're tap-dancing around the point here. In a capitalist system, both privately-owned and worker-owned businesses can exist. I don't think that co-existence can or would be replicated in a libertarian socialist system. Which raises the question as to who will enforce the rule that companies must be worker-owned in the absence of the state, especially when it's something that seems to contradict people's desires (again going back to the point that privately-owned businesses outnumber worker-owned businesses quite overwhelmingly).

But more broadly I think your meanderings are quite insensitive to the Marxist economic theory upon which libertarian socialism is based - specifically the market-based exchange system with which you seemingly have no problem. Adherents of libertarian socialism generally want to see the capitalist system and all its trappings done away with in its entirety - namely profit, private property, etc. It seems to me as though you're just ignoring the more obviously flawed aspects of Marxist economics and cherry-picking from the remainder to suit your viewpoint.