DeeJayH
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,728
- Reaction score
- 1,688
- Location
- Scooping Zeus' Poop
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Though your copying and pasting is admittedly amusing
Busted :lamo
Though your copying and pasting is admittedly amusing
Your lack of understanding of anarchism will continue to doom your arguments. Direct democratic management is precisely what anarchist organizational theory entails, not "non governance." You seem to have committed the common fallacy of assuming that anarchism is synonymous with "chaos" or "disorder."
There's certainly been extensive evidence provided that's indicated as much. We've specifically referred to microeconomic analysis in the way of Logue and Yates and their analyses of labor cooperatives and forms of profit sharing capitalism, and to empirical analysis of the efficiency gains and social benefits provided by the Spanish anarchist collectives. We might also indicate the numerous economic growth gains and improved social benefits promoted by the socialist Bolivarian Revolution of Venezuela (although you've exhibited a tendency to wordlessly dismiss such evidence in the past), the Argentine factory recovery movement, and the experiences of Titoist Yugoslavia and the Israeli kibbutzim, though there is a complex ideological spiderweb involved in those examples. And that's just to name a few.
If we were to again refer to the vibrant literature on worker participation, we might refer to Doucouliagos's Worker Participation and Productivity in Labor Manages and Participatory Capitalist Firms: A Meta-Analysis, especially considering the validity of Hunter and Schmidt's observation that "scientists have known for centuries that a single study will not resolve a major issue. Indeed, a small sample study will not even resolve a minor issue. Thus, the foundation of science is the cumulation of knowledge from the results of many studies." As noted by the abstract:
Do you have similar empirical evidence to offer?
Anecdotal speculation without empirical value.
Then your objection is a technical one related to access to productive assets and resources (specifically manpower), rather than an ideological one related to legitimate criticism of an anarchist organizational structure.
...And is there a reason that you continue to not provide information on why an anarchist military organization would not be able to utilize modern technology in the same manner?
It was "short lived" because of external pressures in the way of Nazi-allied fascist assaults and Leninist sabotage from the anarchists' erstwhile "allies" in the Republican government, not because of an internal failure of anarchist organizational structure. Indeed, it is arguable that deviation from anarchist principles and alliance with a statist government was the downfall of the Spanish Revolution.
There's little empirical evidence to support that view, as the capitalist powers of the world developed from the very interventionism that they now disavow for poorer countries. Your "slow and steady" claim is merely odd speculation with essentially no evidence to support it. Are you sure you understand the nature of infant industries?
If the majority represented middle and top earners, then what would effectively constitute the "upper class"?
The anarchist conception of surplus value involves the difference between a worker's wage and his/her marginal product contribution. If there are no set wage norms for investors and managers because of standard earnings fluctuation (which is effectively what your conception necessitates), how then would you determine precisely how their marginal product exceeded their wages? And referring back to the literature on the superior efficiency of worker participation in ownership and democratic management, why would you continue to favor a hierarchical firm structure?
It could be equally assigned to all the able-bodied so as to reduce the amount of time each individual had to spend involved in active duty or service. Initial participation in the collective is voluntary. Perhaps individual collectives will waive military service requirements if some volunteer for other similarly arduous work. But from where would military conflict even emerge on a grand scale, considering the abolition of nation-states that is an element of anarchist organization?
If you say so.
There's a difference between informal organization between like-minded individuals with similar ideological beliefs, and actual societal organization, obviously. The former may be dependent on a communitarian perspective (though that would be dependent on the "outcome" of the "debate" on the existence of altruism), but the latter would at least be initially dependent on an egoist perspective. Again, I think it an interesting prospect that societies might transition toward a more communitarian perspective after the establishment of an anarchist society and socialist economy, but it would indeed be utopian to assume that it was an immediately existing condition.
Of course it isn't. But cooperation often has the effect of fostering rational egoism and individual self-interest to a greater extent than "competition" does. Most theories concerning the latter are based on a social Darwinist misappropriation of the practical applications of evolutionary psychology and such, at any rate.
Perhaps not, but you might as well. The unfortunate consequences of some of your beliefs make it so that you might as well support the prospect of perfect competition.
This entire commentary is invalid inasmuch as it assumes that there are no incentives in a socialist economy, which is a sadly common fallacy. Incentive problems certainly exist for state capitalism of the centralized, authoritarian variety, which is often inappropriately described as "socialism," but legitimate forms of socialism may maintain markets and wages, and even communism maintains compensation differentiations in response to input differentiations in that persons able but simply unwilling to work are denied access to public resources and may be expelled from their respective communes. The doctrine of "from each according to their ability" also permits for effort measurements by fellow workers of the model described by Albert and Hahnel, in my opinion.
I was simply countering the absurd cartoon you posted. Nothing more, nothing less.And again, that is a precise depiction of the erroneous nature of selectively incorporated anecdotal evidence, which does nothing whatsoever to sufficiently acknowledge the widely varying degree of human behaviors and actions that "in my experience" claims (which you yourself lack, apparently, considering your copying and pasting), are unable to address.
Reference to scale is my point.
First off it was not my argument that ESOPS were more efficient and profitable on the margin, than capital based firms of equal asset class and workforce. I asked you to provide balance sheets, and you could not. Now, i am going to admit that worker owned operatives are very efficient, but it is not as though they are any more efficient than a single owner firm of relative scale.
Do you enjoy assuming the consequent?
Who is their CEO? Your so called corporation does not seem to operate under a traditional corporate structure.
corporation: A body of persons acting under a legal charter as a separate entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities
I didn't say that. Why are you putting words in my mouth, I understand what you mean by anarchy just fine.
It is not conclusive though.
I don't out right reject them, I'm suggesting that since there are no absolutes that there are examples where similar organizations have not done so well.
Since a lot of researchers tend to look only where they can prove there point though it is not always easy to show otherwise.
I don't need empirical evidence since small businesses make up the majority of businesses in existence in the U.S.
That alone necessitates that they are at least equally competitive than higher ordered organizations
Unless of course you disagree.
Honestly I reject your whole idea because it requires to many rational people to make it workable for any major length of time.
I was trying to show your that with all the technicalities that it can't work.
I understand infant industry and reject it in its whole.
It may be speculation to you but my hypothesis does not require perfect rational decision making and does not require dominance of competition.
It only requires that it exist along side cooperation.
At least my hypothesis is more logical than yours, there can be no long term mutual aid without an equal amount of competition.
That is exactly my point. You say people would revolt.
I say revolt against what?
I favor anyone who does anything that gains them a profit as long as they do so without violating any rational laws.
I don't care if the structure of the firm is a coop or hierarchical.
They both must exist.
Not everyone would embrace such a utopian idea that you have presented.
Some of those who reject it on its face would inevitably smash your minor collectives.
What your not understanding is that all the glory of the establishment of an anarchist type state settles down, people will start to faction themselves at first informal and later formally.
As such each faction will vie for more power and benefits inside the collective.
And since you completely reject any truth that social Darwinism has in it, your structure will fail.
You can't have a structure with out near equal amounts of both competition and cooperation.
I never supported perfect competition, in fact I require things to be imperfect otherwise it wouldn't function correctly.
That is where my hypothesis and yours diverge. You expect people to be more perfect than they are and I don't.
Your entire response is invalid insomuch as it erroneously assumes the likeness of socialistic incentives which allow access vs. capitalistic incentives which increase productivity instead of mere maintanence. Unlike capitalistic incentives the socialistic incentives are uniform across with little to no possible increases in quality or quantity whereas capitalistic incentives have rates which will grow or shrink according to productivity and profit. The "compensation differentiations" once again are merely status quo and invite little to no incentives for harder work.
Your cartoon is also incredibly wrong in that it leaves out many responsibilities and overheads that come with any business and focusing strictly on wage vs. output.
Lets not even bring in R&D or company growth funds.
I have a terrible headache.
Why, oh why, did I read this thread? :boom
:duel
I have two words to say about anarchy. Not the dream-vision, the reality when there is no government:
Somalia
Lebanon (a couple decades ago)
In the absence of government, warlords and bandits rule.
"If men were angels, there would be no need of government; however, men are not angels."
G.
I was simply countering the absurd cartoon you posted. Nothing more, nothing less.
Strawman. I'm not so naïve as to suggest that EVERY business owner went through this exact same struggle. Were you under that impression? I surely hope not.No, you weren't. Not only did your anecdotal "evidence" have no practical application to the vast majority of agents in a capitalist economy
oh of course. My position is entirely refuted because I myself am not Pete from the example I posted. God forbid someone posts an example outside personal experience because in the world of Agnapostate the mere thought of such a preposterous idea is beyond disgust! </sarcasm>given the widely varying spectrum of human experience, you lacked the originality to regale us with am account of your own anectodal experience, instead opting for the crude copy and paste technique.
Strawman. I'm not so naïve as to suggest that EVERY business owner went through this exact same struggle. Were you under that impression? I surely hope not.
But perhaps you believe your cartoon can pass with the same absurd generalizations you accuse me of peddling? Specifically that all business owners are stealthily and nefariously stealing the fruits of their employees labor? :lol:
oh of course. My position is entirely refuted because I myself am not Pete from the example I posted. God forbid someone posts an example outside personal experience because in the world of Agnapostate the mere thought of such a preposterous idea is beyond disgust! </sarcasm>
If you have anything worthwhile to add other than strawmen and absurd notions that anything beyond personal experience is worthless let me know.
So I'm sitting here and watching someone try and brand a capitalist workerplace (co-op) as a socialist idea since the workers also buy into the company.
Socialism doesn't give that incentive to work harder, neither does communism.
incorrect. the rejection of capitalism is the rejection of private property - i.e. capital. that means it's the rejection of someone having the ability to acquire wealth without labor. it has nothing to do with markets, it has to do with the status of labor and the concept of property, in terms of how it applies in economic theory.
so you can be a pro market socialist.
Welcome to DP!
incorrect. the rejection of capitalism is the rejection of private property - i.e. capital. that means it's the rejection of someone having the ability to acquire wealth without labor. it has nothing to do with markets, it has to do with the status of labor and the concept of property, in terms of how it applies in economic theory.
so you can be a pro market socialist.
What's unfortunate is that any such concept is completely foreign to their minds. I'm not a market socialist, but I do think it insightful to note Jaroslav Vanek's observation that "the capitalist economy is not a true market economy because in western capitalism, as in Soviet state capitalism, there is a tendency towards monopoly. Economic democracy tends toward a competitive market."
So you think that 100 men that can dig holes is more valuable than a single man who can hire, direct, and manage the 100 men to dig the holes?Here are my problems with capitalism:
1) It is inherently unfair, with profits earned by a wealthy minority disproportionately to the value of their labour.
As opposed to equality, where no one strives to be better than his fellow because there is no reward that favors the bold and inventive.2) It encourages the perpetuation of wealth, with wealth being passed down through generations and better facilities and opportunities for the rich, thereby encouraging class divisions and destroying the notion of equal opportunities that capitalism is based on.
Amazing that we've had such low unemployment rate for so many years then. Must be a long term and consistent anomaly.:2razz:3) It turns workers into commodities to be bought or sold, and if a worker's skills do not match the skills currently in demand then he will be forced into unemployment without, in absolute capitalism, any state support.
So you think that 100 men that can dig holes is more valuable than a single man who can hire, direct, and manage the 100 men to dig the holes?
Using meta-analytic techniques, the author synthesizes the results of 43 published studies to investigate the effects on productivity of various forms of worker participation: worker participation in decision making; mandated codetermination; profit sharing; worker ownership (employee stock ownership or individual worker ownership of the firm's assets); and collective ownership of assets (workers' collective ownership of reserves over which they have no individual claim). He finds that codetermination laws are negatively associated with productivity, but profit sharing, worker ownership, and worker participation in decision making are all positively associated with productivity. All the observed correlations are stronger among labor-managed firms (firms owned and controlled by workers) than among participatory capitalist firms (firms adopting one or more participation schemes involving employees, such as ESOPs or quality circles).
There's a reason some people are wealthy and its not just because they inherited it or somehow cheated the system.
This paper uses historical U.S. data to directly estimate the contribution of intergenerational transfers to aggregate capital accumulation. The evidence presented indicates that intergenerational transfers account for the vast majority of aggregate U.S. capital formation; only a negligible fraction of actual capital accumulation can be traced to life-cycle or "hump" savings.
As opposed to equality, where no one strives to be better than his fellow because there is no reward that favors the bold and inventive.
Amazing that we've had such low unemployment rate for so many years then. Must be a long term and consistent anomaly.:2razz:
To induce its workers not to shirk, the firm attempts to pay more than the “going wage”; then, if a worker is caught shirking and is fired, he will pay a penalty. If it pays one firm to raise its wage, however, it will pay all firms to raise their wages. When they all raise their wages, the incentive not to shirk again disappears. But as all firms raise their wages, their demand for labor decreases, and unemployment results. With unemployment, even if all firms pay the same wages, a worker has an incentive not to shirk. For, if he is fired, an individual will not immediately obtain another job. The equilibrium unemployment rate must be sufficiently high that it pays workers to work rather than to take the risk of being caught shirking.
So you think that 100 men that can dig holes is more valuable than a single man who can hire, direct, and manage the 100 men to dig the holes?
Tax paid
The top 5% pay 53.25%
The top 10% pay 64.89%
The top 25% pay 82.9%
The top 50% pay 96.03%
The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes.
The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!
income earned.
The top 1% earns 17.53
The top 5% earns 31.99
The top 10% earns 43.11%
the top 25% earns 65.23%
the top 50% earns 86.19%
John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.
1 man can hire as many laborers as he needs to be as productive as neededClearly. 100 Men undirected can still produce as much as say 50 men at the least, and probably as much as 100 Men after a short while. 1 Director without anyone working for him can't produce the same as 2 Men, let alone 100.
and how do they put the water back in the barrel? Did Microsoft or other companies receive lump sum payments from the government for free or disproportionate to their work?The rich write tax policy, and they own industry. I don't see what the point is in taxing them more. It's like taking water out of a barrel and then putting it back into the same barrel.
So you think that 100 men that can dig holes is more valuable than a single man who can hire, direct, and manage the 100 men to dig the holes?
There's a reason some people are wealthy and its not just because they inherited it or somehow cheated the system.
As opposed to equality, where no one strives to be better than his fellow because there is no reward that favors the bold and inventive.
Amazing that we've had such low unemployment rate for so many years then. Must be a long term and consistent anomaly.:2razz:
1 man can hire as many laborers as he needs to be as productive as needed