Absolutism in a politician has a lower possibility of happening then oxygen spontaneously turning into gold. Dismissing references to Austrian economics because it did not follow, instantly, a utopian Austrian economy system is not only easily dismissible but is also contradictory to your own argument.
That's not at all what I said. I first noted that Reagan's Military Keynesianism acted directly contrary to the variety of economic organization advocated by the Austrian school (though he was largely ignorant of economics, you might consult Murray Rothbard's condemnation of the Reagan administration's policies, for instance), and that Margaret Thatcher, who actually did have a perverse obsession with Austrian economics, caused socioeconomic crisis in the UK through her as a result of her neoliberalism and attempts to implement laissez-faire.
While undoubtably Reagan participated heavily in the expansion of federal credit, it is absurd to say that he was some sort of "Military Keynesiast" because the main idea behind Reagan's credit expansion was A: the destruction of the Soviet Union, B: at any cost, even with the knowledge that this large swelling of income in one sector of the economy would lead to a eventual, harsh, contraction as the wealth was percolated throughout the American economy - indeed the exact opposite of what Keynes believed the government should do. C: that the products which were the best execution of Keynes were indeed, cut up; Reagan did not preserve the Great Society.
While I do not know enough of Thatcher economics, I believe that Great Britain was not a basket case economy because, or even in spite, of her policies. Indeed - I believe Great Britain after Thatcher to be stronger, more dynamic and less dependent on the UK's fancy for large, industrial but undoubtably antiquated behemoths.
Which, if followed to its ultimate conclusion, would mean that your particular eccentric brand of communism is actually impossible to accomplish. That anything you say is ultimately worthless because by your standards unless your train of thought happens instantaneously, absolutely, then it bears no value. Which is, I don’t doubt you know what’s coming, incredibly shortsighted of you.
I have no idea how you could have made such a poor and odd comparison. My own anarchism can be supported on the merits that it has enjoyed a record of successful implementation, unlike "free markets." Said implementation occurred during the social revolution that occurred during the Spanish Civil War. As put by Gaston Leval:
Incredibly, laissez-capitalism existed, and is widely accredited for the success, on the American frontier for quite a while... Not open to debate, but I thought I might as well mention that our Spanish anarchist-commi hybrid did not arise spontaneously; thus automatically excluding it from it's own criteria that it is without social or economic compulsions.
Unless you could kindly explain why it decided that the course of evolution was in the middle of large scale war, and more explicitly how can be sure that anarchist commune was not just "anarchy" with a gun - you have to admit the example is weak.
And his statement was that empirically observed firm behavior was quite different from Austrian predictions of what it would be, and one that I agree with. But this business is all related to the Austrian failure to construct a coherent theory of the firm. For instance, just two weeks ago, one remarked to me that "the 'firm' lacks any clear definition in economic theory beyond its use in describing a single economic actor akin to an individual." As I said, truly laughable.
Empirical evidence on a theoretical construct, oh really? You understand, I hope, that there exists no such financial construct called - quote - a ‘firm.’ Instead it is actually a purely hypothetical construct that can best be described as larger then a individual and vaguely - very vaguely - defined as the catch all for large macroeconomics. Largely inconclusive, and at best - a qualifier for the larger, more important statements, economists come up with.
I also despise how you make no distinction between a private or a public firm.
I am curious to what you are trying to say, how were they proven wrong? Of all the literature written about what they would do, what they wouldn't do, of both Austrian and 'your' school you make the mistake of expecting me to telepathically read your mind and be like 'oh, he means market control' or 'oh, he means expansion of credit' or 'oh, ect...'
However, this discussion is largely moot because you don’t “believe in” firms, or at least the powers that make their existence, so why you may laugh at Austrian school for having an issue with established orthodoxy; I would say you should take the beam out of your eye, before you take the splinter out of mine.
This was laughable. It's a necessary component of anarchist theory that we are constituted of socialists, specifically libertarian socialists. As put by Joseph Labadie, "it is said that Anarchism is not socialism. This is a mistake. Anarchism is voluntary Socialism. There are two kinds of Socialism, archistic and anarchistic, authoritarian and libertarian, state and free. Indeed, every proposition for social betterment is either to increase or decrease the powers of external wills and forces over the individual. As they increase they are archistic; as they decrease they are anarchistic." Judging by your comments thus far, you've apparently committed the basic economic error of inaccurately conceptualizing authoritarian state capitalism (such as that of the former USSR, of course) as "socialism." You've not considered the manner in which a party dictatorship undermines any pretense of legitimate collective ownership and management, apparently.
Libertarian socialists? Idiocy, if you expect to have all the freedom you want, but not the freedom to own even the clothes on your back; then you do not have freedom. I have never equated the Soviet Union with socialism, but I do equate the Soviet Union with the results of socialism; different yet similiar. In essence, it boils down to if you do not have the inherant right to own your own property; then someone must protect it, if not natural laws, then who do you propose protects each other's means of productions even though technically - it is everyone' to begin with in the first place?
Ultimately, your understanding of anarchist political theory is really quite dreadful, because you apparently fail to realize that the establishment of "social Darwinism" will necessarily lead to the overpowering of the weak by the strong, until hordes of the weak score strategic victories against the elite strong...and then the process repeats itself over and over again without respite until a more progressive structure of political organization is established.
Pure, unrestricted, anarchy is simple; you adding some odd strains of socialism then whining how I refuse to accredit even a shred of reply to the 'anarchy' bit of your socialism, because it does not exist, is safely dismissed. In a world without laws, how CAN you can protect the weak? The answer is, simply: you can't. Which is what must of my argument boils down too.
There's no such "election" that occurs, for the most part. Anarchism is broadly associated with the libertarian socialist principles expressed in "participatory economics." As I've said previously, neighborhood assemblies are typically open to the general public, and these assemblies have traditionally functioned as the primary (and final) governors of public policy in their jurisdiction. Public policy is of course determined by direct democratic means, and delegates are assigned to deal with the task of public policy administration. These delegates have typically been recallable at any time by a direct democratic vote, as opposed to the current dictatorial political system.
Libertarian and socilist 'utopian' principles take for granted that all people feel that the highest wealth is to be generated by "participating" in the wider economy. That someone with apples, will be willing to trade with anyone for anything as long as it is through free trade agreements; what is doesn't conted for is when someone refuses to make apples, or worse yet: someone who makes useless objects is still given high value. Both of which cause unfair wealth distributions that consequentially, end of destabalizing the whole process. Especially if the good is horrible, unpopular, but essential; i.e. only the buyer and seller are interested in buying and purchasing it, and no one else is so denotes a more unfair advantage to more popular, but less essential goods.
In short, participatory economics can't work because the only people who have a vested interest in making the transfer go through, have the same voice in the matter as their competitors and clowns of society.
What most Austrians know, is that empirical evidence tells us that there is exceptions to the rule that everyone feels the largest wealth is to be made when it is not them who are making the decisions, but their neighboors. More importantly; humans do not act like machines. Even if it was in everyone's best interest to participate in one large, happy, family - there is no honestly compelling reason why they should. There is no punishment because technically speaking, what else can you take away from someone who doesn't 'own' or even affect, anything?
As for participatory economics, you and me both know is a large standing joke - the same as any gift economy. There is no reason to produce anything of value, because frankly, values is not value in participatory economics. Value is faith, and it is not faith upon which a solid economy is based off of. Even if that faith is your democracy, your faith in your cause, the point stands that you can never communicate transfers of wealth by merely arbitrarily assigning values to goods through your forums. It’s a joke, value is not yours to put on a good because you are merely the one who provides labor; it is the free market which enables instantaneous information transfer that participatory economics is inefficient doing at best; incredibly unfair at worst.
Workers’ councils are specifically intended to address workers’ needs and concerns, and would determine workplace management and administration through direct democracy, again. In such a scheme, ontrol of the means of production are granted to both these democratically managed workers’ councils, as well as to the citizens of the locality, if some of the workers are not both. The community assemblies would thus primarily serve as complementary features of workers’ councils for citizens who do not perform conventional work (such as parents with small children, the elderly, the disabled, the sick, etc.)
Irrelevant, a workers council is just another monopoly of wealth, that results from believing you can control consumer prices through organizations of equally content creators of labor. That: labor creates value, and your emphasis on controlling labor - is the most foolish aspect of this long diatribe. We both know that how much labor that is put in a good is inconsequential; trying to change that by controlling everyone of labor, instead everyone who buys, will just eliminate any reason for consumers to buy from you.
If the community’s industrial aspects are properly and efficiently managed through direct democracy, this would result in increased benefits for the workers and surrounding community. The workers themselves would be able to distribute and delegate work tasks and administration evenly among themselves, and thus form a far more efficient workforce, resulting in increased production levels and benefits, as well as decreased work hours and shortages.
Popularity, and public opinion, do not change scientific fact. You agree with that, yet you believe because if people vote on producing a good, then it must have value? Why?
In conclusion I must once again reiterate that anarchism is not a socialist utopian idealogy anymore. You seem very well read in pre-Modern intellligentsia, but to believe that as it stands: anarchism alone cannot be - anymore - conclusively put on the left side of the spectrum. Undoubtably, there are many books - most, if not all, of antiquity - that deal with sociaism through the prism of labor, however with recent developments - Tucker’s Liberty, one that springs to the top of my mind - in which he is much more a anarchist of a generically rightist “damn the public” bent makes the conclusion that you can effectively interchange the words “anarchism” and “stateless socialism” in a vacum ever more open to debate. As it stands, the best way to consider anarchism is not through the lens of 19th Century France, but with a clear indication that reactionaries these days do not want a larger government but also a smaller one. If one at all. So if only to modernize this discussion, can we both agree on anarchism as defined by Encarta Online?
Anarchism, political theory that is opposed to all forms of government. Anarchists believe that the highest attainment of humanity is the freedom of individuals to express themselves, unhindered by any form of repression or control from without.
