On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 08:53:37AM -0700, Bob La Quey wrote: > My experience has been that very few people want to take on the > responsibilities and risks of ownership. People want to share profits > but rarely losses. In a world where all risk cannot be avoided one > must come up with a mechanism for compensating the risk takers. How do > you propose to do this? Very few people have the real opportunity to take on those responsibilities, and they are used to not having that opportunity. Besides, the responsibility and potential for gain/loss would be much less than it is now as it would be divided up among many more people.
An anarchist society would look very different from today's. Excerpt from section I.2 of the Anarchy Faq: "...the ultimate goal of anarchism, we stress, is not the self-management of existing workplaces or industries. However, a revolution will undoubtedly see the occupation and placing under self-management much of existing industry and we start our discussion assuming a similar set-up as exists today. This does not mean that an anarchist society will continue to be like this, we simply present the initial stages using examples we are all familiar with. It is the simply the first stage of transforming industry into something more ecologically safe, socially integrated and individually and collectively empowering for people." > Profit = Resources retained for future use. Inequity of distribution > exists in all known human systems. Inequity of risk also exists. > Unfortunately classical Marxist analysis of all of these problems is > superficial and impedes and real understanding of the problems. Section C.2.9: Do profits reflect a reward for risk? (short answer is no) > The Marxist systems have tended to degenerate into bureaucratic state > monopolies of the worst possible kind. Which is why anarchists have always opposed the state communist methods of Marxism, advocating instead for a decentraled socialism. > Anarchism, in the sense that you used it, has not ever been found to > be persistent. It seemed to be doing well during the anarchist revolution in Spain circa 1936. Average income went up, production increased, etc. That system was militarily destroyed, it did not collapse, though it did not have a lot of time which which to do so (about 3 years, i think). As far as I know, that was the best chance anarchy has had to prove itself. Should we throw it out only because we can't follow in the footsteps of some other nation? > A sustainable, equitable economy remains an open problem. An open > problem not likely to succumb to old dogmas. Define 'old dogma.' Anarchism had the spotlight in Spain for a few years and proved it may be a viable system. Is it a 'new dogma' if it hasn't yet been definitively tested and has support (even if only a small minority) today? > It does not follow from the fact, which I accept, that the system is > screwed up, that your suggestions contain even the hint of a solution. Anarchy Faq: www.infoshop.org/faq/ > The problems that you are discussing (unfortunately with an incredibly > poor grasp of basic accounting) are a small part of a much larger > problem. All the more reason to consider alternatives to the 'much larger problem.' > You might do well to learn a little something about accounting before > you make a statement as absurd as: > > "Profit is the difference between what the employees > of a company are paid and the value they produce." I can see oversimplified, but what is absurd about it? The employees produce something by a process which likely has costs of it's own (materials, etc.). They are paid for their efforts, and there is money left over. If that money is used to meet future demands of the business, then it's not really a surplus, it's just another cost, but not all of that surplus value is used in such a way. Unless I am seriously mistaken, that money taken over and above what whas necessary for the function of the business is profit. > And the capital equipment they use? and its cost and depreciation? > The risk of that capital? The machines people make to ease labor are not productive in and of themselves; they represent a shift in the kind of labor and an increase in the productivity of working people. For the people using the machines, they are just another cost of production. > Expenses != Money paid to employees. Expenses == pay to employees + production costs + ... (duh) > Revenues != Cash coming in. (Risk, timing, recognition, see futures, > see derivatives.) ??? > Profit = Revenues - Expenses != value extorted from wage slaves. Depends on where the profit goes. If it goes back into the organization, then no. If it goes into someone else's pocket, then yes. "At the moment we live in a society in which there are two major classes - the bosses and the workers. The bosses own the factories, banks, shops, etc. Workers don't. All we have is our labour, which we use to make a living. Workers are compelled to sell their Labour to the boss for a wage. The boss is interested in squeezing as much work out of the worker for as little wages as possible so that he/she can maintain high profits. Thus the more wages workers get the less profits the bosses make. Their interests are in total opposition to each other." -- http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/index.html > Now in every human situation that I have ever been involved in some > people produced more than others. This was often hard to quantify, but > is inarguably true. According to your principles, is it not theft to > take from them and give to those who produce less? It would be for the people joining/creating the organization to decide. People could freely associate under all kinds of terms, so long as everyone involved consents to them. Countless solutions to this problem could result. In any case, it is a much lesser theft. > How do you propose to "solve" the problem of the inequitable > distribution of talent? Of basic genetic gifts? Of the distribution of > resources that result from the application of effort by a diverse > species like ours? Excert from section F.3 of the Anarchy Faq: "Equality," in the context of political discussion, does not mean "identical," it usually means equality of rights, respect, worth, power and so forth. It does not imply treating everyone identically (for example, expecting an eighty year old man to do identical work to an eighteen violates treating both with respect as unique individuals). For anarchists, as Alexander Berkman writes, "equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. . . Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse, in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse, and only the repression of this free diversity results in levelling, in uniformity and sameness. Free opportunity and acting out your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities and variations. . . . Life in freedom, in anarchy will do more than liberate man merely from his present political and economic bondage. That will be only the first step, the preliminary to a truly human existence." [The ABC of Anarchism, p. 25] -- Martin Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP Key ID: 2B01DD81 Keyserver: pgpkeys.mit.edu -- KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
