Spain 1936-1937: Libertarian Socialism & Its Demise

[TheStatutoryApe]

It seems that you think that small business owners are capitalists and ideal society would be small businesses competing with each other in perfect competition.

It would seem to be the ideal capitalist model though as I have already stated I am not of the opinion that capitalism is the be all and end all of economic systems.

Government role would be preventing big corporations coming into existence, since it seems that you are aware of the fact that perfect competition leads to monopolies, because the natural goal of any business is to eliminate competition and become a monopoly in its market. You may say that majority of small businesses do not want to become monopolists and their goal is to make end meets or just live comfortable life offering a reasonable service to community. It may very well be so, but logic of the market is not so obliging to such intentions. Either they would have to expand or they would be constantly threatened by whose who will and eventually will have to stop to be small businesses.

You are right that I do not see the point of a business as eliminating competition. One might even suggest that competition is good for the business owner as each business may then find their niche in the market and prosper side by side where as constantly eliminating competition will constantly create vacant niches to be filled by new competitors requiring more and more work to maintain ones own niche in the market.
As well certain businesses may necessarily be required to be monopolies such as the railways. You can not simply allow anyone and everyone to start their own railways or the whole land would be crisscrossed with them and most would be hardly used if used at all or even completed.
Some small scale local monopolies may even occur naturally when there is only one small niche for a certain type of business. If you have a local baker and everyone knows and trusts the baker the likelihood that any competition would occur is fairly slim, except with corporatism.

On another issue, you seem to have a patronizing view of those who work for wages. That the fact that some people are workers says something on their inability to manage and hence they cannot collectively manage themselves and have control over their work, hence they need 'entrepreneurs' and democracy at workplace is impossible. I hope I misunderstood you, otherwise it is similar to claims of slave owners and aristocrats that slaves or peasants cannot manage themselves and need more educated , better human beings such as owners and aristocrats to manage them.

You are misconstruing my argument. I have only argued that the employer and machines obviously add value to the labour of the workers otherwise they would not work for the employer. The employer offers an opportunity which they can not find or create themselves otherwise, again, they would not be working for their employer.

As far as workers coming together and working for themselves imagine that we have a few people who decide to do just that. Their business becomes successful and they find that they can not keep up with the demand for their product. They decide to expand and admit more people into their fold, perhaps more in number than they are themselves. In a purely democratic model what happens if the new members decide that they do not like the business plan as it stands and decide it should be changed? If they have more votes than those who created the business then they may change the business as they please. The creators of the business now have no control over their creation after spending perhaps a few years of their time and effort in creating it. Their experience and knowledge of the business is now of little account and if the new workers run the business into the ground because they do not have the benefit of that knowledge and experience they ruin the people who gave them their share in the business to begin with as well.
So perhaps we consider that these creators of the business should have some greater level of control of the business than the new workers. Perhaps we see that their investment of labour into creating the business, as well as their continued input in the form of knowledge and experience, privileges them to some higher level of compensation. But if we decide these things are true then how do we justify believing that "the capitalist" is not justified in receiving similar considerations?

I think it is important to look at reasons why corporations have appeared. Was it inevitable for preservation of capitalism?

The rise of corporation related to the emergence of large-scale industry, but it maybe that the corporation emerged not to enable large-scale industry but to prevent it from becoming excessively productive.

I think that it is fairly obvious that the emergence of large corporations was for the purpose of enabling large scale industry and the "saving capitalism from collapse" aspect is a self fulfilling prophecy as without the existence of large scale industry and corporations the system would not likely have come to the edge of collapse. Practical considerations will trump theoretical considerations. The likelihood that anyone worked out the math of a theoretical system for a burgeoning technological revolution with considerations for details of which they hardly could have had any knowledge is pretty far fetched and borders on conspiracy theory. That the systemic model necessarily found its balance in any particular form is as indicative of intent as the human eye is indicative of a "watchmaker".

In any case small businesses are under stress of competition, many of them fail. Since people have to borrow money to open business, they are indebted to the banks. In recent times especially, many relay on credit cards. Banks usually like to be sure that business will be successful and will grow, hence there is pressure from banks on small businesses to grow.

Most small businesses fail within the first year. They do need to take out loans but this primarily due to the corporatist system. They can succeed, pay off their debts, and be as autonomous as one can be considering the circumstances that they are operating in. And no, not everyone can be a successful business owner the same way that not everyone can be a doctor, or an engineer, or a rock star. It is merely a circumstance of reality. No system in existence can make sure that every person has the equal chance to any occupation that they desire so I do not see how this effects the viability of a capitalist model.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

But you selected an example, having someone mow the lawn, that may not display the usual kind of class dependency, unless the worker is in a repeating pattern of mowing many lawns in lieu of his family being hungry and homeless.

Any person must work in order to survive even if that "work" only consists of robbing people on the side of the road.

This more essential feature of slavery is to have people perform work only to receive back a small fraction of the wealth that they have produced, and systematically to yield up the lion's share of their product to the ruler.

If the worker were capable of producing as much without their employer they would not work for their employer. That an employer adds value to a workers labour is unquestionable. That they should profit from that which they have had a hand in is not at all unusual.

 

[Al68]

There are several ways in which Marxian theory identifies employment as a form of slavery.

One is the fact that the means of production are the means of life. For the capitalist to own the industries is similar to being the legal owner of all the oxygen in the world; he can dictate the conditions under which other people may survive, if he chooses to grant them permission to survive.

Sure, but this has nothing to do with free market capitalism.

People who are born into the working class and who are fated to stay there forever, must, in order to survive, seek and obtain employment by a certain other people who were born into the capitalist class.

Again, not free market capitalism.

If there were a law requiring all brown-eyed people to become the servants of all the blue-eyed people, otherwise they must starve, the same sort of dependence on accidents of birth, then the injustice of the institution would be recognizable to everyone.

There is no such analogous law relevant to free market capitalism.

But the worker, whose capacity to work is coincident with his mind and body, must deliver his entire self to someone else's facility, to be subject to minute control of his whole organism by someone else.

Again, simply untrue of free market capitalism. Marxist critiques of "capitalism" may very well apply to a form of capitalism described here and in the writings of Marx. But they make no sense whatsoever if applied to free market capitalism.

But capitalists will only employ workers when it is known in advance that those workers will produce an amount of wealth that far exceeds their own price as the commodity labor power. This is a major feature that defines all forms of slavery, not the situation of being legally prohibited from walking out, which chattel slavery imposed. This more essential feature of slavery is to have people perform work only to receive back a small fraction of the wealth that they have produced, and systematically to yield up the lion's share of their product to the ruler.

That's not how slavery is defined. Slavery by definition is "being legally prohibited from walking out".

That being said, in free market capitalism, the fraction of wealth created pocketed by the "capitalist" is typically far smaller than the fraction pocketed by the workers. The reason the "capitalist" makes far more in total is because of the ratio of workers to "capitalists". (I'm putting "capitalist" in quotes to designate the non-standard use of the word to mean business owner.)

The biggest problem I have with Marxist theory is that it completely disregards the right of individual workers to own (make decisions regarding) their own labor. The Marxist notion of restricting economic freedom to protect workers from their own decisions, or from being "taken advantage of" is suitable to be applied to children, not adults. In Marxism, there simply is no recognition of adulthood, meaning the right of individuals to make their own economic decisions regarding their own labor.

 

[mikelepore]

Al68, "the right of individuals to make their own economic decisions regarding their own labor" -- what decisions are you referring to? In the proposed classless economic system, there would be no removal of the right to make decisions about one's own labor. Certain social roles would no longer exist after such a historical change. The roles of employer and employee would no longer exist, just as today the roles of the feudal lord and serf no longer exist, and the end of the Roman empire meant that the social roles of patricians and plebeans would no longer exist. To call such a historical development a loss of some choices would be an ahistorical description. We are deprived of a choice if, under the institutions of the time, a social position exists for some people while others are prevented from entering it; we are not deprive of a choice if the institutions of the day do not bring that position into existence at all.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Al68, "the right of individuals to make their own economic decisions regarding their own labor" -- what decisions are you referring to? In the proposed classless economic system, there would be no removal of the right to make decisions about one's own labor. Certain social roles would no longer exist after such a historical change. The roles of employer and employee would no longer exist, just as today the roles of the feudal lord and serf no longer exist, and the end of the Roman empire meant that the social roles of patricians and plebeans would no longer exist. To call such a historical development a loss of some choices would be an ahistorical description. We are deprived of a choice if, under the institutions of the time, a social position exists for some people while others are prevented from entering it; we are not deprive of a choice if the institutions of the day do not bring that position into existence at all.

Perhaps you could describe how this would look and be achieved? Otherwise it is just empty rhetoric.

And the "class system" that you refer to is based on freedom of choice to do with ones own labour as they choose. If I work hard and receive compensation for that work which I save then I will have more resources than my fellows and apparently have entered another "class" (which of course you state is not possible). If I have worked for what I have then why am I unable to dispose of what I have as I see fit? If I am allowed to do so then I should be allowed to pass on the advantages I have gained for myself to others, including my children. Now my children are in a separate "class" but this apparently unfair.

If I am not allowed to negotiate the cost of my labour than I am denied choice. If I am not allowed to save the earnings of my labour then I am denied choice. If I am not allowed to do as I choose with the product of my labour then I am obviously being denied choice. ect ect ect

 

[Al68]

Al68, "the right of individuals to make their own economic decisions regarding their own labor" -- what decisions are you referring to?

I'm referring to the decision to sell or not sell one's labor.

In the proposed classless economic system, there would be no removal of the right to make decisions about one's own labor. Certain social roles would no longer exist after such a historical change. The roles of employer and employee would no longer exist, just as today the roles of the feudal lord and serf no longer exist, and the end of the Roman empire meant that the social roles of patricians and plebeans would no longer exist. To call such a historical development a loss of some choices would be an ahistorical description. We are deprived of a choice if, under the institutions of the time, a social position exists for some people while others are prevented from entering it; we are not deprive of a choice if the institutions of the day do not bring that position into existence at all.

We're talking about a (Marxist) institution that is itself based on the deprivation of that choice. Denying the rights of individuals to own (make decisions regarding) their own labor is the defining characteristic of the institution in question.

And although Marx didn't acknowledge it, effectively denying those rights would necessarily require the use of force against workers. His "plan" of everyone voluntarily doing exactly what he wanted without force was obviously just delusional.

 

[mikelepore]

As Marx observed, in his pamphlet "Wage-Labour and Capital":

"The worker leaves the capitalist, to whom he has sold himself, as often as he chooses, and the capitalist discharges him as often as he sees fit, as soon as he no longer gets any use, or not the required use, out of him. But the worker, whose only source of income is the sale of his labor power, cannot leave the whole class of buyers, i.e., the capitalist class, unless he gives up his own existence. He does not belong to this or to that capitalist, but to the capitalist class; and it is for him to find his man, i.e., to find a buyer in this capitalist class."

This condition, that we are required to be exploited by a master, but we get to choose our master, is what you are calling "choice." In reality, there would be much more choice involved in the adoption of a social system in which people were not exploited by others at all.

 

[mikelepore]

Perhaps you could describe how this would look and be achieved? Otherwise it is just empty rhetoric.

What achieved? Are you asking about what kind of transitional program I believe to be most viable to establish a classless society? I think the "socialist industrial union" program proposed by Daniel De Leon is the most carefully developed suggestion. A new workplace-based organization get established that has the structure to go beyond collective bargaining, and also has the form of the workers' assemblies and councils that can later be converted into a new self-management system. Eventually a workers' political movement gets elected to majority control of the political offices, and it enacts a mandate to authorize the workers' workplace organization to be recognized as the new industrial management. A new kind of currency that uses the "labor time voucher" concept of individual compensation, so that the ability to purchase goods is more closely correlated with the duration of time that the individual chooses to work, but also correlated with how strenuous each type of work is.

 

[Vanadium 50]

In Marxism, there simply is no recognition of adulthood, meaning the right of individuals to make their own economic decisions regarding their own labor

Yes, but they would only make the wrong decisions anyway. That's why they need a Glorious Leader to guide them.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

What achieved? Are you asking about what kind of transitional program I believe to be most viable to establish a classless society? I think the "socialist industrial union" program proposed by Daniel De Leon is the most carefully developed suggestion. A new workplace-based organization get established that has the structure to go beyond collective bargaining, and also has the form of the workers' assemblies and councils that can later be converted into a new self-management system. Eventually a workers' political movement gets elected to majority control of the political offices, and it enacts a mandate to authorize the workers' workplace organization to be recognized as the new industrial management. A new kind of currency that uses the "labor time voucher" concept of individual compensation, so that the ability to purchase goods is more closely correlated with the duration of time that the individual chooses to work, but also correlated with how strenuous each type of work is.

So the state takes possession of the business and hands control over to the workers? I suppose the owners will not be compensated?

And why would you compensate people based on how hard and long they worked? Would a person who hauls bricks then be making more than a family practice doctor? How about the person who can get the same amount of work done as his coworkers in shorter period of time? you will reward his productivity by paying him less?

 

[Vanadium 50]

So the state takes possession of the business and hands control over to the workers? I suppose the owners will not be compensated?

And why would you compensate people based on how hard and long they worked? Would a person who hauls bricks then be making more than a family practice doctor? How about the person who can get the same amount of work done as his coworkers in shorter period of time? you will reward his productivity by paying him less?

DeLeon in his "15 Questions" argued that this was not confiscation, as the "owners" were not the true owners at all - everything is truly owned by the workers. And we've seen what happens when the owners object - that's why they have prisons. And graveyards.

DeLeon would argue that the more productive worker was not producing according to his ability and deserved to be paid less.

 

[Al68]

As Marx observed, in his pamphlet "Wage-Labour and Capital":

"The worker leaves the capitalist, to whom he has sold himself, as often as he chooses, and the capitalist discharges him as often as he sees fit, as soon as he no longer gets any use, or not the required use, out of him. But the worker, whose only source of income is the sale of his labor power, cannot leave the whole class of buyers, i.e., the capitalist class, unless he gives up his own existence. He does not belong to this or to that capitalist, but to the capitalist class; and it is for him to find his man, i.e., to find a buyer in this capitalist class."

This condition, that we are required to be exploited by a master, but we get to choose our master, is what you are calling "choice." In reality, there would be much more choice involved in the adoption of a social system in which people were not exploited by others at all.

This is simply not how free market capitalism works. There is no monolithic "capitalist class". Workers are free to sell their labor to any individual. It is Marxism, not capitalism, that subjects workers to an employment monopoly that they must accept or cease to exist.

Marx's critique of capitalism is based entirely on a gross misrepresentation of capitalism.

 

[Al68]

DeLeon in his "15 Questions" argued that this was not confiscation, as the "owners" were not the true owners at all - everything is truly owned by the workers.

This makes no sense. If the product of labor is "truly" owned by the laborer, then each laborer is free to sell it to others. One can't then deny that the person it is sold to isn't the "true" owner, unless they deny that the laborer didn't truly own it (had the right to sell it) originally.

 

[mikelepore]

So the state takes possession of the business and hands control over to the workers?

Since nothing would be physically taken anywhere, I think it's more precise to say that the workers who under capitalism already occupy and operate the industries would continue to operate them, but now recognizing only the authority of the new management, the workers' delegates. Government would need to legalize that transfer of authority.

I suppose the owners will not be compensated?

I don't see how compensation would be possible logically. When the previous situation that is to be discontinued is that five percent of the population owns ninety-five percent of the wealth, how could part of that discontinuation be to give the wealthier segment more wealth, what could they be given, and where could it come from?

And why would you compensate people based on how hard and long they worked? Would a person who hauls bricks then be making more than a family practice doctor?

If the doctor's training is considered work time, the training time was already compensated when it was performed, and therefore the doctor didn't bear any personal sacrifice in the past that calls for additional compensation later. There only has to be a comparison of how much personal sacrifice is involved in the present performance of each work hour by the brick worker and the medical worker. It's not a fundamental what conclusion the management system comes to when they make that comparison; it's only fundamental that it would be society's democratic management process that makes that decision, rather than minority stockholder management.

How about the person who can get the same amount of work done as his coworkers in shorter period of time? you will reward his productivity by paying him less?

Differences in compensation related to differences in productivity should depend on the reason for having different rates of productivity among various workers. If the different rates of productivity are due to natural characteristics, such as dexterity, memory, eyesight, etc., then it would be immoral to compensate the workers differently. People shouldn't be punished for being born with biological handicaps. If the different rates of productivity are due only to apparent attitude, then a policy of unequal compensation would be consistent with basic principles. Whether such a policy is needed would have to be determined by whatever kind of democratic representation the society has adopted.

 

[vertices]

SThat's not how slavery is defined. Slavery by definition is "being legally prohibited from walking out".

Well capitalism has historically perpetuated slavery. Some people think that the US was built on the back of slaves.

 

[Al68]

Well capitalism has historically perpetuated slavery. Some people think that the US was built on the back of slaves.

Slavery has existed in many economic systems, far less in capitalism than otherwise.

 

[Al68]

Since nothing would be physically taken anywhere, I think it's more precise to say that the workers who under capitalism already occupy and operate the industries would continue to operate them, but now recognizing only the authority of the new management, the workers' delegates.

It's by the authority of laborers that the product of their labor was sold to "capitalists" to begin with. Marxism, not capitalism, denies the authority of each laborer to decide the fate of the product of his labor.

 

[DavidSnider]

Differences in compensation related to differences in productivity should depend on the reason for having different rates of productivity among various workers. If the different rates of productivity are due to natural characteristics, such as dexterity, memory, eyesight, etc., then it would be immoral to compensate the workers differently. People shouldn't be punished for being born with biological handicaps. If the different rates of productivity are due only to apparent attitude, then a policy of unequal compensation would be consistent with basic principles. Whether such a policy is needed would have to be determined by whatever kind of democratic representation the society has adopted.

You can't eat other people's effort and sacrifice. That system is doomed to fail.

 

[mikelepore]

You can't eat other people's effort and sacrifice. That system is doomed to fail.

My statement is common even under capitalism. A lot of people are heard to say that firefighters or police deserve additional pay because their job is so strenuous and hazardous. That's probably the most conservative idea that I posted here.

 

[vici10]

Analysis of current economic crisis from socialist perpective and the socialist alternative

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7382297202053077236&hl=en#"

It uses the fact that productivity of American workers and profits for capitalists skyrocketted, but the wages remained almost flat during late 70's. It has created excesive capacity (overproduction) that can only be consumed by debt. The statistics about wages vs profit is below.

 

[Proton Soup]

Analysis of current economic crisis from socialist perpective and the socialist alternative

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7382297202053077236&hl=en#"

It uses the fact that productivity of American workers and profits for capitalists skyrocketted, but the wages remained almost flat during late 70's. It has created excesive capacity (overproduction) that can only be consumed by debt. The statistics about wages vs profit is below.

i remember seeing this curve or similar before. it seems to correlate well to the introduction of the personal computer. it's kind of hard to say that workers just suddenly started working harder, or got better at doing their jobs. but a relatively small number of highly skilled technical people made life better for everyone. it may be that engineers and programmers got short-changed, but certainly that can't be said of everyone.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

DeLeon would argue that the more productive worker was not producing according to his ability and deserved to be paid less.

The man who is more productive than his fellow workers is not producing according to his ability and therefore deserves to be paid less? How does this make any sense at all?

I don't see how compensation would be possible logically. When the previous situation that is to be discontinued is that five percent of the population owns ninety-five percent of the wealth, how could part of that discontinuation be to give the wealthier segment more wealth, what could they be given, and where could it come from?

Of course not. The workers are only concerned about their own compensation and not that of the owners. Obviously it makes no sense to compensate someone when you have no regard for them at all. One simply needs disregard the fact that the owner has added value to the operation and believe that they are appropriating it, not because it has some value but, because they apparently possesses some nebulous right to the work of others. When one is the lowest common denominator it makes perfect sense to take from others to fulfill ones own self since there is obviously no concern amongst these persons that anything will be taken from them.

If the doctor's training is considered work time, the training time was already compensated when it was performed, and therefore the doctor didn't bear any personal sacrifice in the past that calls for additional compensation later. There only has to be a comparison of how much personal sacrifice is involved in the present performance of each work hour by the brick worker and the medical worker. It's not a fundamental what conclusion the management system comes to when they make that comparison; it's only fundamental that it would be society's democratic management process that makes that decision, rather than minority stockholder management.

The doctor still winds up being paid less than the brick hauler. And yes, of course, the union of brick haulers, **** shovelers, rock breakers, et al are going to outnumber the doctors and have a greater say in who gets paid what.

Differences in compensation related to differences in productivity should depend on the reason for having different rates of productivity among various workers. If the different rates of productivity are due to natural characteristics, such as dexterity, memory, eyesight, etc., then it would be immoral to compensate the workers differently. People shouldn't be punished for being born with biological handicaps. If the different rates of productivity are due only to apparent attitude, then a policy of unequal compensation would be consistent with basic principles. Whether such a policy is needed would have to be determined by whatever kind of democratic representation the society has adopted.

Its rather interesting that you see rewarding people for aptitude to be an immoral punishment of those who lack aptitude as opposed to considering a lack of reward to be a punishment for those who do possesses aptitude. If you cultivate mediocrity over aptitude your society will stagnate. Who would be inclined to excel if they will only be told that giving them any recognition for their achievements is unfair and immoral? Who will do work that is more complex if they receive no greater compensation and are watching people doing work that just about anyone could do being more greatly compensated than they are? If I am a doctor who loves to garden as a hobby and I find that doctoring and watching people die is rather stressful and brings me no greater quality of life why would I not decide to simply be gardener? It makes me happy, it is low stress, if I want intellectual stimulation I can find it in a book or a puzzle, and since it is "strenuous" physical labour I may well even receive greater compensation.

I do not really have any problem with the idea of socialism or communism. I only take issue with what appears to be rather ridiculous ideas of how such systems should be implemented.

 

[Al68]

My statement is common even under capitalism.

What does "under capitalism" mean? Capitalism isn't an imposed economic system like socialism or communism. We don't live "under" it.

I've pointed out numerous times in this forum that it is far more accurate to describe capitalism as the lack of an economic system (not one itself), since capitalism is the result of the lack of any economic system being imposed.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Al, if you enjoy fiction a friend of mine told me about a book you might enjoy. Sort of a libertarian utopia called Unincorporated Man.

 

[Al68]

Al, if you enjoy fiction a friend of mine told me about a book you might enjoy. Sort of a libertarian utopia called Unincorporated Man.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

Edit: After reading the Wiki entry on it, it sounds more like an anti-libertarian society, similar to in Atlas Shrugged, from a libertarian point of view. Still sounds like an interesting book.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The man who is more productive than his fellow workers is not producing according to his ability and therefore deserves to be paid less? How does this make any sense at all?

I would assume that he means that this more productive worker has a capability to produce more than his fellow workers, and thus should use this capability to the fullest extent for equal pay.

Not saying I entirely agree with it, but I can see the reasoning behind it.

 

[vertices]

Slavery has existed in many economic systems, far less in capitalism than otherwise.

Well capitalism is unique that need to generate 'capital' is the be all and end all. As such, it is an economic system that is more predisposed and vulnerable to exploitation and slavery. It would seem that the US was built on slaves quite literally, and it is also clear all subsequent 'economic growth' was a result of de-facto slavery.

BTW, I am not a "socialist-communist".

 

[mheslep]

All the premises and conclusions above are false.

 

[vici10]

I do not really have any problem with the idea of socialism or communism. I only take issue with what appears to be rather ridiculous ideas of how such systems should be implemented.

If you would like to know how socialists/communists/anarchists envision future society and if you like science fiction I would recommend Efremov's "Andromeda"
http://www.iefremov.ru/translations/Androm1.htm"

or "The Dispossessed" by Ursula K. Le Guin
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061054887/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[vertices]

All the premises and conclusions above are false.

So the enslavement and defacto enslavement of people was not motivated at all by capitalism?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If you would like to know how socialists/communists/anarchists envision future society and if you like science fiction I would recommend Efremov's "Andromeda"
http://www.iefremov.ru/translations/Androm1.htm"

or "The Dispossessed" by Ursula K. Le Guin
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061054887/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Thank you. I am familiar with Le Guin, I have enjoyed what I have read of hers. I think that the only utopian fiction I have read was Well's Men Like Gods but that was a rather far flung future. Greg Bear has envisioned somewhat utopian societies in his fiction though there is always "trouble in paradise" and questions of the ethics of the system.

Personally I think that we will eventually find ourselves a sort of technocratic socialist system. I am unsure how it might work or how it could come about but it seems a reasonable likelihood to me.

 

[mikelepore]

What does "under capitalism" mean? Capitalism isn't an imposed economic system like socialism or communism. We don't live "under" it.

I've pointed out numerous times in this forum that it is far more accurate to describe capitalism as the lack of an economic system (not one itself), since capitalism is the result of the lack of any economic system being imposed.

That's partially true in the sense that we have capitalism by default, we have it because no other conscious choice for designing a new economic system was made. Centuries ago the rising class of business owners led the drive to push out the monarchy and nobility, the previous system in which ownership of the means of production meant being a feudal lord. At that time capitalism was what we would get automatically when the vestiges of feudalism are erased. That step was revolutionary and progressive for its time.

But since then capitalism has become the systematic rule of society by concentrated wealth. Its effects have been widely recognized: uncontrollable boom-and-bust cycles in the economy, workers' real wages repeatedly gravitating back to the mere subsistence level despite huge productivity increases, wars being fought over markets, sources of raw materials and trade routes, hundreds of social problem ranging from pollution to dangerous products to political corruption being traced to the obsession to maximize profits. Capitalism is now a giant mechanism of unintended consequences.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The man who is more productive than his fellow workers is not producing according to his ability and therefore deserves to be paid less? How does this make any sense at all?

DeLeon would argue that, yes. His "Fifteen Questions" is a fairly clear, albeit rhetoric-heavy, description of what he thinks. (Certainly more so than Marx, who wrote like he was getting paid by the word)

The way to think of his model is "An A For Effort". In DeLeon's model, innate differences in ability are not the fault or responsibilities of the workers, so they should not gain or lose any benefit from these differences. The only thing that matters is how hard one works: effort is what matters, not outcomes.

Friedman would argue that this won't work - if you have two barbers, one skilled and one unskilled, people will want to go to the more skilled one. In a market economy, the way that this imbalance is handled is that the more skilled barber can charge more until his client base is small enough to handle, and each consumer decides how much more money a better haircut is worth and choosing their barber accordingly. He would also argue that this gives incentive to the second barber to improve his skills, and thereby gain more money. Friedman would argue that in a market economy, there would be better haircuts.

DeLeon focuses mostly on production, and doesn't spend much time on consumption.

 

[Vanadium 50]

But since then capitalism has become the systematic rule of society by concentrated wealth. Its effects have been widely recognized: uncontrollable boom-and-bust cycles in the economy, workers' real wages repeatedly gravitating back to the mere subsistence level despite huge

Boom and bust is caused by capitalism? How do you explain episodic abandonment in ancient societies? I am having a hard time imagining, say the Mount Builders as closet capitalists.

As far as "workers' real wages repeatedly gravitating back to the mere subsistence level", wouldn't that argue that the average South Korean is in worse financial shape than the average North Korean?

 

[mikelepore]

DeLeon in his "15 Questions" argued that this was not confiscation, as the "owners" were not the true owners at all - everything is truly owned by the workers.

What happened on that occasion was that DeLeon (1852-1914), who taught law at Columbia University before he quit to become a full-time socialist newspaper editor, was nitpicking about the legal meaning of the word "confiscation." Supposing that the country uses the amendment clause of the Constitution to include a declaration of this kind: labor produces the social wealth, labor is entitled to all that it produces, therefore an association of the workers is recognized as the rightful administration of the industries. He was arguing that this kind of transfer of property doesn't match the legal meaning of the word "confiscation."

And we've seen what happens when the owners object - that's why they have prisons. And graveyards.

Regarding prisons and graveyards, no doubt you're referring to the monstrosity of 20th century "communism." The writings of Marx have the defect that he spent 99.9 percent of his time writing about the past and present, and he said only a few words in his entire life about the two most important subjects: what kind of future system is being proposed, and what method is suggested for implementing it. Therefore on the subject of post-revolutionary society, there is mainly the absense of what he said, not the availability of it. Therefore I phrase this negatively: Marx never said a single thing that could be construed to mean that there should be one-party "elections", secret police, political imprisonment, censorship, denial of freedom of religion, and other repressive actions. However, the various places where Marx speaks of democracy as a cure-all, and in particular he calls for democratic self-management by the workers, suggests that Leninism and its variants are perversions of Marx's ideas. In other words, tyrants and dictators adopted terms like "socialist" only in the same way that they adopted the terms "liberty", "justice", and "the republic", i.e., to be self-congratulatory. Accordingly, there is today an increasing tendency on the left to take the position that no country has ever tried genuine socialism.

DeLeon would argue that the more productive worker was not producing according to his ability and deserved to be paid less.

After you posted that, other here began trying to figure out its meaning. Such a paraphrase isn't recognizable to me, and I suspect that it's inaccurate. DeLeon's speeches and writings are online in Adobe pdf format at slp.org.