Anarchists should oppose Technology - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The 'no government' movement.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14281055
Someone5 wrote:I'm not sure it can be characterized as unsustainable, because if people are willing to pay the prices involved it most certainly can persist.

I'd expect this kind of market fundamentalist dogmatism from Eran, but I expected better from you. At some point it will become impossible to pay the cost of continual soil depletion, erosion, fertilizer runoff, colony collapse, and climate change, all of which our industrial agriculture system contributes to. And to answer Eran's predictable non-point, the market is good at responding to short-term shifts in demand. It does not have a good record of averting crises before they happen.

mikema63 wrote:GMO, for example we could drastically reduce fertilizer use by engineering symbiotic fungus (called mychorhizzae) to also include the nitrogen fixation genes of certain bacteria (a single gene, a very simple process).

These fungus actually associate with the walls of the roots and can even go into the roots and associate with plant cells and help with water and nutrient absorption. Nitrogen is also a major reason we use so much fossil fuels in our agricultural process.

Adopting such a GMO universally would cut our fossil fuel use drastically almost overnight.

Possibly. I'm not dogmatically opposed to GMOs in principle, though I'm skeptical about how much we really understand about ecological dynamics and our effect on the environment. Under our current capitalist system, GMOs are largely used by Monsanto to make products resistant to their famous Roundup herbicide, so the crops can withstand more toxic chemicals being sprayed on them. They are also a major source of patent-trolling used to intimidate farmers who refuse to use their products and especially third world farmers who try to save seeds.

But the biggest thing that needs to change is monoculture. The reason we need all these fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides in the first place is that we try to plant a bunch of the same plants in straight rows and destroy any other plants that come up -- a very different approach than the way nature does it. Fortunately, permaculture design principles are becoming better understood today, and as mass consumer society gives way to a society built at a human level, food forests within people's own communities can begin to replace the mass industrial fields that are killing the planet as we speak.
#14281091
Paradigm wrote:And to answer Eran's predictable non-point, the market is good at responding to short-term shifts in demand. It does not have a good record of averting crises before they happen.

Thank you. That certainly saved at least one or two "back-and-forths".

In fact, the market often looks years into the future. You can trade commodity futures going out to the end of the decade and beyond. Companies often make investments with payouts going out tens of years and which, consequently, require projecting long-term patterns of demand.

Further, your point would only make sense if you could point to an alternative, more "future-oriented" decision-making mechanism. So while market participants tend to focus on the next 5-10 years, politicians, the primary alternative, tend to focus on the next election and no further. In fact, those politicians who tried to focus beyond the next elections probably wouldn't survive it.

It isn't enough to say "markets aren't perfect". Of course they aren't. You have to show which system is superior to markets. It certainly isn't government.
#14281347
Eran wrote:Further, your point would only make sense if you could point to an alternative, more "future-oriented" decision-making mechanism.

How about, you know, planning? Free marketers are always contrasting the market with a "planned economy," but you know, the word "planning" pretty much inherently implies a future orientation. Now, as an anarchist, I'm not a big fan of the kind of central planning associated with Bolshevism(though it was certainly more effective than Western propaganda would have you believe), nor am I necessarily opposed to having some form of market in an anarchist society(I'm agnostic on that issue). But decentralized, coordinated planning based on social need can be a much more reliable way of averting catastrophe than the profit motive, since it's directly geared towards the issue at hand, rather than how to squeeze a few bucks out of the deal.
#14281365
Under our current capitalist system, GMOs are largely used by Monsanto to make products resistant to their famous Roundup herbicide, so the crops can withstand more toxic chemicals being sprayed on them.


Few on the forum seem to actually approve of the status quo.
#14281382
Capitalism, of course, is heavily based on planning. Decentralised, to be sure.

The difference between us, then, isn't about the need for planning, or even its decentralised nature. Rather, it seems like you are conflating planning based on "social need" (good) with planning based on "profit motive" (not so much).

And I understand the temptation of planning directly for sought-after social needs, rather than relying on the profit motive which, at best, would lead us there indirectly, and, at worse, would lead in the wrong direction.


My response is, unfortunately, somewhat complex. One aspect involves the difficulty or impossibility of identifying a single, comprehensive, universal "social need". With the highly-diverse wants of millions of people, agreeing on one vision of social need is impossible. Sure, we can democratically elect a person or a small group who would then substitute their vision for the social need for ours. As anarchists, we reject that solution.

The profit motive directs entrepreneurs into acting in ways that best, most efficiently and effectively, meet the needs of other people. The price system assigns a quantity, based on comparable units, to the utility of different products and, by extension, resources usable to create those products. "Profit" is nothing but the difference between the cost (i.e. value) of the inputs into the production process and the price (i.e. value) of the produced goods. Seeking profit is then about finding way of maximising the extent to which the value of the outputs of the production process exceeds the value of the inputs. IT is a good thing. IT measures the value created through the production process.

Profit calculations are essential for determining whether a particular production process actually adds or destroys value. Neglecting it means working in the dark, not knowing whether the enterprise is worth it, or whether the resources used in the production process could have been used for a more urgent, valued purpose. At best, we rely on intuition where markets give us (in retrospect) hard numbers.
#14281408
Eran wrote:My response is, unfortunately, somewhat complex. One aspect involves the difficulty or impossibility of identifying a single, comprehensive, universal "social need". With the highly-diverse wants of millions of people, agreeing on one vision of social need is impossible. Sure, we can democratically elect a person or a small group who would then substitute their vision for the social need for ours. As anarchists, we reject that solution.

The thing about decentralized planning is that you don't have to get everyone involved in it. Just those with an interest in it. It doesn't require you to elect someone to enforce something on everyone. It just means you need to have enough people interested in getting involved, get them connected with one another, and start taking action. This is already starting to happen with the permaculture movement, though it still faces a David vs. Goliath battle with heavily subsidized industrial agriculture(really, there's no reason for you and me to be on different sides of this issue -- industrialized agriculture is one of most heavily subsidized industries in both the US and Europe, and I would assume you're opposed to that).

The profit motive directs entrepreneurs into acting in ways that best, most efficiently and effectively, meet the needs of other people. The price system assigns a quantity, based on comparable units, to the utility of different products and, by extension, resources usable to create those products. "Profit" is nothing but the difference between the cost (i.e. value) of the inputs into the production process and the price (i.e. value) of the produced goods. Seeking profit is then about finding way of maximising the extent to which the value of the outputs of the production process exceeds the value of the inputs. IT is a good thing. IT measures the value created through the production process.

Profit calculations are essential for determining whether a particular production process actually adds or destroys value. Neglecting it means working in the dark, not knowing whether the enterprise is worth it, or whether the resources used in the production process could have been used for a more urgent, valued purpose. At best, we rely on intuition where markets give us (in retrospect) hard numbers.

Profit only involves maximizing exchange value, not use value. And no, they are not the same. Exchange value can be manipulated by monopolizing resources so as to create artificial scarcity, making people pay a premium on things for which there is a greater abundance than market prices would suggest. If I claim a well in the middle of the desert as my private property and charge people to use it, I have not added anything to its use value, but I have greatly increased the exchange value I get from it.

Rent-seeking and exploitation could be taken out of the market, as mutualists and anarcho-syndicalists advocate, but then it ceases to be about profit. It becomes instead a matter of equal exchange, based Marx's equation C -> M -> C, where money(M) is just a mediator for the exchange of commodities(C). Profit accumulation, on the other hand, is described by the equation M -> C -> M', where money is used to produce or obtain a commodity for the purpose of selling it for a greater amount of money. In the aggregate, this can only happen if someone is consistently ripped off in the deal, and under capitalism, that someone is the worker, who works for less they produce(and would get fired if they did otherwise).

It also seems a bit disingenuous to say that working outside of a market context means "working in the dark." Aren't entrepreneurs "working in the dark"? They don't know ahead of time whether or not their venture will pay off. That is only known after the fact. Profit just happens to be the metric by which we can tell after the fact whether it paid off. But profit is far from the only metric one can use. If, for example, one is trying to feed a population, then one can use metrics related to nutrition. And unlike profit, such metrics don't leave out those without the ability to pay.
#14281564
The thing about decentralized planning is that you don't have to get everyone involved in it. Just those with an interest in it. It doesn't require you to elect someone to enforce something on everyone. It just means you need to have enough people interested in getting involved, get them connected with one another, and start taking action.

I have concerns about the political economy of this scenario. The issue is the familiar one of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Many public policies have small, identifiable group of beneficiaries (whether a single company or an industry, a labour union or residents of a particular town) with costs being broadly distributed (typically either taxpayers or a large group of consumers, each ending up paying just a tiny but extra for a product).

In such situations, the democratic process is easily "hijacked" by the small group of beneficiaries. To be clear, they always justify the desired policy using language that makes it seem like it is in the public good. But the end result never is.

To be honest, my understanding of how decentralised planning is supposed to work isn't sufficient to conclude that this problem is applicable to your scenario. Perhaps some illustrations would be helpful.

So, how is decentralised planning going to work?

This is already starting to happen with the permaculture movement, though it still faces a David vs. Goliath battle with heavily subsidized industrial agriculture(really, there's no reason for you and me to be on different sides of this issue -- industrialized agriculture is one of most heavily subsidized industries in both the US and Europe, and I would assume you're opposed to that).

Absolutely. We are clearly on the same side on the issue of corporate subsidies, both direct and indirect.

Profit only involves maximizing exchange value, not use value. And no, they are not the same. Exchange value can be manipulated by monopolizing resources so as to create artificial scarcity, making people pay a premium on things for which there is a greater abundance than market prices would suggest. If I claim a well in the middle of the desert as my private property and charge people to use it, I have not added anything to its use value, but I have greatly increased the exchange value I get from it.

Let's set aside for a moment what I consider to be largely a myth, namely private-sector, consumer-harming monopolies. I know of no examples at all (not even one!) of such a phenomenon that others claim is an unavoidable side-effect of unregulated private markets.

But let's consider your example. Keep in mind that exchange value, how much people are willing to pay for a product, is a function of its marginal value to them. If a water monopolist is able to charge much for his water, it is because the townspeople greatly value his water. The use value of water is clearly circumstantial. It is much higher in a desert than in lush lake country. Similarly, having restricted the water supply, the use value of an additional litter of water is higher than it would have been otherwise.

So no, I don't think I understand how exchange value and use value could be different. Exchange value, again, is how much people are willing to pay for a product. What, other than their willingness to pay, can possibly measure the use value of the product?

Rent-seeking and exploitation could be taken out of the market, as mutualists and anarcho-syndicalists advocate, but then it ceases to be about profit. It becomes instead a matter of equal exchange, based Marx's equation C -> M -> C, where money(M) is just a mediator for the exchange of commodities(C).

I like our discussion. It isn't often that I get to discuss economic issues dispassionately with someone of radically different perspective. For the discussion to proceed fruitfully, it would be useful if you define (or, at least, explain) what you mean by "rent-seeking" and "exploitation".

Finally, trade is never about an equal exchange, because value is subjective, not objective. When I go and spend $2 for a loaf of bread, the only explanation for my going to the trouble of driving to the store, and the store going to the trouble of staying open, is that I value the bread more highly than the $2, even as the store values my $2 higher than the loaf of bread. Trade can only take place when the valuation of the items traded is sufficiently different, not equal.

It also seems a bit disingenuous to say that working outside of a market context means "working in the dark." Aren't entrepreneurs "working in the dark"? They don't know ahead of time whether or not their venture will pay off. That is only known after the fact. Profit just happens to be the metric by which we can tell after the fact whether it paid off.

Correct.

But profit is far from the only metric one can use. If, for example, one is trying to feed a population, then one can use metrics related to nutrition. And unlike profit, such metrics don't leave out those without the ability to pay.

How do you compare "nutrition" to the cost associated with providing it? Is supplementing the vitamin B12 intake of one child worth destroying all the movie theatres in the world? Of course not. Even though the former is "nutrition" while the latter is a luxury.

How do you provide a common denominator to the various ends towards which the same resources can be deployed? How can you tell whether nutrition, entertainment, medical research or education should get the use of the next available resource?

Money provides us with such a common denominator, and profit is the measure of whether, according to that common denominator, an action was (in retrospect, admittedly) such that value was added or subtracted.

Finally, as to leaving out those without the ability to pay, that is a red herring. We can only feed the hungry if we have the resources to "pay" for their food (whether payment is through a monetary transaction or merely diverting resources to this as opposed to an alternative end). In your scenario, food producers ultimately deliver food to the hungry. In my scenario, they are just as welcome to do so.

The concept of profit makes perfect sense in the context of an economic production unit such as a company. It makes no sense in the context of individuals. Individuals, in their capacity is consumers, consume (hence the name). And there is nothing in the capitalist system that suggest that individual consumption is, or ought to be, for personal use. The capitalist way is to efficiently direct production such that producers can access to the value they produced. Beyond that, capitalism is silent. Compassionate libertarianism here kicks in, and directs people who are so able to use some of the resources at their disposal to help others.
#14281845
Paradigm wrote:I'd expect this kind of market fundamentalist dogmatism from Eran, but I expected better from you.


It's not really a market thing; from a technological standpoint it's probably possible that, with sufficient effort, people could live in entirely artificial environments. I don't consider that outcome a very good one, but it would probably work from a survival standpoint.

If people are willing to pay a sufficiently high price (in terms of lifestyle trade-offs), then this sort of dystopian future might well be possible.

At some point it will become impossible to pay the cost of continual soil depletion,


Sure its possible; murder a few billion people and sustain the rest on urban hydroponics. Again, not a good outcome, but if people are willing to pay the price (genocide and soylent green) then it's possible to continue.

erosion, fertilizer runoff, colony collapse, and climate change, all of which our industrial agriculture system contributes to.


If people are indeed willing to let the environment truly go to hell... well, it's probably possible for human beings to figure out a way to survive it. I'm not going to deny the possibility that, in response to mass environmental collapse, markets will solve the artificial environment problem. And then sell people bottled air as a means of control.

And to answer Eran's predictable non-point, the market is good at responding to short-term shifts in demand. It does not have a good record of averting crises before they happen.


Oh, definitely. Markets are probably incapable of responding to long-term crises effectively. Governments are almost certainly the only thing that keeps capitalists from destroying their own societies.
#14281879
Someone5 wrote:Governments are almost certainly the only thing that keeps capitalists from destroying their own societies.

Yeah those pesky Capitalists sure did a number on Hiroshima, Dresden, Cambodia, Vietnam, Chernobyl, 3 mile island, with their nuclear weapon tests, agent orange, napalm and cluster bombs, oh wait governments did all that shit..
#14282217
taxizen wrote:Yeah those pesky Capitalists sure did a number on Hiroshima, Dresden, Cambodia, Vietnam, Chernobyl, 3 mile island, with their nuclear weapon tests, agent orange, napalm and cluster bombs, oh wait governments did all that shit..


Oh wait, those were all targeted at other societies. For the benefit of capitalists no less.
#14282220
Eran wrote:And can somebody please give an example of government dealing (successfully) with a long-term crisis?


Alright; they successfully eradicated smallpox. One of the most important achievements in the last century which has headed off a tremendous long-term problem that has plagued humanity for--literally--tens of thousands of years at least.
#14282279
taxizen wrote:Yeah those pesky Capitalists sure did a number on Hiroshima, Dresden, Cambodia, Vietnam, Chernobyl, 3 mile island, with their nuclear weapon tests, agent orange, napalm and cluster bombs, oh wait governments did all that shit..


Well, to be fair most of the weapons used by the US in the 20th century have been from private corporations who, in turn, feed the processes of continuous warfare--or actually continuous warfare feeds the "military-industrial" complex. It's never quite as simple as "Government bad" everything else fine.
#14282505
anticlimacus wrote:Well, to be fair most of the weapons used by the US in the 20th century have been from private corporations who, in turn, feed the processes of continuous warfare--or actually continuous warfare feeds the "military-industrial" complex. It's never quite as simple as "Government bad" everything else fine.

The capitalism present in the military-industrial complex is whisker thin. While it is true many weapons are manufactured by companies that are notionally private, their only customers are governments, usually they are even captured by a particular government from whom they have to get permission to sell to other governments, moreover they are heavily subsidised by government too. There is just enough capitalism present to ensure that production is creative and efficient but in all other respects we are really talking about a government activity; it is government that demands the weapons and in the end pulls the trigger.
#14282607
Taxizen wrote: The capitalism present in the military-industrial complex is whisker thin. While it is true many weapons are manufactured by companies that are notionally private, their only customers are governments, usually they are even captured by a particular government from whom they have to get permission to sell to other governments, moreover they are heavily subsidised by government too. There is just enough capitalism present to ensure that production is creative and efficient but in all other respects we are really talking about a government activity; it is government that demands the weapons and in the end pulls the trigger.


I don't think it's really quite as easy to separate the two, particular under this current state of capitalism. Government and corporations, particularly large multinational corporations, are very closely intertwined and that seems to be, in the most advanced countries, precisely what capitalism is these days,I'm afraid. The needlessness of endless war is both a product of american imperialism and exceptionalist ideology as well a multi-billion dollar weapons industry that seeks profit and will take it from wherever it can get it--and will pressure whomever it needs (including government, as all corporations do) in order to obtain a profit. Whether on the right or left of anarchism, the entire system would need to be reformed, not one more than the other.
#14283657
I don't think it's really quite as easy to separate the two, particular under this current state of capitalism.

I don't know of anybody on these forums who is defending the current state of capitalism. In fact, we libertarians seem to be amongst its loudest, clearest and most principled critics.
#14283686
Eran wrote:And can somebody please give an example of government dealing (successfully) with a long-term crisis?


Surely the business of planners is to prevent crises from arising. Anyone can react after the fact.
The USA has been successful in gaining and maintaining hegemony over the global trading system despite the high cost and unpopularity.

Take a trip to Singapore to see the effects of state intervention. Top quality housing, healthcare and infrastructure.
#14283821
None of those is an example of a government dealing with a long-term problem or potential crisis.

I'm not sure how the rare successes of public enterprises in Singapore are of any relevance here.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]

"Ukraine’s real losses should be counted i[…]