Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

D&D PTP&P's "Ask An Anarchist" Thread watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Monopoly in this sense doesn't mean "Oh, X company locks out competition by large market share..." it would be pretty much irrelevant. Capitalism is always monopoly because the means of production are monopolised in the sense they are owned privately and by the few instead of democratically and by the many.
    The monopoly is just a firm such that the supplier far outweighs the buyers and is able to make abnormal profits. (This can only be represented mathematically - for all purposes practical). The supply, demand, average costs, marginal cost/revenues, and price curves are such in monopolistic competition. Price is determined simply by quantifying production stocks. Also, profits are maximised at a far less efficient level of output, and at a higher price when under levels perfect competition.

    Its a really silly analogy to say that all private means of production is monopolising - if I own a fruit juice market stall, am I 'monopolising'?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    The monopoly is just a firm such that the supplier far outweighs the buyers and is able to make abnormal profits. (This can only be represented mathematically - for all purposes practical). The supply, demand, average costs, marginal cost/revenues, and price curves are such in monopolistic competition. Price is determined simply by quantifying production stocks. Also, profits are maximised at a far less efficient level of output, and at a higher price when under levels perfect competition.
    blah blah blah things I learned at A level economics blah blah

    What is the purpose of posting an A level Economics essay question answer on an Anarchist thread? The minute details of how one aspect of capitalism works in an economic sense, while perhaps interesting to you, is ultimately of really no importance at all. In the first instance I'm sure most people here (and aren't you an Austrian...?) reject mainstream economics. It's focus, in input and output, is to maximise the efficiency of an existing unjust system. Even if it were true that Capitalism never could produce a monopoly (which is plainly not, has never been, and never will be, the case) it would be wholly irrelevant.

    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Its a really silly analogy to say that all private means of production is monopolising - if I own a fruit juice market stall, am I 'monopolising'?
    Hilariously reversable. No, you aren't the monopoly. That's precisely the point. United Fruits is a monopoly. But I think this point in particular is ridiculous. The fruit seller at the market stall in my little market town does not own the means of production. He is not a capitalist by any definition that accords with physical reality. He's just a guy who sells fruit on a tuesday.

    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    But, like I said, if it is simple and peaceful community reorganisation they seek, it is just a matter of pure semantics distinguishing themselves from the anarcho-capitalist communities who are so frequently excluded from broader anarchist circles because they espouse 'dirty capitalist' ideas.
    Ok, so basically you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and have not seriously engaged in discussion with any social anarchists or read any social anarchist text or observed the demands and actions of social anarchists in the real world; or, you are incapable of drawing the distinction - I'm not sure which is worse.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    ...
    Are you coming from a Marxist perspective?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    Are you coming from a Marxist perspective?
    Not particularly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    blah blah blah things I learned at A level economics blah blah
    Never did A level econ.

    What is the purpose of posting an A level Economics essay question answer on an Anarchist thread? The minute details of how one aspect of capitalism works in an economic sense, while perhaps interesting to you, is ultimately of really no importance at all. In the first instance I'm sure most people here (and aren't you an Austrian...?) reject mainstream economics. It's focus, in input and output, is to maximise the efficiency of an existing unjust system. Even if it were true that Capitalism never could produce a monopoly (which is plainly not, has never been, and never will be, the case) it would be wholly irrelevant.
    I don't subscribe to Austrian economics - read my posts about demand management and interest rate manipulation. And yeah, I prefer mainstream economics to radical fringe element ideas. Its focus is not to achieve anything besides study economic phenomena, why mix up positive econ with normativity?

    Hilariously reversable. No, you aren't the monopoly. That's precisely the point. United Fruits is a monopoly. But I think this point in particular is ridiculous. The fruit seller at the market stall in my little market town does not own the means of production. He is not a capitalist by any definition that accords with physical reality. He's just a guy who sells fruit on a tuesday.
    You just said capitalism is monopoly basically because private production is not in the hands of the masses. Where do you draw the line between my fruit stall and del monte? Or in other words, where is this vague distinction between 'big company' and 'small company'? You don't know, unless you employ a degree of precision. Its useless to say that capitalism just trends towards monopoly without looking at the economic forces in question and examine them closer. Its of little economic consequence if Del Monte is restricted by market set equilibrium prices and attains a relative cost-efficiency but of more concern if prices get sticky, or if Del Monte employs aggressive marketing strategies to force out competitors. Even then you don't really have monopoly, since a monopoly is a fairly extreme case scenario.

    Ok, so basically you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and have not seriously engaged in discussion with any social anarchists or read any social anarchist text or observed the demands and actions of social anarchists in the real world; or, you are incapable of drawing the distinction - I'm not sure which is worse.
    I haven't gone into the depths of all the tedious strategising, no. (That said Rudolf Rocker highlights much of anarcho-syndicalist strategising - rank & file, general strikes, etc. - in The Ideology of Anarchism. My point still stands. Much of ancap thought - especially agorist tendencies - is deeply unpolitical and based around general peaceful non-cooperation. There is nothing uncompatible about non-cooperation with right wing anarchism, they just don't appreciate the label).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Not particularly.
    Oh? You suggested that capitalism is 'unjust' so I just assumed. Can you link me to some of your influences so I can read?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    Oh? You suggested that capitalism is 'unjust' so I just assumed. Can you link me to some of your influences so I can read?
    :sigh:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    :sigh:
    What?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    What?
    It's the "Ask an Anarchist" thread, and you think that believing capitalism is unjust automatically implies Marxism. :nothing:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    It's the "Ask an Anarchist" thread, and you think that believing capitalism is unjust automatically implies Marxism. :nothing:
    Anarchism isn't an anti-capitalist idea though. Anarchists can be for or against capitalism, and his language resembled that of a Marxist (which can be a basis for Anarchist political ideology) conception of what is unjust or not unjust.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    Oh? You suggested that capitalism is 'unjust' so I just assumed. Can you link me to some of your influences so I can read?
    I think it's a little silly to pick a political theorist from the past and label yourself as them, perhaps because the circumstances have changed so much. It's a bit silly for someone living in 2011 to call themselves a Lockean because Locke's theories were drawn up three centuries ago and in completely different social and economic conditions.

    Broadly, I like Bakunin & Kropotkin et al (but see, I also like Locke as well; he has been an influence on me, at least) - Rousseau and Paine are cool - I mean I like Marx and Trotsky too; they put forward valid perspectives, but I'm not going to label myself in any particular direction. Also people like Derrida, Camus, etc. Events-wise, which is a much better mark IMO, the French Revolution, the Paris Commune, Spain 36-39, Hungary 56 and Paris 68 are, I think, inspiring to me. As well as the Miners Strikes. As for modern theorists, Chomsky is a big influence (although we starkly disagree on foreign affairs), Christopher Hitchens, etc, those sort of public intellectuals.

    Some people and events I absolutely can not abide, in no particular order and with no particular connection; Murray Rothbard, the Iranian Revolution, the Peace Lobby, A. C. Grayling, i cba to list anymore atm
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    Anarchism isn't an anti-capitalist idea though.
    Many anarchists (the vast majority of anarchists) are anti-capitalists. I don't even understand why you would supply that as a point. The vast majority of anarchisms (i.e. pretty much all excluding anarcho-capitalism and those which make no pronouncement on it) are anti-capitalist.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    Many anarchists (the vast majority of anarchists) are anti-capitalists. I don't even understand why you would supply that as a point.
    What the heck is so anarchistic about miniature welfare states :confused:

    EDIT - *waits eagerly for sharp retort*
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Never did A level econ.
    Yes, well, your posts are like reading the textbook.

    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    I don't subscribe to Austrian economics - read my posts about demand management and interest rate manipulation. And yeah, I prefer mainstream economics to radical fringe element ideas. Its focus is not to achieve anything besides study economic phenomena, why mix up positive econ with normativity?
    Economists have this problem of believing economics is proscriptive when it is in fact descriptive. Friedman actually summarises it well: "If you want me to tell you how to raise inflation, I will. If you want me to tell you how to lower inflation, I will." An economist is firstly a bureaucrat. His job is to explain to the people who make the decisions how those decisions will affect their world. It isn't to say "Oh Capitalism is X, Socialism is Y" based off their economic knowledge. A degree of proscriptivity must be added from somewhere and that somewhere is not economics.

    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    You just said capitalism is monopoly basically because private production is not in the hands of the masses. Where do you draw the line between my fruit stall and del monte? Or in other words, where is this vague distinction between 'big company' and 'small company'? You don't know, unless you employ a degree of precision. Its useless to say that capitalism just trends towards monopoly without looking at the economic forces in question and examine them closer. Its of little economic consequence if Del Monte is restricted by market set equilibrium prices and attains a relative cost-efficiency but of more concern if prices get sticky, or if Del Monte employs aggressive marketing strategies to force out competitors. Even then you don't really have monopoly, since a monopoly is a fairly extreme case scenario.
    Once again you have missed the point entirely.

    Just read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_stratification

    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    I haven't gone into the depths of all the tedious strategising, no. (That said Rudolf Rocker highlights much of anarcho-syndicalist strategising - rank & file, general strikes, etc. - in The Ideology of Anarchism. My point still stands. Much of ancap thought - especially agorist tendencies - is deeply unpolitical and based around general peaceful non-cooperation. There is nothing uncompatible about non-cooperation with right wing anarchism, they just don't appreciate the label).
    I don't think you understand social anarchism at all. Ultimately, we aim for a classless and stateless society in which no individual has hierarchical power over another. That's the end goal. Capitalism is inherently a class system in which individuals have direct control over others. That is what we are against.

    System X: Inherent class division.
    System Y: Classless society.

    No they are not compatible.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    What the heck is so anarchistic about miniature welfare states :confused:

    EDIT - *waits eagerly for sharp retort*
    A sharp retort to what? I have no idea what you're talking about.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Yes, well, your posts are like reading the textbook.
    I like to practice typing up what I've learned recently, it helps me remember and understand. But it is applied reasonably (i.e. within the context of a discussion).

    Economists have this problem of believing economics is proscriptive when it is in fact descriptive. Friedman actually summarises it well: "If you want me to tell you how to raise inflation, I will. If you want me to tell you how to lower inflation, I will." An economist is firstly a bureaucrat. His job is to explain to the people who make the decisions how those decisions will affect their world. It isn't to say "Oh Capitalism is X, Socialism is Y" based off their economic knowledge. A degree of proscriptivity must be added from somewhere and that somewhere is not economics.
    Reread my post, I never said economics was prescriptive - I even went as far as to distinguish positive economics from normativity in response to your argument that 'economics was about preserving the status quo' or something (which would be normative).

    That economics observes certain changes in a system doesn't mean it functions to preserve the system (which would require application of value judgement, which would be stupid).

    You still haven't given an adequate definition of a monopoly.

    Once again you have missed the point entirely.

    Just read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_stratification
    Ok - I will read later. But all I was trying to say is that it makes no use to just say, private production is monopolisation without looking at market forces or observing some other kind of phenomena. All private production is monopolisation - really?

    edit - read wiki link. Irrelevant.

    I don't think you understand social anarchism at all. Ultimately, we aim for a classless and stateless society in which no individual has hierarchical power over another. That's the end goal. Capitalism is inherently a class system in which individuals have direct control over others. That is what we are against.

    System X: Inherent class division.
    System Y: Classless society.

    No they are not compatible.
    Yeah, yeah, I know all of that. Its the methods applied to achieve this - the activism part - I am questioning. If all of this comes so naturally why apply revolutionary force? If you don't 'advocate' revolutionary violence, there is very little distinguishing you from an ancap. Even if you have different views on property rights (e.g. occupancy), they can be realised through arbitration in a stateless society. And we've gone back in a huge circle since this was what I explained to Zedbrar.

    Ancap: - hierarchy is ok if it is voluntary
    - non-hierarchy is ok if it is voluntary

    Not that I care. Its beginning to sound like I'm defending ancap which would of course be ridiculous.

    (Original post by littleshambles)
    A sharp retort to what? I have no idea what you're talking about.
    I asked what was so anarchistic about miniature welfare states (i.e. communes). (You gave me sharp retorts in the past to illustrate my idiocity, not that I particularly care as long as you make a point).

    EDIT - what the heck, I'll throw this in to the debate as well.

    If any socialists would care to answer these questions, I would be delighted:

    How is the socialist government going to allocate scarce economic goods without a mechanism such as money prices to co-ordinate the factors of production and provide the producers with market signals to indicate the most efficient recipe of production?

    How do they intend to increase internal pressure within the co-operative firm to force the producers to allocate their resources (namely investment) more efficiently without the test of profit v loss?

    How is the socialist government going to maximise productivity when the producers know they will be stripped of their assets if they are too successful and investors have no confidence in investment?

    How does the socialist government expect to meet consumer standards when public investment in projects are objectively determined by purely rational, scientific and algorithmic procedures rather than subjectively determined by ordinally ranked subjective preferences of the consumer by the law of diminishing marginal utility (as would be the ultimate determination for the allocation of goods in the market)?

    How does the socialist government expect to measure the embodiment of labour within a commodity by which they hope to allocate labour vouchers during the transitional phase to communism (the dictatorship of the proletariat) and again, how does this objectively determined whim meet the efficiency of money (the equilibrium price which can only be objectively determined organically in the market place)? What are your thoughts on marginal utility theory?

    If you are a socio-anarchist, then why do you honestly believe the community board could centrally plan an economy on a more localised level any better, regardless of whether or not you believe the process would be non-hierarchical? And why do you not believe it would not become hierarchical and authoritarian given the necessity for specialisation?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Perhaps, to draw from Marx, the best distinction between a one woman/man fruit stall and a larger fruit company is that a larger fruit company presumably employs people, and it is central to the ideas of most anarchists and socialists that this social relation is fundamentally exploitative. Of course if the owner of the fruit stall does not self-produce and in fact owns a farm which employs people then it gets a little more complicated.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    I think it's a little silly to pick a political theorist from the past and label yourself as them, perhaps because the circumstances have changed so much. It's a bit silly for someone living in 2011 to call themselves a Lockean because Locke's theories were drawn up three centuries ago and in completely different social and economic conditions.

    Broadly, I like Bakunin & Kropotkin et al (but see, I also like Locke as well; he has been an influence on me, at least) - Rousseau and Paine are cool - I mean I like Marx and Trotsky too; they put forward valid perspectives, but I'm not going to label myself in any particular direction. Also people like Derrida, Camus, etc. Events-wise, which is a much better mark IMO, the French Revolution, the Paris Commune, Spain 36-39, Hungary 56 and Paris 68 are, I think, inspiring to me. As well as the Miners Strikes. As for modern theorists, Chomsky is a big influence (although we starkly disagree on foreign affairs), Christopher Hitchens, etc, those sort of public intellectuals.

    Some people and events I absolutely can not abide, in no particular order and with no particular connection; Murray Rothbard, the Iranian Revolution, the Peace Lobby, A. C. Grayling, i cba to list anymore atm
    Thanks. So when you say capitalism is unjust, is that a moral judgement? I know I'm asking stupid questions, but I am genuinely curious.

    (Original post by littleshambles)
    Many anarchists (the vast majority of anarchists) are anti-capitalists. I don't even understand why you would supply that as a point. The vast majority of anarchisms (i.e. pretty much all excluding anarcho-capitalism and those which make no pronouncement on it) are anti-capitalist.
    To be fair, that's not really an argument. There is nothing intrinsic in the definition of anarchism that means it must be anti-capitalist. But I'm not really looking for an argument, so I'll concede your point.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Geraldine)
    Perhaps, to draw from Marx, the best distinction between a one woman/man fruit stall and a larger fruit company is that a larger fruit company presumably employs people, and it is central to the ideas of most anarchists and socialists that this social relation is fundamentally exploitative. Of course if the owner of the fruit stall does not self-produce and in fact owns a farm which employs people then it gets a little more complicated.
    There are still huge problems with that analogy.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    miniature welfare states (i.e. communes)
    No. Just no.

    Welfare states are mixed economies which fund social security and other public services through general progressive taxation. Communes are voluntary self-organising groups which decide production and distribution collectively. They are entirely dissimilar.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

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.