Re: More Anarchism with Roy L
- From: "Quirk" <quirk@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 11 May 2005 07:05:37 -0700
royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >And could not the same argument be
> >made to support the private ownership of the lot itself, could not
its
> >"full value in rent be paid out up front" as well, and thus private
> >ownership justified?
> No, because the depleted resource is gone. The lot is still there.
Yet the Capital has not settled its liability to land, if I steal your
Shovel, and then destroy it, my theft does not vanish with the shovel.
> Its full rental value can't be calculated, because it hasn't happened
> yet. And also because it might well diverge (i.e., be infinite).
Exactly, which is why mutual ownership of Capital, along the same lines
as the Georgist model for Land, is the only way to deal with the
Liability Capital has to Land.
> >> Yes, but its value is _subtracted_ from the _return_, because it
must
> >> be paid for, in full.
> >Paid to whom?
> The resource owner.
The resource, like land, has no rightfull owner, it is rightfully owned
by everyone, present and future.
> >Who do you pay for something with no rightfull owner?
> A wrongful one.
What is the point of that?
> >Isn't this just current possessors robbing future possessors?
> No, it's current possessors robbing current potential users.
And why should this be perpetuated?
> >How does the community determine what the depletion of their
resources
> >and poisoning of their environment is worth?
> With due care and attention.
And as this due care and attention must be accomplished mutually in
anycase, why not organize the mode of production so that the Capital
ends up owned mutually as well?
> >And how can it stop me
> >from using wealth from influencing this process?
> Prison terms for corrupting public officials.
Generally, only members of the Elite who have fallen out with their
class will be punished by the legal system, which like the State,
exists to protect the interests of property, not limit the the Ability
of property to appropriate the productivity of labour.
Looking to the Courts to limit the rights of Property amounts to asking
the Criminals to police themselves.
> >> The return to capital is not unearned, because it is obtained in
> >> return for a _contribution_to_production_.
> >In theory, but in practice it is in return for paying wages to
somebody
> >else to make this contribution for you.
> The wages paid were also in principle gained by the payer making a
> contribution (I agree that they often weren't in fact, but we can't
> undo the injustices of the past, only of the future -- this is well
> explained in Henry George's "The Great-Great Grandson of Captain
> Kidd").
I agree, I am not advocating undoing the injustices of the past, rather
I am proposing that the way to stop perpetuating these injustices is
for workers to organize themselves to acquire the basis of power, which
is ownership of land and capital.
> >Thus, in practice, it is yet
> >another unearned return to property.
> Garbage. It is only unearned if the property itself was unearned.
> ANd we can't untangle that.
No need to untangle anything, just eliminate Capital yield by enclosing
labour and choosing to only apply our labour to Capital and Land that
is mutually owned.
> >I mean that in the Anachist mode of production, Capital is owned
> >jointly, and its formation is funded jointly.
> OK, so that does not apply to anything produced outside the Anarchist
> mode.
True, but as the Anarchist mode is more efficient, competition from the
Anarchist enterprises could, through their market pressure, drive the
cost of Capital outside of its own mesoeconomy towards its costs too.
> >And they can't afford to buy it because the price of their labour is
> >driven towards its cost by the Capitalist mode of production,
> Just the private land rent collection part.
Which leaks into the private Capital yield collection part.
> >Impossible, the worker can not have a return that is any greater
than
> >the entire product, which is his share in my syndicate.
> Nope. The entire product under Anarchist production could well be
> less than the worker's share under private ownership of capital by
the
> most productive managers.
Only if Capital yield is negative, with is not sustainable nor socially
desirable burden to place upon private interests. The many should not
exploit the few any more than the few should exploit the many.
> >Perhaps, and your explanations are helpfull as always, however I
> >believe that you have not grasped the advantages of the Anarchist
free
> >market, land and capital at cost
> You still have not explained the capital producer's motive for
> providing his product at cost.
To collect his wages. The producer is not the Capitalist.
> >and under the control of the most
> >productive labour.
> That's not necessarily the most skillful manager.
Yes it is, the most skillful manager will be able to pay the community
the most rent for the land and capital, thus will be in control of it.
I do not propose that Capital be mutually managed by the workers, just
that the yield be mutualized. Exactly as Georgist Land.
> And it doesn't
> explain the most productive workers' motives for placing their
> superior skills in the service of a collective rather than
themselves.
They retain the entire product of their labour, it is thus their own
benefit they are serving.
> >> >I agree, but labour when sells itself for wages alone to the
> >> >Capitalist, it is robed.
> >
> >> I see no warrant for such a claim.
> >
> >Because the natural wage of labour is its entire product.
>
> But it isn't. It's the entire product less rent and interest.
Rent and interest is not their product, but the liabilities they have
to others. The natural wage of labour is its entire product, this does
not include what is not their product.
> >Exactly, which is why I have repeatedly said that this quibble
between
> >us regarding Capital is insignificant in comparison to our agreement
> >regarding mutual Land and private Labour.
> I don't regard it as a quibble. It is a smaller -- maybe even
trivial
> -- issue in terms of what is at stake materially, but the principle
at
> stake (the rightfulness of interest) is IMO not trivial.
I meant materially, I agree that philosophically it is an important
distinction, however the material result of mutualizing land is no
doubt more significant than the material result of mutualizing capital.
> >Sure, but Venture Communists would not do that. They would sooner
debt
> >finance it.
> And who is going to lend them the money at 0% interest?
As I've explained I have no problem with money interest that is derived
from the Time Value of Money, not Capital yield.
> >And by enclosing labour against this practice,
> That sounds like violating people's liberty.
It's not, workers have the right to work for or _not_ work for whomever
they chose.
> >we lower that value,
> >driving it back towards its cost.
>
> Interest reflects a cost, too: the bearing of risk despite aversion.
And a Commune can bear risk as well as a private interest.
> >Private hands will tend to conspire to raise the price above cost
for
> >their private benefit.
> But that is known not to work in a free market environment, as the
> failure of so many cartels demonstrates.
It may not work forever, but it certainly does work, take a look at
Electricity prices in areas were Electricity generating and
distributing Capital is privately owned versus where it is mutually
owned.
> >When the Capital is mutual, its price will tend
> >to fall towards cost, as nobody benefits from a higher price.
> _Allocation_ may benefit from a higher price.
Where there is scarcity or novelty, yes, and my proposal of renting
Capital to the highest bidding enterprises, like the Georgist model for
Land, has the same Allocation benefit.
However, as beyond Allocation the higher price is not pocketed by any
private interest, supply will allowed to increase until price reaches
its cost.
Private interests will tend to use their influence to perpetuate
Scarcity through anti-competitive practices.
> >Placing it "in the most productive hands" is achieved by pushing the
> >price of Capital towards its cost.
> But you are just _assuming_ that interest does not represent a cost,
> and is just another form of rent. It isn't.
I am arguing that all liabilities must be settled as a part of the mode
of production, and thus any remaining Interest is indeed a form of
rent.
> >And a Commune of sufficient
> >diversification is as capable of bearing risk as any private person.
> But is it capable of bearing the risk as _wisely_ as the most skilled
> private person?
Of course, the quality of the managers hired by mutual as opposed to
private interests is identical.
> Well, if it is sound, go ahead and make it work.
I will certainly try. It will not happen overnight though, and in the
meantime I need to refine my model and general understanding of
economics.
> >Because I am sceptical about the calculation of severance tax, and
> >worried by the possibility of whatever agency makes this calculation
> >being captured by an elite.
> The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. What else is new?
Yet the burden of vigilance is reduced, and thus is eternal
sustainability promoted, by engineering fewer opportunities for
capture.
> >However, as Proudhon predates Marx it is wrong to attribute this
belief
> >of mine to Marxism, which was my point here.
> It doesn't matter who said it, or who said it first.
It does in that I'm trying to present a clearer picture of Anarchism.
Regards.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: More Anarchism with Roy L
- From: royls
- Re: More Anarchism with Roy L
- References:
- Re: More Anarchism with Roy L
- From: Quirk
- Re: More Anarchism with Roy L
- From: royls
- Re: More Anarchism with Roy L
- Prev by Date: Re: Capital and Mark Monson's Land
- Next by Date: Re: LVT and the Severance Tax
- Previous by thread: Re: More Anarchism with Roy L
- Next by thread: Re: More Anarchism with Roy L
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
