First of all capitalist markets produce gross inefficiencies, for instance the fact that what a business does not sell it might throw out, or the inefficiency of unemployment where the willing and ready labor is there, but the capital is not or the inefficiency in advertising and bookkeeping for profits, the production of wants for the sake of profit etc.
I disagree. There is nothing inherently inefficient about throwing out goods that aren't sold.
Nor is there any indication that "willing and ready labour" is hampered from employment by "capitalist markets" rather than various forms of government intervention, both direct (minimum wage) and indirect (generous unemployment "insurance")
Second, there's no reason to assume that capitalist efficiency should be the measure of all things.
There is not such thing as "capitalist" efficiency. I was discussing
economic efficiency. The key challenge is to satisfy consumer demands as effectively as possible given finite resources available to society. There is nothing "capitalist" about that challenge.
What is special about capitalism is that, unlike any other system, it encompasses the
effective means to address this challenge. The means are effective when they combine the information, capacity and motivation to act in the appropriate way to resolve the challenge.
Under capitalism, people have the information (through price signals), capacity (through guaranteed control over their own property) and motivation (through the prospect of profiting from correct choices) to act in ways that better and better meet consumer preferences.
We might want to take into account, in our measuring the value of any good, the quality and kind of work we put into it and its environmental effects as well as its relative scarcity and the urgency of need. Measuring by mere profit margins depersonalizes as the bottom line is what matters.
Perhaps. All you are doing is demonstrating that the problem may be even more complicated than I presented. But even ignoring environmental effects, the problem of optimising production is insoluble without price signals from a market in means of production and other producer goods.
Finally, profit is available as a metric of economic efficiency, but need not predominate as a motivator for action. That is always left to individuals and their moral choices.
Third, Von Mises has simply no understanding of anarchism, or what real socialism is all about (and remember that even Marx aimed towards a stateless society, not state socialism). Libertarian socialism does not operate from a centrally planned economy. In fact, it's quite the opposite of either a command economy or a corporate capitalist economy or the state capitalism of either the 19th or 20th centuries.
Mises's argument was indeed directed at proponents of central planning. However, his argument is equally valid for a scenario in which planning is decentralised, as long as those producer good price signals are absent.
As I mentioned before we would make sure to have bookkeepers who would keep track of production and send data back and forth concerning the amount labor that goes into production, the environmental costs, the relative scarcity, the need, etc. and this would allow us to come to an understanding of a cost-benefit analysis.
Sure. But how would those bookkeepers be in a position to compare the relative merit of uncountable permutation of production possibilities? How do you weigh the relative value of using steel to produce cars vs. tractors? Of using manpower to produce steel vs. aluminium?
How is your decentralised network of bookkeepers going to be able to do what Mises proved couldn't be done by a central planning bureau?
I mean how does one quantify that? Do Native Americans think this?
Today they do, sure. Native Americans could live in the primitive conditions available to their ancestors. Yet they prefer to enjoy the benefits of technology and wealth provided by state capitalism.
Do poor Americans or poor Russians think this?
Without a doubt, seeing how they live in a standard their ancestors couldn't even dream of. Do you know what poor Russians lived like under communism or pre-communist feudalism? How did poor Americans live 200 years ago, either in America or in their homelands?
Do those who produce our cheap goods in China think this?
Even more so. Sure. Because before they had an opportunity to produce your cheap goods, they were stuck as subsistence rice farmers under either communism or pre-communist imperial order. In fact, millions upon millions of Chinese leave the lives of subsistence poverty in search of precisely those jobs producing cheap goods.
propelling humanity into world wars, global ecological crises, rampant global poverty and inequality within the production of abundance, the degradation of labor, etc.
With all the world wars (which, of course, had little to do with capitalism) and ecological crises, the status of the world's
poor (not to mention the world's middle-classes) has never been better.
Global poverty isn't rampant by historic standards - it is on the decline thanks to capitalism.
Inequality may or may not be worse than that experienced under other systems (I believe it is MUCH less of an issue, btw), but I dispute that inequality (as opposed to poverty) as a topic of concern.
What socialists seek to do is to actually take the good of capitalism, the productive capacity, and to put it towards human ends towards our service--not have us serve production for its own sake, for continual, irrational, growth!
That's a fair goal. After all, I would like to take the good of state-capitalism (i.e. capitalism) while discarding the bad (state).
Unfortunately, I think you fail to understand what it is about capitalism that creates that productive capacity. Why is it, do you think, that capitalism has been the only road to prosperity ever invented?
Finally, where did you get the idea that we serve production for its own sake? What we do is try and meet human desires. Growth is not the goal, it is the means to this goal. If humans decided that spending more leisure time with their families is of higher value than making more money, nothing in capitalism would stop them from doing so. Evidently, humans (at least in today's culture) prefer working 40-60 hours per week and making more money (thereby being able to satisfy more of their material wants) over working less but enjoying a lower standard of living. Go figure!
If markets were perfect, then you might have a point. But when are they ever perfect?
Nothing is perfect, nor does the truth of my statement depend in any way on that illusory perfection of markets.
Though we cannot entirely control markets, those who are in power do their best to do so, this means creating barriers to entry and to leaving markets, controlling production and trade, etc. and it involves both private and state collusion.
What tools, in your mind, would be available to the greedy capitalist of an ancap society, to create barriers to entry and to leaving markets, controlling production and trade, etc.?
we also have to be willing to talk about the interests of capitalists to create a profit, which can mean making cheaper goods, buying cheaper labor, restricting choices, etc.
Other things being equal, capitalists prefer making cheaper goods. But other things aren't equal. Those same capitalists face competition for consumers, and consumers prefer high-quality goods. Therefore, some capitalists will produce cheaper goods for those customers who prefer them, while others will produce higher-quality (though more expensive goods).
Other things being equal, capitalists prefer hiring cheaper labour. But those same capitalists face both competition from other capitalists wishing to make use of that very same cheap labour (thereby driving its price up) and the necessity to use productive labour (which may not be cheap).
As for "restricting choices", a capitalist can restrict the range of products he offers the public, but, in an ancap society, has no mechanism for restricting the ability of consumers to choose the products of his competitor.
This is not to mention the sheer irrationality of the system: goods can sit ready to be consumed on a shelf, but if they are not purchased cannot be used. So, as in the Great Depression, those goods all go to waste.
The only goods that went to waste during the Great Depression were those over which government imposed minimum prices. Remember those? In an unregulated market, the producers (or retailers, if they have already purchased the goods) are motivated to sell them at a lower price rather than throw them away. And they routinely do. That's what sales are about.
Why not take a much more rational approach and base production on real needs, as opposed to trying to make profits and fabricate needs and control and limit production for the sake of private profit?
Let's discuss that. How would your society determine what my needs are? Do I need an iPad? How about an SUV? Do I need a house in the country? How about a vacation to Thailand? How many pairs of jeans do I need? Do I need to keep pets? How many channels of movies do I need?
I don't need any of the above to survive. But then surely you don't propose that we do away with all of them (or their equivalents), right? So the question isn't one of "needs", but of "wants". I want all of the above, and much more. Obviously, I cannot have everything I want. Nobody can. So the relevant question isn't satisfying "needs", nor "wants", but only "preferences".
And how would your society determine what my preferences are? Ask me? Allow me to vote as one member in a hundred in the monthly meeting of my consumer syndicate?
And again, how do you see capitalists in an ancap society able to "fabricate needs", when their profit depend on consumer voluntarily parting with their money to purchase what they (the consumers) choose to buy? Or, for that matter, limit production of their competitors?
Who is the arbiter of this NAP in your society? Answer: Those with power!
Not at all. The arbiters are those people considered trustworthy by ordinary people. Let's assume, for a moment, a model in which virtually everybody is insured by a "crime insurance" corporation. When you are a victim of a crime (a violation of your property rights), you are immediately compensated by your insurance company. In exchange, the company acquires the right to obtain restitution from whoever violated your rights.
If you are accused of a crime, your insurance company defends you and pays for any arbitration assessment against you, but retains the right to extract compensation from you based on legal procedures stipulated in your agreement with them.
In such a society, who has the power? Millionaires might have pampering personal service, but the companies representing them would not be any more powerful than the corporations representing the masses. Rich people might shop in Saks Fifth Avenue and poor people in Wal-Mart. Which of those two (Saks or Wal-Mart) do you think is more powerful? Rich people might eat at Per Se (the highest-rated restaurant in New York) and poor people at McDonald's. Sure, the food at Per Se is both expensive and refined. But which of those two (Per Se or McDonald's) do you think is more powerful?
Those insurance companies would negotiate and agree on mutually-acceptable arbiters. Those companies serving the masses (middle and lower classes) would easily hold their own vs. those companies representing wealthier (but also fewer) clients.
You may think--quite (extremely!) speculatively--that your "free" society will result in such a diffuse system of power that we will all be able to call the shots and hold each other accountable. However, that is a ridiculous gamble to take, I think, particularly if we are saying that the means of production, what has historically been one of the most powerful social forces, can be privately controlled.
Means of production are privately controlled, but in a diffused, not monopolistic way. That ownership coveys very little power unless political force is "for sale". As for the "gamble", I am not suggesting a sudden transition to "my" society. Rather, I envision a gradual process. The ultimate force would, until the very end, still be in the hands of democratically-elected state officials. Their powers to influence the economy would gradually be taken away, but their means for ensuring fair arbitration of disputes wouldn't, at least until the very end of the process.
It's much like the gamble of giving political power over to our elected few who will do as they wish, but are always "checked" by our vote.
Except that you could choose any insurance company
you want (rather than the one chosen by the majority of your fellow voters), and change your choice at any time (as opposed to being stuck with the same politicians for four years).
The NAP certainly protects my body from you whipping me or shooting me (of course, that is unless you can prove that I was not violating your property, and that may very well be open to interpretation). But it's most basic achievement is to protect property rights, and therefore those who control the means of production and have the most social power.
Control over means of production is diffused. Entry into that "control" is open to all. Please leave the 19th century and do join me in the 21st. There are thousands of major corporations, millions of small businesses, tens of millions of self-employed people. The means of production aren't controlled by a single, coordinated "class".
It's not what the NAP prohibits, but what it allows as a moral principle that is astonishing--and of particular interest for anarchists, is that it allows those in positions of authority (property owners) to not have the burden of proof for their authority. They are simply justified in their power without question.
The NAP only
allows people to peacefully use their property as they see fit. The NAP isn't a complete moral theory. It is merely a principle governing the
use of force in society.
By all means - work to disseminate your moral principles. I will gladly help you. The moral principles of helping the poor and cooperation amongst workers, for example, are perfectly consistent with the NAP.
Don't think of the NAP operating in a moral vacuum. Think of it in conjunction with other principles. Think of it is a wall defending people from abuse.
In a level playing field, why do you assume that capitalists will have a better chance at tempting workers than worker-controlled syndicates? By your logic, people would much rather work for the latter than for the former. If you are right, then, the NAP virtually guarantees the dominance of your production model. With the NAP in place, who could possibly stop you?
The fundamental problem with the NAP is that it has nothing to do with community. It's something for each individual to work out on their own--and, in most cases, to simply be left on their own.
How on Earth did you reach that conclusion? What is it about the NAP that precludes or discourages people from joining together as communities, working together, pooling their property, resources, energy towards common goals?
Wage labor is a result not of voluntary relationships of free association, but relations of necessity by those who have standing in authority against those who do not have.
Maybe. Or maybe not. How can you conclude that categorically? And, as stated above, assuming people prefer to work in an environment in which they have a say, how do you suppose a capitalist will ever be able to recruit workers away from a syndicate? Conversely, in a level playing field, and assuming a capitalist does manage to recruit a worker away, how can you determine that the worker didn't make a voluntary choice?
Do you seriously believe that every single person working for a wage (such as me) is doing so because they lack any alternative? If so, (1) you would be obviously wrong, and (2) you would have nothing to fear from a world that allows wage labour
and gives people adequate alternative choices.
They took those debts due to economic necessity and the means of production being privately controlled.
They owned their own land and tools. They already owned their means of production. What gave rise to that economic necessity?
When has this not been the case in capitalism? In fact, the period of the freest markets (the 19th century) created situations of vast inequalities and consolidation of power, which eventually led to the corporate monopoly and finance capital we have today.
I was referring to the effective monopolization of the means of production. That has never been the case under capitalism. Not in the 19th century, and certainly not today. It was only an issue under centrally-controlled socialist (and fascist) governments.
The 19th century indeed saw vast accumulation of wealth in private hands, but never to the point where more than a tiny fraction of society's wealth was in any pair of hands. Even then, of course, political power was "for sale", aiding the wealthiest to increase their own wealth at other's expense.
You are the one who needs to provide the hard concrete evidence that your society will be fundamentally different--and more free--than the one we have experienced.
I am confused. You agreed with me that the wealthy are able to largely control government and bend it to serve their interests. Doesn't that imply that without government, the wealthy's interests will be less well served?
If only you worked it! The reality is that you own it--I (and my fellow comrades) work it! That is why you should not have the exclusive right to it.
Hold on. I started with a simple scenario - one in which I personally travelled to a remote location, cleared and prepared a field, and then cultivated it. My argument is that under
those circumstances, I am morally entitled to exclude you (or all others) from trampling on my field.
If we agree on that, we can gradually consider more complex circumstances, such as how I may dispose of the property I did acquire using my own two hands.
How does this happen? How, in a society where we all work together in syndicates and coops to produce resources for us all, do you all by yourself suddenly acquire the ability to create the means of production all by yourself, and to the extent that you will be able to control all the labour?
Whoever said anything about controlling "all the labour"? In fact, no single person (outside government) as ever controlled "all the labour", nor even a tiny fraction of "all the labour".
I am talking about a society in which, while many people may choose to work in syndicates and coops, I am still free to acquire property of my own, either from people who willingly give me their property (say in exchange for services, or property I previously acquired) or by putting into use natural resources
that nobody before me bothered using.
If I am allowed to do that, I might, over time, accumulate more and more property. But note - at no point
ever do I acquire property at somebody else's expense. Every little step is based on either being awarded property from others
voluntarily, or adding to the store of useful resources available to humanity by putting into use previously-unused resources.
At some point in this process, I may be able to tempt away workers
who have the option of working for a syndicate to work for me. Since those workers have an alternative (working for a syndicate), their choice to work for me cannot be viewed in any way shape or form as anything other than voluntary. Will you try and stop them?
Our venture may start up another syndicate but in a true anarchist society this becomes a social endeavor that is socially realized and socially beneficial, not a social endeavor that is socially realized and privately beneficial.
Maybe it will, and maybe it won't. If you are right, you have nothing to worry about, since nobody will agree to help me without sharing in the control of our enterprise. But what if you are wrong? What if people do agree to help me (despite having viable alternatives!) without demanding such control? Will you try and stop them?
As for the nature of the benefit, unless what I am building is a self-sufficient ranch, I am probably aiming at an enterprise that produces stuff to sell to others. The enterprise, to be viable,
is socially beneficial. Whether or not I end up making a profit (a big if, btw), my enterprise will benefit my workers (for if it doesn't, they won't work for me), my suppliers (for if it doesn't, they won't sell to me) and my customers (for if it doesn't, they won't work for me).
Whatever profit I end up with is only the residual value left
after my enterprise has been socially beneficial.
Now, I'm not contesting that certain standards of living in certain places have gone up (just as they did in Soviet Russia)--of course this, we must also admit does not have everything to do with capitalism. But that is not, by any reason, a moral justification for a system of oppression and domination. I mean the same argument was made about African slaves or the Native Americans: they are being taken into a civilized society, away from their prior brutish ways, and, of course, with the help of slave labor production and standards of living went up.
The big difference, of course, is that African slaves and Native Americans have been forced to abandon their prior way of life. The peasants of the third world (and, 150 years ago, of Europe) have chosen to abandon their prior way of life because capitalist countries offered them a better alternative.
What we have is the capacity to create mass production.
That capacity didn't materialise out of thin air, or was dreamed of in a university or government bureau. No, this capacity was created, exclusively, by profit-seeking entrepreneurs (which you would call "capitalists").
You now wish to kill the goose that lay the golden eggs.
Ya..tell that to the 1200 who just died in Bangladesh, or the Chinese factory producers of American toys, or the undocumented American immigrant who lives in fear of being deported and so does whatever he/she is told.
All of these people either (1) live in fear of
government oppression, in which case their plight has no bearing on the kind of capitalism I am advocating, or (2) live under explicit slavery, in which case their plight has no bearing on the kind of capitalism I am advocating, or (3) have chosen to work in those conditions, because those conditions, while poor by our standards, are still a vast improvement over their prior lives.
Those Bangladeshi and Chinese factory workers work under hard conditions. But those conditions are sill much better than those experienced by their parents, back in the village.
The idea that we simply try to curb the only public power we have and let finance capital and corporate power do even more of what they want just sound absurd. You may paint rosy pictures all you want, but that won't change the fact that the burden of proof is on you to show how this would end in the well being of us all. Reality shows a different story--and the masses are smart enough to not fall for it, I think.
Financial capital and corporate power can only "do what they want" because of the control they exert over government.
It is very easy to demonstrate. Pick your favourite corporate abuse of power (Wall Street excess, BP oil spill, difficult working conditions in China, you name it) and it is readily evident that either (1) that abuse is strictly conditioned on favoured government regulations, or (2) it isn't really an abuse.
Conversely, you are yet to point out a single example of how, in a society governed, ultimately, by the NAP, those possessing economic wealth are in a position to abuse it. Pray tell, how will they do that, in a society in which consumers and workers can always opt for their competitors, in which pollution is actionable by the owners (or users) of the polluted resources, in which competition is wide open to all, in which ownership of resources is widely distributed amongst millions of different people?
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.