But the same applies the other way. Libertarians argue that centralizing power (redistribution, workers owning production, etc) in any manner inevitably leads to oppression.
When I say redistribution, I mean someone taking from one person and distributing what they took to others. In practical terms that means taxes and government programs. That centralizes power to the government to make decisions how redistribution happens and who benefits. Or so is the Libertarian argument.
The workers owning production is a bit more complex. I think most libertarians would point to the like of Soviet Communism where state power organized labor. Again, centralization. But private co-ops and such exist so I don’t think they can mark it across the the board.
libertarians believe wholeheartedly in freedom of association and the right to voluntary exchange. As soon as you start talking forced anything, you’ve lost us.
Can 300 million people collectively run an economy and be focused on making those decisions? No.
Then a group of representatives are needed to do it for them, but wait, isn’t that the same thing as a government owning and operating the economy? Like in fascism? Oh no!
Then a group of representatives are needed to do it for them, but wait, isn’t that the same thing as a government owning and operating the economy? Like in fascism? Oh no!
Sure, if you ignore all the differences that makes it entirely different, such as:
Democratic control
Local level decision making toward central goals being done by workers and not capitalist overseers
The lack of a profit motive
Claes consciousness, aka we understand how things actually work and we don’t have to blame misfortunes on a scapegoat like under capitalism
I’m going to take the Libertarian perspective here again. If you remove profit motive in any sense, how can a group allocate resources effectively or incentivize work? Price/profit margin signal more than just greed. The market self corrects based on prices.
you remove profit motive in any sense, how can a group allocate resources effectively or incentivize work?
Empirical response: How did the soviet economy grow 50 percent during the Great depression?
Theory based response: when you remove profit seeking workers are no longer alienated from their labor, as the harder they work the more it benefits them and their community and not some rich fuck.
If I’m working a job now, what incentive do I have to be as productive as possible? The potential for promotion? If I wanted to optimize my chances for that, I’d be more interested in learning to be a kissass than to improve my work.
Price/profit margin signal more than just greed. The market self corrects based on prices.
Price is a very low information density signal. It isnt actually rational to do economic planning (as all firms do in market economies) off of price, why do you think non-hostile corporate espionage is a thing?
Remember that growth is relative. GDP per capita in the mid 30s was still three times higher in countries like the states, UK, and Switzerland compared to the Soviet Union. This trend continued into the next decades. Pretty much all of Europe had a stronger economy. And there weren’t mass famines and rampant scarcity issues to the same extent in the west. Yes the Soviet economy did grow, but the libertarian argument is about efficiency.
And sure, price in isolation isn’t a super useful indicator. But many factors influence price (competition from profit seeking, availability of resources, etc). As for the latter part, companies do run market research, including non hostile espionage, to find what consumers want most. I personally don’t see where that would be irrational. It directly fills needs.
Remember that growth is relative. GDP per capita in the mid 30s was still three times higher in countries like the states, UK, and Switzerland compared to the Soviet Union. This trend continued into the next decades. Pretty much all of Europe had a stronger economy.
And how did that pan out for high GDP France? GDP per capita is a bad statistic to use. Two economists trading a random object and 20 dollars back and forth raises the GDP of a place by forty dollars per cycle
And there weren’t mass famines and rampant scarcity issues to the same extent in the west.
Thats because they exported their economic problems to the colonies. Look up how many people starved to death In British colonial India. Also the soviet union ended the previously periodic famines when their collectivization policy was fully implemented
Yes the Soviet economy did grow, but the libertarian argument is about efficiency.
What sort of efficiency? Because Marxists argue that capitalism is really good at making profit and really bad comparatively at efficiently improving human outcomes.
But many factors influence price (competition from profit seeking, availability of resources, etc).
That is literally why it has low information value.
1 - Are you saying that France made poor economic plans because they were invaded by the Germans? It might be because they were being bombed and attacked during the deadliest and largest war in modern history. Devastating war tends to have devastating economic effects.
And trade is a good indicator of an economy. It turns out fair trade is massively beneficial to everyone. The study of the allocation of resources is what economics is all about. And I don’t think you’d say that poor countries had lower GDP because they didn’t have textbook economists trading 20s in the back rooms.
2 - The starvation you mention also correlates with India’s driest years on record for over a century in agricultural areas. These famines were later tamed by the import of western technology like railroads. And Britain still grew 3/4 of its own food, although decreasing, for much of this period.
I’m not calling the British innocent. They imposed taxes and tariffs that helped themselves, as they did with colonial America, and damaged the Raj economy as a result. They did not, however, “pillage” India, as some have oversimplified.
3 - What sort of human outcomes? The USSR had terrible housing, lower life expectancy than western countries, and had significantly worse technology, infrastructure, working conditions, and availability of goods and services. The USSR’s economy growing at all doesn’t equate to magic wonderland.
These are the human outcomes of states that detach people from their own interest (communism, socialism, fascism). It makes everyone equal at the cost of making everyone poor.
Libertarians argue that generally, free enterprise, and it’s efficiency by extention, leads to better human outcomes. And the data seems to back it.
I think if a Libertarian considered workers owning production in good faith but using their own terms, they’d see that a bunch of people owning production is more decentralized than one dude owning the whole factory. And then become a left libertarian.
I was incorrectly assuming that’s what you meant by workers owning production, but I see in your reply to the other post that you also include state power organized labor.
So I guess my point is that a Libertarian would use the meme above with a punchline of “we just say communism” instead of Soviet Communism, when most here would not agree that’s the inevitable result of all communism.
Yeah, I get that. That’s actually what I was saying in my first post. A libertarian would see any form of communism as the path to tyranny, much like the meme does toward capitalism.
I’m just asking what form of collectivization best argues against that point? You mentioned left libertarianism.
Libertarians tend to say things like democracy, a well informed populace, and a strong constitution would reduce government growth and therefore abuse (cronyism). How can that same problem of abuse be avoided in a real collective society?
I’m not going to pretend like I have all the answers there. Personally I don’t think goverments are helpful; the vanguard state has failed repeatedly. Those weren’t “crony” vanguard state. But unions and co-ops have worked out much better. If everybody is voting, then elites would need to coerce everyone instead of just whoever is in charge. One Stalin can’t ruin everything.
This can cause its own problems (like voter fatigue), but those can be mitigated in various ways (like with liquid democracy). And if/when it becomes corrupt and your voice goes unheard, then creating or joining a new union is much easier than doing so with a new government.
But the same applies the other way. Libertarians argue that centralizing power (redistribution, workers owning production, etc) in any manner inevitably leads to oppression.
How are redistribution and workers owning production centralization? I mean from a “libertarian perspective”.
When I say redistribution, I mean someone taking from one person and distributing what they took to others. In practical terms that means taxes and government programs. That centralizes power to the government to make decisions how redistribution happens and who benefits. Or so is the Libertarian argument.
The workers owning production is a bit more complex. I think most libertarians would point to the like of Soviet Communism where state power organized labor. Again, centralization. But private co-ops and such exist so I don’t think they can mark it across the the board.
libertarians believe wholeheartedly in freedom of association and the right to voluntary exchange. As soon as you start talking forced anything, you’ve lost us.
Can 300 million people collectively run an economy and be focused on making those decisions? No.
Then a group of representatives are needed to do it for them, but wait, isn’t that the same thing as a government owning and operating the economy? Like in fascism? Oh no!
Sure, if you ignore all the differences that makes it entirely different, such as:
Democratic control
Local level decision making toward central goals being done by workers and not capitalist overseers
The lack of a profit motive
Claes consciousness, aka we understand how things actually work and we don’t have to blame misfortunes on a scapegoat like under capitalism
I’m going to take the Libertarian perspective here again. If you remove profit motive in any sense, how can a group allocate resources effectively or incentivize work? Price/profit margin signal more than just greed. The market self corrects based on prices.
Empirical response: How did the soviet economy grow 50 percent during the Great depression?
Theory based response: when you remove profit seeking workers are no longer alienated from their labor, as the harder they work the more it benefits them and their community and not some rich fuck.
If I’m working a job now, what incentive do I have to be as productive as possible? The potential for promotion? If I wanted to optimize my chances for that, I’d be more interested in learning to be a kissass than to improve my work.
Price is a very low information density signal. It isnt actually rational to do economic planning (as all firms do in market economies) off of price, why do you think non-hostile corporate espionage is a thing?
Remember that growth is relative. GDP per capita in the mid 30s was still three times higher in countries like the states, UK, and Switzerland compared to the Soviet Union. This trend continued into the next decades. Pretty much all of Europe had a stronger economy. And there weren’t mass famines and rampant scarcity issues to the same extent in the west. Yes the Soviet economy did grow, but the libertarian argument is about efficiency.
And sure, price in isolation isn’t a super useful indicator. But many factors influence price (competition from profit seeking, availability of resources, etc). As for the latter part, companies do run market research, including non hostile espionage, to find what consumers want most. I personally don’t see where that would be irrational. It directly fills needs.
And how did that pan out for high GDP France? GDP per capita is a bad statistic to use. Two economists trading a random object and 20 dollars back and forth raises the GDP of a place by forty dollars per cycle
Thats because they exported their economic problems to the colonies. Look up how many people starved to death In British colonial India. Also the soviet union ended the previously periodic famines when their collectivization policy was fully implemented
What sort of efficiency? Because Marxists argue that capitalism is really good at making profit and really bad comparatively at efficiently improving human outcomes.
That is literally why it has low information value.
1 - Are you saying that France made poor economic plans because they were invaded by the Germans? It might be because they were being bombed and attacked during the deadliest and largest war in modern history. Devastating war tends to have devastating economic effects.
And trade is a good indicator of an economy. It turns out fair trade is massively beneficial to everyone. The study of the allocation of resources is what economics is all about. And I don’t think you’d say that poor countries had lower GDP because they didn’t have textbook economists trading 20s in the back rooms.
2 - The starvation you mention also correlates with India’s driest years on record for over a century in agricultural areas. These famines were later tamed by the import of western technology like railroads. And Britain still grew 3/4 of its own food, although decreasing, for much of this period.
I’m not calling the British innocent. They imposed taxes and tariffs that helped themselves, as they did with colonial America, and damaged the Raj economy as a result. They did not, however, “pillage” India, as some have oversimplified.
3 - What sort of human outcomes? The USSR had terrible housing, lower life expectancy than western countries, and had significantly worse technology, infrastructure, working conditions, and availability of goods and services. The USSR’s economy growing at all doesn’t equate to magic wonderland.
These are the human outcomes of states that detach people from their own interest (communism, socialism, fascism). It makes everyone equal at the cost of making everyone poor.
Libertarians argue that generally, free enterprise, and it’s efficiency by extention, leads to better human outcomes. And the data seems to back it.
I think if a Libertarian considered workers owning production in good faith but using their own terms, they’d see that a bunch of people owning production is more decentralized than one dude owning the whole factory. And then become a left libertarian.
Are you advocating for co-ops or am I missing the point?
I was incorrectly assuming that’s what you meant by workers owning production, but I see in your reply to the other post that you also include state power organized labor.
So I guess my point is that a Libertarian would use the meme above with a punchline of “we just say communism” instead of Soviet Communism, when most here would not agree that’s the inevitable result of all communism.
Yeah, I get that. That’s actually what I was saying in my first post. A libertarian would see any form of communism as the path to tyranny, much like the meme does toward capitalism.
I’m just asking what form of collectivization best argues against that point? You mentioned left libertarianism.
Libertarians tend to say things like democracy, a well informed populace, and a strong constitution would reduce government growth and therefore abuse (cronyism). How can that same problem of abuse be avoided in a real collective society?
I’m not going to pretend like I have all the answers there. Personally I don’t think goverments are helpful; the vanguard state has failed repeatedly. Those weren’t “crony” vanguard state. But unions and co-ops have worked out much better. If everybody is voting, then elites would need to coerce everyone instead of just whoever is in charge. One Stalin can’t ruin everything.
This can cause its own problems (like voter fatigue), but those can be mitigated in various ways (like with liquid democracy). And if/when it becomes corrupt and your voice goes unheard, then creating or joining a new union is much easier than doing so with a new government.