Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Guess you're right...
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    The share itself...
    I'll weigh in on your points/questions in a few days when my workload is slightly reduced. I've spent the past two hours talking to someone who owes all that is good in the world to the genius of bureaucrats in the state. So I'm slightly miffed and ticked off.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Stock markets allow people to get rich at other people's misery, so no. Most rightists argue that they act as a good way for businesses to raise funds but...
    Oh really? Could you explain why ...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Oh really? Could you explain why ...
    umm...I explained why in the other 90% of the post that you just rather conveniently left out of the quote.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    The share itself literally is an embodiment of private property; it is a legal contract that provides a private individual with private ownership over capital. So, to abolish the stock market, you simply don't enforce legal contracts that provide the individual with private capital rights! In other words, the words on a piece of paper that say "I own x amount of land" will be irrelevant without backing of the armed forces. During an illegal occupation of the means of production, however the state will subsequently enforce the capitalist's legal right over private property through the military, which is why it is important to break up core military units and legalise arms as part of the revolution.
    Ok. I mean that sounds fair enough. However, what you're saying is basically a lack of land ownership, right? In any case, you only 'own' land with the backing of armed forces. So what happens if one guy gains a monopoly on land and enforces that with superior armed forces? Right now, like you say, the state enforces that or not. How do you prevent it from happening at all in a situation where land ownership is determined by might?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Ok. I mean that sounds fair enough. However, what you're saying is basically a lack of land ownership, right? In any case, you only 'own' land with the backing of armed forces. So what happens if one guy gains a monopoly on land and enforces that with superior armed forces? Right now, like you say, the state enforces that or not. How do you prevent it from happening at all in a situation where land ownership is determined by might?
    I don't know what you mean.

    Under anarchy the community would own the land (but not necessarily have use-rights), so there would be no monopolies on land backed by armed forces and land ownership would not be determined by might because, well, there would be no land "ownership"...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I have a question... In an anarchist society no one would want to do the crappy but necessary dead end jobs. How would you give enough incentive for those jobs to be done?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Glowy Amoeba)
    I have a question... In an anarchist society no one would want to do the crappy but necessary dead end jobs. How would you give enough incentive for those jobs to be done?
    Hi. I presume that this is a question directed at the socialist/communist strands of the ideology.

    In short, the individual's socially necessary labour time (which is a fraction of the average labour time of society and the time required to produce x amounts of consumption goods on average) would be measured by a special body of delegates as elected and mandated by the community presuming that the individual submits his goods to a comunity owned bank. (S/He need not submit their goods but then they will not be entitled to payment for their services). Quantity but not quality is measured as quality is a subjective value and impossible to measure objectively. Quality is ensured by making the producers accountable for to the consumers (put simply they will not be rewarded for the product of labour if it is not consumed by anyone).

    They are rewarded with labour vouchers which is a measurement not only of their socially necessary labour time but also of the cost of raw materials with extraneous costs (such as the cost of clearing up pollution that is a direct result of their actions) deducted from the salary. Labour vouchers are not money simply because they are not circulatory (they get destroyed after they are used for purchase). This prevents the distortion of the commodity into an exchange value and further prevents the abstraction of the physical properties of and the embodiment of labour in a commodity when they are exchanged in a market based system.

    These community-based organisations only reward productive labour so everyone who wishes to receive pay from them must do their fair share of the hard, dirty work. On the plus side, with the whole community shifting their weight, the necessity for each individual to perform such work will be greatly reduced to a significantly reduced amount of time - hopefully 4 hours per diem. They will then have more time to engage in the arts, literature and perhaps even voluntarily submit the product of their labour to the community by organising youth projects, writing scientific journals and designing technology to save people labour during their spare time.

    Hope this is handy information, and more information is availabe at the FAQ, anarchyfaq.org/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Glowy Amoeba)
    I have a question... In an anarchist society no one would want to do the crappy but necessary dead end jobs. How would you give enough incentive for those jobs to be done?
    In a capitalist anarchism people whose skills did not extend beyond the menial tasks would have no choice but to do those jobs if they wanted money to feed themselves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Hi. I presume that this is a question directed at the socialist/communist strands of the ideology.

    In short, the individual's socially necessary labour time (which is a fraction of the average labour time of society and the time required to produce x amounts of consumption goods on average) would be measured by a special body of delegates as elected and mandated by the community presuming that the individual submits his goods to a comunity owned bank. (S/He need not submit their goods but then they will not be entitled to payment for their services). Quantity but not quality is measured as quality is a subjective value and impossible to measure objectively. Quality is ensured by making the producers accountable for to the consumers (put simply they will not be rewarded for the product of labour if it is not consumed by anyone).

    They are rewarded with labour vouchers which is a measurement not only of their socially necessary labour time but also of the cost of raw materials with extraneous costs (such as the cost of clearing up pollution that is a direct result of their actions) deducted from the salary. Labour vouchers are not money simply because they are not circulatory (they get destroyed after they are used for purchase). This prevents the distortion of the commodity into an exchange value and further prevents the abstraction of the physical properties of and the embodiment of labour in a commodity when they are exchanged in a market based system.

    These community-based organisations only reward productive labour so everyone who wishes to receive pay from them must do their fair share of the hard, dirty work. On the plus side, with the whole community shifting their weight, the necessity for each individual to perform such work will be greatly reduced to a significantly reduced amount of time - hopefully 4 hours per diem. They will then have more time to engage in the arts, literature and perhaps even voluntarily submit the product of their labour to the community by organising youth projects, writing scientific journals and designing technology to save people labour during their spare time.

    Hope this is handy information, and more information is availabe at the FAQ, anarchyfaq.org/
    Wouldn't measuring the necessary labour time of each individual impossible due to the complex nature of goods involved in the modern world? There would need to be a monstrous amount of delegates and time required to analyse every case, not to mention the increased vulnerability of the whole system if corruption arises or if the delegates are incompetent and elected with crowd pleasing tactics like many of today's politicians. The same calculation problem might arise with the labour vouchers due to the sheer number of positive and negative side effects resulting from any action.

    I see other logistical problems with forcing every citizen to do a part of the dirty work: transportation to all the places, timetable ensuring a fair sharing of the workload, supervision of the actual effort involved, medical conditions preventing some citizens to fulfill their quota and survive...

    I worry that treating intellectual professions that demand a very large amount of dedication and hard work as hobbies secondary to productive labor will drastically slow down or hamper technological progress, education and medecine. Forcing somebody with an great intellectual capacities to do menial work does seem like a waste of manpower, especially considering that an hour spent on groundbreaking technology might potentially save a million hours of labor in the future.

    I hope I did not come off as antagonistic in my post, but I have trouble understanding how anarchy can work outside theory.
    By the way, how do the other strands of the ideology adress this problem?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Glowy Amoeba)
    Wouldn't measuring the necessary labour time of each individual impossible due to the complex nature of goods involved in the modern world? There would need to be a monstrous amount of delegates and time required to analyse every case, not to mention the increased vulnerability of the whole system if corruption arises or if the delegates are incompetent and elected with crowd pleasing tactics like many of today's politicians. The same calculation problem might arise with the labour vouchers due to the sheer number of positive and negative side effects resulting from any action.
    I will answer this question with a vague "there would be a freer flow of communication between groups of producers, consumers and delegates" under communism. There is not a definite algorithmic formula for the socially necessary labour time as Marx conceived, as far as I am aware.

    Also, keep in mind that the community self-regulates in small economic cells, rather than it being like a government regulating the economy on a national basis and with the system of co-operative labour, it is far easier for information to be passed around without delegates being flooded with streams of economic decision making criteria. There would be regular assemblies and so forth. If delegates are incompetent they are recallable by petition and furthermore they are elected on the terms that they follow a specific mandate (special programme). Also the purpose of a delegate is to carry out the will of the masses rather than his own beliefs and if he is not seen to be doing that, he will likely be recalled. It will be his duty to communicate on a regular basis with groups of producers and consumers and also initiate mass assemblies of the community on a regular basis in which there will be new proposals made and so forth.

    I see other logistical problems with forcing every citizen to do a part of the dirty work: transportation to all the places, timetable ensuring a fair sharing of the workload, supervision of the actual effort involved, medical conditions preventing some citizens to fulfill their quota and survive...
    I didn't say they would be *forced* to do these jobs (unless you count the threat of starvation as *force*)... These other issues you mention, again, are issues of calculating high order goods (have you been reading Ludwig von Mises, by any chance ). It is assumed by Mises that rational economic decision making would be impossible in a society without the price value because the price value helps the entrepeneur to determine the efficiency of certain economic decision making, particularly where high order goods are concerned in order to maximise profits. However, he himself admits that consumption goods can be calculated. He also addresses the LTV (which is my answer to his argument) and has a different objection, namely that labour is not homogenous (I can address this point if you wish but it may take me some time).

    His argument mainly obtains to the statist schools of socialism and indeed, it is difficult under such circumstance for the state bureacrats to manage the economic decision making of an entire country but I don't care much for his uncompromising definition of socialism as state ownership. The means of calculating high order goods under libertarian socialism would be the absolute cost.

    I'd like to add that under capitalism, price values are distorted by the exclusion of extraneous costs and the lack of communication around the hierarchical firm.

    I worry that treating intellectual professions that demand a very large amount of dedication and hard work as hobbies secondary to productive labor will drastically slow down or hamper technological progress, education and medecine. Forcing somebody with an great intellectual capacities to do menial work does seem like a waste of manpower, especially considering that an hour spent on groundbreaking technology might potentially save a million hours of labor in the future.
    You have a point here. Perhaps should such intellectual activity translate in one way or another into productive labour, such as the production of technology then their efforts will be accepted by the overall community and rewarded in terms of labour vouchers. Really and truly, I meant to say that people would have more time to get involved with hobbies like the arts and literature outside of their reduced labour time which could only have positive benefits for society. It is also possible for the system to change with the proposals of individuals at the community that can be made and passed through at mass assemblies.

    I hope I did not come off as antagonistic in my post, but I have trouble understanding how anarchy can work outside theory.
    By the way, how do the other strands of the ideology adress this problem?
    Hmm well, perhaps best not to ask me but anarcho-capitalism would essentially act as a pure unregulated free market so there is no real problem there in way of who does the rubbish work. Essentially, under such a system, the unskilled labourers will be forced into unskilled labour simply so that they can pay the bills and so forth. So the answer is a little trickier to answer when we are discussing socialism/communism.

    Individualist anarchism and mutualism are forms of market socialism where there is a free market but it consists of producer's co-operatives competing to provide better goods, services and to sell their goods at cheaper prices. So there is an easy answer to that question for those strands as well.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    I don't know what you mean.

    Under anarchy the community would own the land (but not necessarily have use-rights), so there would be no monopolies on land backed by armed forces and land ownership would not be determined by might because, well, there would be no land "ownership"...
    Ok. That sounds fair. How do you allocate private property? Equal division of land owned by the community?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    I'll weigh in on your points/questions in a few days when my workload is slightly reduced. I've spent the past two hours talking to someone who owes all that is good in the world to the genius of bureaucrats in the state. So I'm slightly miffed and ticked off.
    Look forward to it. To tell you the truth, I've got a lot of work on at the moment too but I've just managed to get through the bulk of it so I should be as free as I used to be now.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    You have a point here. Perhaps should such intellectual activity translate in one way or another into productive labour, such as the production of technology then their efforts will be accepted by the overall community and rewarded in terms of labour vouchers. Really and truly, I meant to say that people would have more time to get involved with hobbies like the arts and literature outside of their reduced labour time which could only have positive benefits for society. It is also possible for the system to change with the proposals of individuals at the community that can be made and passed through at mass assemblies.
    The trouble with many aspect of scientific research is that the benefits often take a long time to become apparent. It's hard to imagine a community granting a physicist the time to investigate transformation optics or micro scale internal combustion when they can't see how the research will ultimately benefit them.

    Science is an area where it is more than a hobby, especially if you think of the cost of the specialist equipment involved it would allow certain economic cells to control aspects of research due to their proximity to various natural resources/phenomena
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Glowy Amoeba)
    I have a question... In an anarchist society no one would want to do the crappy but necessary dead end jobs. How would you give enough incentive for those jobs to be done?
    Quite simply = supply and demand.

    If there are few people prepared to do certain jobs, then there would be an increase in demand for that task. The increase in demand would be matched by an increase in price to pay someone to do that job.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    In a capitalist anarchism people whose skills did not extend beyond the menial tasks would have no choice but to do those jobs if they wanted money to feed themselves.
    They would have a choice. But forget that, what do you propose instead?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    They would have a choice. But forget that, what do you propose instead?
    I wasn't saying it was bad thing. I wouldn't propose anything else
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Ok. That sounds fair. How do you allocate private property? Equal division of land owned by the community?
    No, occupance and use rights. If capital is a direct product of labour or capital is enhanced by labour, there is sufficient right for said labourer to have occupance and use rights, if that capital is being used to make some sort of profit. For instance, as a plumber, I can help "enhance" the quality of your home but I do not get occupance and use rights since you are not using your house or, more specifically, the product of my labour in any way to obtain a profit. Ownership, however is that of the wider community.

    (Original post by Keckers)
    The trouble with many aspect of scientific research is that the benefits often take a long time to become apparent. It's hard to imagine a community granting a physicist the time to investigate transformation optics or micro scale internal combustion when they can't see how the research will ultimately benefit them.

    Science is an area where it is more than a hobby, especially if you think of the cost of the specialist equipment involved it would allow certain economic cells to control aspects of research due to their proximity to various natural resources/phenomena
    Nonetheless the absolute costs of production, including the deduction of all extraneities could be calculated as a measurement of the determination of the economic calculation involved of such activities for the sake of simplicity, helping the community to make rational decisions whilst the utility itself is considered on seperate grounds and is the determining factor for the economic decision making criteria. Economic calculation tends to be a quantitative, rather than qualitative process.

    If a scientist with the necessary qualifications is given a grant on the long run to perform his project, with funding of specialist equipment and so forth being decided on quantitative calculation of absolute costs to make rational decision making, but it is seen that the quality of the work provided to the community by the scientist is not in some way useful in the long run (it has to be consumed), it can easily be the case that his grant is withdrawn, particularly given the control of funds being accountable for by the wider community, hence the producer is made accountable for by the general consumers.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Nonetheless the absolute costs of production, including the deduction of all extraneities could be calculated as a measurement of the determination of the economic calculation involved of such activities for the sake of simplicity, helping the community to make rational decisions whilst the utility itself is considered on seperate grounds and is the determining factor for the economic decision making criteria. Economic calculation tends to be a quantitative, rather than qualitative process.

    If a scientist with the necessary qualifications is given a grant on the long run to perform his project, with funding of specialist equipment and so forth being decided on quantitative calculation of absolute costs to make rational decision making, but it is seen that the quality of the work provided to the community by the scientist is not in some way useful in the long run (it has to be consumed), it can easily be the case that his grant is withdrawn, particularly given the control of funds being accountable for by the wider community, hence the producer is made accountable for by the general consumers.
    You know better than this, AN.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)



    Nonetheless the absolute costs of production, including the deduction of all extraneities could be calculated as a measurement of the determination of the economic calculation involved of such activities for the sake of simplicity, helping the community to make rational decisions whilst the utility itself is considered on seperate grounds and is the determining factor for the economic decision making criteria. Economic calculation tends to be a quantitative, rather than qualitative process.

    If a scientist with the necessary qualifications is given a grant on the long run to perform his project, with funding of specialist equipment and so forth being decided on quantitative calculation of absolute costs to make rational decision making, but it is seen that the quality of the work provided to the community by the scientist is not in some way useful in the long run (it has to be consumed), it can easily be the case that his grant is withdrawn, particularly given the control of funds being accountable for by the wider community, hence the producer is made accountable for by the general consumers.
    How is that an answer? You are just repeating how it would work.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    No, occupance and use rights. If capital is a direct product of labour or capital is enhanced by labour, there is sufficient right for said labourer to have occupance and use rights, if that capital is being used to make some sort of profit. For instance, as a plumber, I can help "enhance" the quality of your home but I do not get occupance and use rights since you are not using your house or, more specifically, the product of my labour in any way to obtain a profit. Ownership, however is that of the wider community.

    Nonetheless the absolute costs of production, including the deduction of all extraneities could be calculated as a measurement of the determination of the economic calculation involved of such activities for the sake of simplicity, helping the community to make rational decisions whilst the utility itself is considered on seperate grounds and is the determining factor for the economic decision making criteria. Economic calculation tends to be a quantitative, rather than qualitative process.

    If a scientist with the necessary qualifications is given a grant on the long run to perform his project, with funding of specialist equipment and so forth being decided on quantitative calculation of absolute costs to make rational decision making, but it is seen that the quality of the work provided to the community by the scientist is not in some way useful in the long run (it has to be consumed), it can easily be the case that his grant is withdrawn, particularly given the control of funds being accountable for by the wider community, hence the producer is made accountable for by the general consumers.
    I think I see what you're saying here. So if someone already occupies or uses a specific place, without making a profit on it (basically, they're just using the land to live on) then they have that piece of land as private property? That sounds fine to me but what about a farm? A lot of farmers live on the land they work on and use it to turn a profit too so what happens in this case.

    Another question I was wondering if you could answer was about fame. At the moment, if you're on the film, television etc, you get a certain degree of fame but surely that's a form of hierarchy. So how do you stop that from evolving or having any importance. On the other hand, is it immaterial?

    With regards to the scientist issue; I found that quite interesting but there's one flaw in that solution I think. A lot of scientific projects don't always yield products straight away or ever (some are just attempts to explain the world around us) and so how would a community judge, rightly or wrongly, whether something has been completed or is futile? Sorry if that issue's already been raised.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 5, 2011
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.