The General Economics Thread

There is governance in anarcho-communism, just no state. Instead, everything is done on a local level utilizing direct democracy and a voluntary associations without any form of vertical hierarchy that comes with Statism.

Anyway, that happens to be something I know quite a bit about, while other economic models and theories I don't know as much about and wish to learn about.

edited 19th Dec '12 1:09:23 PM by deathpigeon

And how does this non-state defend itself from external threats, whether military or economic? Heck, how does it defend itself from internal threats, such as monopoly seeking or organized criminal activity?

edited 19th Dec '12 1:13:24 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

It's hard to seek monopolies when your every attempt is advertised to communities more interested in protecting their neighbours than your profits. The external threat is an issue, however, as the main weakness of anarcho-syndicalist economies is their tendency to be invaded by fascists. I will note that this is arguably more a flaw of the invaders than the invaded. I will also note that kibbutzes, which are very similar to some anarcho-syndicalist commune models in organization, have been pretty successful in parts of Israel.

Fighteer, have you ever read anything on Hernando de Soto (the contemporary Peruvian economist, not the conquistador) and his economic theories on property law?

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Those kibbutzes are protected by one of the largest per-capita militaries on Earth. Nice try, but no go. And I already told you that I'm a layman. An intelligent, curious layman, but I have not engaged in any large scale reading and have no intention of doing so. I'm not taking a test, I'm interested in the real world.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

That depends. In the past, the most effective Anarcho-Communist society, the Free Territories of Ukraine, did so with an independent army that was tasked with defending the Free Territories, but had no authority over them and with a shaky alliance with the Red Army and the Bolsheviks, which worked until the Bolsheviks defeated the White Army and could focus on the Black Army (which is the army that defended the Free Territories) and crushed them in a sneak attack under the guise of a peaceful meeting of awarding the Black Army for their help against the White Army.

Also, the local communities could deal with those directly, such as through setting up a group of people to deal with the problem, without the need to have a statist government.

There's also the problem of being invaded by Marxists, as with the Free Territories.

Given what they would become, distinguishing them from those referred to as "Fascists" is an academic exercise.

We had that discussion back in the anarchist society thread we were hashing out before Savage Heathen was OTC-banned. I forget where that thread went. I laid out my position before, stating that it would depend on the logistics of the terrain and the relationship such a society had with its nation-state neighbours. The feasibility of pure anarchist societies is not relevant to this thread; anarchist economic models are.

I raise the kibbutz because it could be an effective anti-poverty policy. Here's the idea: the state sets up a bunch of anarcho-syndicalist communities throughout the country, connected to each other and to major urban population centers by really cheap public transit. The point is to drop cost of living and improve wages and worker conditions, as if your rent or job sucks, you have no disincentive against going "fuck it, I'ma live in the hippie commune!"

Making them a net economic positive for the country as a whole would depend on what resource extraction, manufacturing, or service sector work the government can purchase from the communes, but if correctly implemented this could be as big a victory in the fight for economic equality as the establishment of unions.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

How long did they last? Less than a decade. Trust me, if they hadn't been invaded, without a centralized government to regulate them, some clever, charismatic bastard would have started consolidating power, economic, political, or both. It's how human nature works. I'm not usually the person who says "we can't change it, so don't bother" but in this case, it's true. The best we can do it make sure the power ends up in the hands of people who are accountable for it's use, and use it for the common good. Any anarchist society assumes that people will somehow magically stop anyone who destroyed the (extremely fragile) equilibrium. That never happens.

You don't try to fight human nature. You try to channel it. That's why Capitalism is frankly the best system for making people want to work. Now, look, I'm consider myself a European Socialist. I think any society that doesn't take care of the basic needs/entitlements of it's citizens can't claim to be a first-world nation. I support welfare, social security, universal healthcare, and progressive taxes. However, I think there needs to be a carrot, and the capitalist "American Dream" is the best motivator there is. You need balance.

edited 19th Dec '12 1:44:24 PM by DrTentacles

And yet, the kibbutzim are still here.

Also, let's not start crowing victory about how sustainable the capitalist alternative is just yet. That is an assessment best made 50 years (and 300 ppm atmospheric carbon) from now.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

After all, that's how Countries (and Empires) formed in the first place. I'd also like some information about the Theories and how they're supposed to work, how they don't, and what could be learnt from them. A more academic and a less Political, US-centric approach would be better for a thread like this.

And well, now I'm going to be blunt here:

With All Due Respect, Fighteer, sometimes it seems like you've got an almost Religious faith in Paul Krugman, like you belong to a "Church of Krugman" that views him as some sort of Messiah. He's only a man, a human being.

edited 19th Dec '12 1:48:49 PM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

They have the benefit of a centralized government to fall back on. Also, Israel gets a lot of foreign aid. Like...a lot. Like...probably more than any other developed nation a lot.

And bringing environmental concerns in is Moving the Goalposts. I'm talking about the internal stability of anarchic societies. Power tends to accumulate in the hands of a few people, not distribute. Environmental concerns aren't even relevant in this case. (If we were to peruse that path, I'd say a society with a centralized government that can look at the big picture, and pass regulations based on that is the best way to ensure long term enviromental stability.)

Well, I think like myself, Fighteer trusts him. We know that we're not well-versed in economics to understand the situation fully, to do the math. However, I look at Krugman much like I do at Nate Silver-not god, but both very good at what he does, and very good at explaining what he does. Krugman hasn't been significantly wrong that I can tell yet. I'm not going to say that I'd take anything he says as gospel, but I trust him to know what he's doing better than I trust anyone else I know of.

Edit: Also, we know Fighteer is Krugman in disguise. You haven't figured this out yet?

edited 19th Dec '12 1:52:34 PM by DrTentacles

Greenmantle, I'm not sure how to respond to that claim. I cite Krugman because I have found him to be a reliable source and he writes in terms that are easy to understand for someone like me who is not deeply versed in theory and lingo.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

It would be more accurate to say that societies in which power tends to accumulate can become very good at crushing societies in which it does not, and they can become so in short periods of time. Top-down nation-state hierarchies would, historically, have a much harder time making this argument if the Iroquois Confederacy had been the side with the gunpowder and smallpox when the Europeans arrived.

But that way leads to tangents on Guns, Germs, and Steel. I'll repeat myself: the feasibility of pure anarchist societies is not the topic of this thread. I am willing to adopt the premises of a nation state to discuss anarchist economic theories. Specifically, I'm willing to entertain states employing anarchist economics in policy targeting poverty and inequality, sort of a "part-time Anarcho-Communism" used to keep the elites in line.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Sorry, but to continue the derail, why do you think the Iroquois didn't have Gunpowder to begin with? I'm not going to say that their lack of political organization is solely responsible, but an centrally organized nation is going to, by default, be far better at science and military than a decentralized one.

However, that can be taken so far. Pretty much every "Planned economy" we've seen has crashed and burnt. (Usually do the mix of lack of accountability, massive corruption due to lack of accountability and transparency, and inflexibility). That's why I say a regulated capitalist base is necessary.

I suppose it depends on whether we're discussing economic theories in a purely academic sense or whether we're talking about practical applications. In effect, no large scale change is going to be made, now or any time soon, that will massively disrupt the status quo. We are unlikely to set up anarchist communes to absorb underutilized labor in the United States or the European Union, at least not to the extent of having any noticeable impact on employment or poverty.

Ironically, I was just playing Assassin's Creed III where this exact issue was raised, though without deep exploration of the economic issues. Suffice it to say that a decentralized, largely anarchic society cannot compete against a hierarchical, industrial nation with an expansionist culture.

edited 19th Dec '12 2:07:04 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Can anyone recommend a decent textbook or popular book on the history of economic thought? I hear that's an important thing to know about or something

You can't even write racist abuse in excrement on somebody's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat!

@ Fighteer:

Honestly, it seems like you're citing him too much, like he's the answer to everything and he's always right. The constant citing of Krugman is stifling debate here of any other theory of Economics and that any disagreement with Krugman is wrong. It's that Echo Chamber at work again.

If you want me to agree with Krugman, don't shout so loud. You're so fervent that you are being counter-productive, scaring people away from looking at his views. I've got an open mind, but there's more to it than Paul Krugman, especially if you're not American.

edited 19th Dec '12 2:08:11 PM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

@Greenmantle: I've heard he's actively worshiped in some European circles.

Anyway, what would you prefer; that I copy his writing without citing him as the author? It doesn't seem as if I'm the one making this an ideological issue; you seem to resent Krugman for the sin of being correct, as if he defies your insistence on economics being a matter of opinion rather than fact.

edited 19th Dec '12 2:10:32 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Discuss anarchism here. I've said my piece there multiple times.

@Fighteer: you're right, as political resistance to the establishment of those communes would be beyond fierce. More's the pity.

@Dr. Tentacles: by the time they got the gunpowder, the smallpox did its work. European colonization would have been a different question if 9 out of 10 Europeans died from a devastating infectious disease for which their population had no inherited immunity. At the colonial level of expansion, you don't want science and medicine; you want centuries of close animal husbandry, filthy living conditions, and some of the densest cities on Earth sharing the same water sources. That way you are packing the worst bugs when you go out to take other people's land.

edited 19th Dec '12 2:12:28 PM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

* Sees an image of people kneeling and praying, Muslim-style, in front of an Altar containing his image... *

I'm probably suffering from Hype Backlash concerning Krugman. Plus, I'm not American (I'm British) so he isn't as relevant to me as he might be to you.

edited 19th Dec '12 2:12:55 PM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

There is no Theorist but Keynes; Krugman is the Prophet of Keynes.

Aaaand I figure I should get myself marked for death in Saudi Arabia if I can get that translated into Arabic.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

In fairness, you aren't alone — vast numbers of people on the Right (and apparently the Center) hate Krugman with a passion for daring to be both outspoken and mostly correct.

Also, if I were Krugman, I would be busy right now grading papers, doing research, going on talk shows, or writing columns for national syndication, not sitting in an office cubicle, spending my spare time at work posting about economic issues on an obscure forum.

edited 19th Dec '12 2:16:21 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

@ Taoist:

You know, that did cross my mind!

Keep Rolling On

As funny as that is, would you treat Einstein the same way? Not that Krugman = Einstein, but what is it about "soft sciences" that appears to attract religious, rather than scientific devotion?

It strikes me that this persistent idea that belief in a scientific or economic theory is equivalent to religious belief is at the core of the inability of the sides in these debates to communicate effectively with each other.

Whenever someone like me gets accused of "having faith" in science, it makes me cringe. Faith is not the issue; scientific (and economic, and mathematical) facts stand self-evident, needing no belief. 2+2=4 whether I accept the Gospel of Math or not.

I think a partial explanation is that theories like the GOP's economic principles that I discussed earlier very much are a faith-based affair. They believe in these things so hard because they must be true, and when inconvenient facts get in the way, the facts must be wrong or biased. Thus, their opponents must also be doing the same thing, because otherwise they've been lying to themselves the whole time, and their egos cannot withstand that notion.

edited 19th Dec '12 2:22:53 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

It involves Politics, I guess. On the whole, Physics isn't political in the mainstream sense, and if you do look into it, you soon discover that a scientific "Theory" is just that, a Theory.

Whereas "softer" Sciences involve people, involve politics. And people have views.

Keep Rolling On

I don't see how it's nitpicking. People here are trying to turn this into one of the thousands of Democrat/Republican debates raging across the internet, just by swapping "Democrat" with "Keynesian" and "Republican" with "Austrian". I see no reason to let the discussion continue in this vein, because it gives people entirely the wrong impression about both theories, and the field of economics itself. Although I've said that economics is not a science, I do think it should be considered an academic field and not an extension of bi-partisan politics.

I want to thank Trivialis for trying to keep things constructive.

Has anyone else read Henry George? He had a lot of interesting theories. He proposed that we should switch to a single land tax based on unimproved value. The rational was the land owners make money without productive work because of the legal artifact that recognizes their ownership, and that people who occupy land should pay rent to those whom they prevent from using it. The advantage would be that it would make it uneconomical to hold idle land, so it would bring down the price of rent, and as an added bonus it's much easier to enforce than income or sales tax.