Forums of the Libertarian Left

A social anarchist society would have no money or prices. We're all aware of the traditional mutualist and ancap criticisms of this (supply and demand, economic calculation yadda yadda), most of which I agree with, but there's one I rarely see discussed: consumption.

Most social anarchists consider themselves environmentalists. But it looks like an anarcho-communist society would encourage reckless consumption and resource depletion of the worst sort. With everything being given away for free, people would have little incentive to restrain consumption or make trade-offs. For instance, it is hard to see why an environmentalist would want gasoline to be available for free instead of expensive.

Also: how big would a commune be able to get without having to be split in two? Even if there are no markets within the commune, don't they have to exist somewhere outside of it?

Not sure how many social anarchists are even on this forum, but I'm curious if anyone has answers.

Cork, this deserves a longer answer tomorrow, but let me start: A lot is going to depend on how, and if, communists address the issue of "the right of appropriation," and what conventions develop around the practical implications of common ownership. Propertarian positions tend to treat the unowned as fair game, but there is no particular reason that anti- or common-propertarian systems would make the same assumption. There actually isn't any particular reason for propertarian systems to make that assumption, if they're informed by a more environmentally conscious set of basic assumptions. A lot of the "tragedy of the commons" scenarios could play out very differently if a society had a "take only pictures, leave damn few footprints" notion of the "proper" relation between human beings and the ecosystems that surround them. If, for instance, primitivists thought through their own property systems, they might have this sort of character.

Cork wrote:Most social anarchists consider themselves environmentalists. But it looks like an anarcho-communist society would encourage reckless consumption and resource depletion of the worst sort. With everything being given away for free, people would have little incentive to restrain consumption or make trade-offs.

Shawn addresses the cultural restraints that might be operant. But the other thing is something Murray Bookchin addressed in Post-Scarcity Anarchism: capitalism causes tremendous resource wastage because of the way goods are produced primarily for exchange rather than for use. Marketing, product-line duplication, speculative production, and planned obsolescence are examples. Kevin Carson might add Sloanist accounting to this list. The elimination of these inefficiencies would tend to make an anarchist communist society less wasteful than a capitalist one. Also, the elimination of scarcity would lead to the elimination of overconsumption as a status symbol, and people limiting their consumption to only what they are actually able to enjoy.

Cork wrote:A social anarchist society would have no money or prices. We're all aware of the traditional mutualist and ancap criticisms of this (supply and demand, economic calculation yadda yadda), most of which I agree with, but there's one I rarely see discussed: consumption.

What about the collectivists who support renumeration with currency? Right off the bat you're engaging in a strawman, since 'social' anarchism covers communism & collectivism, but whatever. We'll assume that you meant communism.

Most social anarchists consider themselves environmentalists. But it looks like an anarcho-communist society would encourage reckless consumption and resource depletion of the worst sort. With everything being given away for free, people would have little incentive to restrain consumption or make trade-offs. For instance, it is hard to see why an environmentalist would want gasoline to be available for free instead of expensive.

In addition to what ProstheticConscience said while this kind of conspicuous consumption is common in propertarian societies with leisure classes in a society with much less hardcore property rights you would certainly find it hard to amass and hold onto all those resources, much less actually use them.

Also: how big would a commune be able to get without having to be split in two? Even if there are no markets within the commune, don't they have to exist somewhere outside of it?

Well the size of communes would probably depend on how scarce resources are (And by the way, I'm increasingly skeptical of scarcity theory, it completely ignores abundance but whatever). As for markets existing outside of it I couldn't comment.

But the other thing is something Murray Bookchin addressed in Post-Scarcity Anarchism: capitalism causes tremendous resource wastage because of the way goods are produced primarily for exchange rather than for use. Marketing, product-line duplication, speculative production, and planned obsolescence are examples. Kevin Carson might add Sloanist accounting to this list.

Interesting. Is this book online?

What about the collectivists who support renumeration with currency? Right off the bat you're engaging in a strawman, since 'social' anarchism covers communism & collectivism, but whatever. We'll assume that you meant communism.

IIRC, most collectivists see their program as a mere stepping stone to an eventual communist society.

is common in propertarian societies with leisure classes in a society with much less hardcore property rights you would certainly find it hard to amass and hold onto all those resources, much less actually use them.

But the whole point of conspicuous consumption is that it's expensive, no? That's at least a speed-bump to consumption.
How would natural resources be preserved without a price system?

Well the size of communes would probably depend on how scarce resources are

I guess the real question is: on how large of a scale can economic activity be planned, without prices or markets?

But it looks like an anarcho-communist society would encourage reckless consumption and resource depletion of the worst sort. With everything being given away for free, people would have little incentive to restrain consumption or make trade-offs. For instance, it is hard to see why an environmentalist would want gasoline to be available for free instead of expensive.

Well, I think it's important to point out the theorists like Marx virtually equated communism with a state of abundance where such considerations are moot. So in one sense it doesn't make sense to ask how communism would deal with a situation that, if it existed, would preclude communism. We might even be tempted to say that Marx so much as admitted that communism couldn't handle resource allocation well by saying that it couldn't be achieve absent abundance and excess. But it's also important to note that many modern Marxists have come to terms the the impossibility of the concept of total universal abundance (e.g. G.A. Cohen).

conspicuous consumption

Always nice to see a Veblen reference around here.

And by the way, I'm increasingly skeptical of scarcity theory, it completely ignores abundance but whatever

That seems a bit like saying, "I'm increasingly skeptical of the concept of night because it completely ignores day". Two sides of the same coin....inverses. One can talk about excess supply in the language of scarcity and vice versa.

Cork wrote:Interesting. Is this book online?

Post-scarcity anarchism is a collection of essays which, for some reason, are available online but scattered around.

These are the only two that I can remember from it, I'll try and find the rest later if I can:

Ecology and Revolutionary Thought

Listen, Marxist!

Edit: Moar Boockhin -

Towards a Liberatory Technology

And it appears the rest is unavailable, so you'll either have to buy the book or find a torrent or something.

IIRC, most collectivists see their program as a mere stepping stone to an eventual communist society.

That may be true in some cases, however other collectivists saw their system as distinct from communism and as a seperate system and Bakunin was expliclty anti-communist (Although he was writing before Kropotkin and anarcho-communism).

I guess the real question is: on how large of a scale can economic activity be planned, without prices or markets?

Well, the only solution I can think of to that is just to try it and see.

neverfox wrote:That seems a bit like saying, "I'm increasingly skeptical of the concept of night because it completely ignores day". Two sides of the same coin....inverses. One can talk about excess supply in the language of scarcity and vice versa.

Yes, but to my mind talking about air or braindead politicians in terms of scarcity seems counter-intuitive. I accept that some things will always be scarce (Services and such), but I think we can acheive a much greater abundance of things than it seems most modern economists are willing to concede to.

Cork wrote:Interesting. Is this book online?

Not, as far as I know, in its entirety. Chunks are on Google Books, and as Zanthorus said, some of the essays it collects are online separately.

Yes, but to my mind talking about air or braindead politicians in terms of scarcity seems counter-intuitive. I accept that some things will always be scarce (Services and such), but I think we can acheive a much greater abundance of things than it seems most modern economists are willing to concede to.

Most modern economists are morons, so your probably right, but its a shame you choose air and braindead politicians for examples because despite their abundance we're still terrible at handling these resources (ie. we allocate all our poison to the wrong one).

Cork, you've overgeneralized and strawmanned in the first line. This is only true for anarcho-communism. Please be sure not to conflate "social anarchism" (a general umbrella) and anarcho-communism.

Noleaders wrote:Most modern economists are morons, so your probably right

Don't I know it, I've talked with a guy on the ultimate-guitar forums who's a hardcore keynesian (By the way, does anyone have any examples of failures of keynesianism? He seems to think that Keynesian economics are empirically bullet proof)

but its a shame you choose air and braindead politicians for examples because despite their abundance we're still terrible at handling these resources (ie. we allocate all our poison to the wrong one).

I read somewhere about how a gift economy would be necessarily limited to the maximum number of people that could belong to one single organization and participate meaningfully, maybe a few hundred people at a time. From there it seems like each "group" would function as a whole to participate with other groups. I love Kropotkin, but there's a point where this seems to get too complicated.

Not sure if I really just contributed anything.

(By the way, does anyone have any examples of failures of keynesianism? He seems to think that Keynesian economics are empirically bullet proof)

Well every economist tends to view every success and failure a vindication of their theory and a failure of their opponents theory so its very difficult to point to a particular event as definitive proof but a good example would be in the early 70s there was a big reccession and double digit inflation at the same time. As well as being an impressive feat in itself it also contradicted what keynesianists said fixed reccessions (print money, cut taxes, anything that will increase aggregate demand) and fixed inflation (stop printing money, increase taxes, anything that will "soak up" excess purchasing power) since doing both would be impossible.
Another example could possibly be now, you live in britain so you know how crazy more deficit spending would be but what else is gonna keep up public spending since taxation would harm private spending and a cut in either would cause aggregate demand to fall? Though now isn't so much a result of keynesianism as an example of where it isn't applicable as a solution.

A social anarchist society would have no money or prices. We're all aware of the traditional mutualist and ancap criticisms of this (supply and demand, economic calculation yadda yadda), most of which I agree with, but there's one I rarely see discussed: consumption.

I think as BP said, that would be a communist society more likely. Although, tbh , sometimes I can't tell the difference. I think some of the more flexible socialists would allow for some kind of 'labor voucher' exchange system to function as money and prices would be determined by (?). Perhaps the desired trend would be to move towards a completely gift based economy which would be communism. Of course , this is what I think they want and I'm not inserting any criticisms yet.

Most social anarchists consider themselves environmentalists. But it looks like an anarcho-communist society would encourage reckless consumption and resource depletion of the worst sort. With everything being given away for free, people would have little incentive to restrain consumption or make trade-offs. For instance, it is hard to see why an environmentalist would want gasoline to be available for free instead of expensive.

You are speaking of a Tragedy of the Commons. This is an excellent point. Though , I think ideally , for the communist , consumption would also be something that's voted on. Everything would be democratic even the workplace and marketplace. I guess I could picture it as everybody voting for Joe to consume only X amount Y and everyone would consent to similar restrictions for other people. Also , I think you maybe give altruism too little credit. Its not always the case that people will respond to market incentives like they maybe 'should.' For example , if someone were really an environmentalist, they would likely abstain from consumption of environmentally hazardous products even if those products were significantly cheaper. People do this all the time by spending more to buy a hybrid car , some people even pay to recycle, and its much the same for people who care about a healthy diet. 'Regular' food is typically cheaper to buy than its organic counterparts but some people would rather pay more for the organic benefits. My biggest criticism of the socialist/communist model that seeks to actually limit or normalize/regulate consumption ( You have to or you are likely to face the problems the OP mentioned) is that this sort of requirement begs for a state in terms of efficacy and uniform control of large groups of consumers. At least it seems this way to me. I'd be more than happy to be corrected.

Also: how big would a commune be able to get without having to be split in two? Even if there are no markets within the commune, don't they have to exist somewhere outside of it?

Not necessarily. They don't have to exist but they cannot escape the consequences that comes without them.

Not sure how many social anarchists are even on this forum, but I'm curious if anyone has answers.

I'm not a socialist but I found the topic interesting. I hope i was of any help.

You are speaking of a Tragedy of the Commons. This is an excellent point. Though , I think ideally , for the communist , consumption would also be something that's voted on. Everything would be democratic even the workplace and marketplace. I guess I could picture it as everybody voting for Joe to consume only X amount Y and everyone would consent to similar restrictions for other people. Also , I think you maybe give altruism too little credit. Its not always the case that people will respond to market incentives like they maybe 'should.' For example , if someone were really an environmentalist, they would likely abstain from consumption of environmentally hazardous products even if those products were significantly cheaper. People do this all the time by spending more to buy a hybrid car , some people even pay to recycle, and its much the same for people who care about a healthy diet. 'Regular' food is typically cheaper to buy than its organic counterparts but some people would rather pay more for the organic benefits. My biggest criticism of the socialist/communist model that seeks to actually limit or normalize/regulate consumption ( You have to or you are likely to face the problems the OP mentioned) is that this sort of requirement begs for a state in terms of efficacy and uniform control of large groups of consumers. At least it seems this way to me. I'd be more than happy to be corrected.

Geo-Libs as strict Lockeans default to the sustainable yield...

Limit the use of the natural commons to the sustainable yield and sell access to it via permits (the moneys received is the economic rent).

Distribute the economic rent to all equally.

Ardvark wrote:I think some of the more flexible socialists would allow for some kind of 'labor voucher' exchange system to function as money and prices would be determined by the Labor Theory of Value as Karl Marx described it.

Marx's LTV is meant to be a descriptive analysis of how existing capitalism and Market exchanges in general work not a reccomendation of how things should be done.

JosiahWarren wrote:

You are speaking of a Tragedy of the Commons. This is an excellent point. Though , I think ideally , for the communist , consumption would also be something that's voted on. Everything would be democratic even the workplace and marketplace. I guess I could picture it as everybody voting for Joe to consume only X amount Y and everyone would consent to similar restrictions for other people. Also , I think you maybe give altruism too little credit. Its not always the case that people will respond to market incentives like they maybe 'should.' For example , if someone were really an environmentalist, they would likely abstain from consumption of environmentally hazardous products even if those products were significantly cheaper. People do this all the time by spending more to buy a hybrid car , some people even pay to recycle, and its much the same for people who care about a healthy diet. 'Regular' food is typically cheaper to buy than its organic counterparts but some people would rather pay more for the organic benefits. My biggest criticism of the socialist/communist model that seeks to actually limit or normalize/regulate consumption ( You have to or you are likely to face the problems the OP mentioned) is that this sort of requirement begs for a state in terms of efficacy and uniform control of large groups of consumers. At least it seems this way to me. I'd be more than happy to be corrected.

Geo-Libs as strict Lockeans default to the sustainable yield...

Limit the use of the natural commons to the sustainable yield and sell access to it via permits (the moneys received is the economic rent).

Distribute the economic rent to all equally.

Well sustainable yield sounds rather ambiguous.
How would something get limited? Who would do the limiting? Who would do the distributing? I thought we were talking about a hypothetical socialist anarchist society.
As far as I know , Geo-Libs are still minarchists and would allot this duty to the state but I thought we were talking about socialist anarchism...

Marx's LTV is meant to be a descriptive analysis of how existing capitalism and Market exchanges in general work not a reccomendation of how things should be done.

You know I hear a lot of modern day socialists say that! I guess its to distance themselves from the problems involved with a prescriptive interpretation of the LTV. But make no mistake, the LTV was very prescriptive to the point of Marx forming mathematical notations on how it ought to work.

Ardvark wrote:You know I hear a lot of modern day socialists say that! I guess its to distance themselves from the problems involved with a prescriptive interpretation of the LTV. But make no mistake, the LTV was very prescriptive to the point of Marx forming mathematical notations on how it ought to work.

I'm pretty sure I'm not making a mistake. I've read a fair bit of Marx's work on political economy and I'm working my way through Kapital now. Marx is attempting to describe how actually existing capitalism works. It seems weird in an age where the LTV is almost universally rejected but the economists that Marx was drawng on where of the classical british school and he was merely stating the theory of value he had learned from reading Adam Smith and David Ricardo.

Karl Marx wrote:The physicist either observes physical phenomena where they occur in their most typical form and most free from disturbing influence, or, wherever possible, he makes experiments under conditions that assure the occurrence of the phenomenon in its normality. In this work I have to examine the capitalist mode of production, and the conditions of production and exchange corresponding to that mode.

Doesn't sound particularly prescriptive to me.

Zanthorus is basically correct. It is a popular misconception that Marx was trying to say that pricing things equivalently to labor value would end exploitation. In fact, he was saying quite the opposite: that given exchange prices proportional to labor value, exploitation is possible in capitalist economies. In other words, he assumed that prices in capitalist economies could be explained by LTV descriptively and that this provided the basis for, not the solution to, exploitation.

The exchange value of labor, Marx believed, would be proportional, in keeping with LTV, to the labor required to produce a certain "product" that they sell on the open market to capitalists: "the ability to work", or what he called "labor power". This is not the same thing as the hours one will work to produce the employer's desired output but is rather the subsistence and effort required to work (food and the effort to obtain it etc.). The product they eventually make for the capitalist, on the other hand (and again if LTV is an accurate empirical theory of exchange values in a capitalist economy), will have and exchange value proportional to the actual (abstract, ie. adjusted for skill, difficulty and drudgery) hours worked (plus the abstract hours implied in the means of production they might use). Exploitation is possible therefore if the labor value of subsistence (what the capitalist pays for just to get an able-bodied individual to exert an hour of labor) is less than one hour of time that goes into the output. In Marx's parlance, if the use value of labor power (the hours you get them to work) is more than the labor value needed to get them to work (that is the labor value of "fuel" need to get them to work).

So as you can see, in Marx's work, the LTV is actually in effect during exploitation and is the source of the problem. His prescription wasn't to somehow move towards the LTV (which he assumed was already there) but to remove the hiring of labor power through labor ownership of the means of production. However, the LTV is only valid as a theory of exchange value when "the price of capital per worker for vertically integrated industries is closer to the average price of capital per worker than for non-vertically integrated industries."

Thanks to both neverfox and Zanthorus for the info. After reading what you both meant I find myself in agreement with you. I modified my original reply.

Anyway, to the relevant question , how then would a socialist anarchist society figure out prices ( providing they would at all?)