[p2p-research] Capital Club

[Michel Bauwens]

Hi Vinay,

I'm intrigued by your new tools for the land question comment, could you
specify?

Michel

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Vinay Gupta <hexayurt at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Kevin,
>
> many excellent points. I want to highlight that the question of "is
> land property, and if so, on what terms" is a long standing key
> debate across political and economic history.
>
> And now we have very significant new tools (I'm thinking computers)
> which may affect the ways we can answer that question.
>
> Vinay
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Vinay Gupta - Designer, Hexayurt Project - an excellent public domain
> refugee shelter system
> Gizmo Project VOIP: 775-743-1851 (usually works!)              Cell:
> Iceland (+354) 869-4605
> http://hexayurt.com/           Skype/Gizmo/Gtalk:
> hexayurt             hey i found squirrels
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2008, at 7:42 AM, Kevin Carson wrote:
>
> > On 3/8/08, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>  IMO profit doesn't result automatically from ownership.  Profit
> >>> only
> >>>  results from capital ownership, vis a vis the consumer, when the
> >>> state
> >>>  creates artificial scarcity.
> >
> >> So if we could somehow "start over" - say if a group of people landed
> >>  on a deserted island or began trying to populate a planet without
> >>  connection to the previous society - would you say that would be
> >>  enough to fix it?
> >
> > It might.  If they had rid themselves of all the assumptions of the
> > legitimizing ideology of the old system, and understood the
> > institutional basis of exploitation in the old system, and set up the
> > new one without it, I think it would.  But it would be better to start
> > in the present system, with its existing technological legacy and
> > human capital, and simply remove the institutional basis of
> > exploitation.
> >
> >>  If you answer yes, then I wonder how we arrived where we are
> >> today.  I
> >>  mean, how did the [e]state gain so much power over us to begin with?
> >
> > I believe the state originally arose as an instrument of exploitation,
> > when the peasant villagers and the artisans in the towns began to
> > produce a sufficient surplus to support a parasitic ruling class.  And
> > the hegemonic ideologies in every society since have served the
> > primary purpose of justifying the rule of the parasitic ruling
> > classes, and posting the interest of the ruling class as the interest
> > of "society."  This is essentially Oppenheimer's conquest theory of
> > the state, although I think he was too narrow in limiting the scenario
> > to external conquest.
> >
> >>>  In a competitive market without
> >>>  privilege, artificial property rights or artificial scarcity, I
> >>> would
> >>>  expect the price of a carpet service to be just enough to
> >>> amortize all
> >>>  costs and pay for the labor of those running it.
> >
> >> Well, if workers are the only owners, then Wages and Profit won't be
> >>  cleanly separated, so there probably IS a good chance that profit
> >>  could reach zero since anything that might have been labled profit
> >>  will simply be labled Wages by those Worker/Owners who would want to
> >>  keep their own income as high as possible.
> >>
> >>  But when ownership is determined by those who consume the outputs of
> >>  that production, and who pay for the purchase or construction of the
> >>  Sources of that production, then Wages are a cost to be
> >> minimized, and
> >>  Profit becomes a measure of the need for ownership.  Any consumer
> >> pays
> >>  profit when they do not yet have sufficient ownership in the Sources
> >>  needed for that production.  This can be balanced by treating that
> >>  payment as an investment from the consumer who paid it - to
> >> eventually
> >>  vest to him as his real property so that he will eventually (when he
> >>  finally has enough ownership of physical Sources) own all the
> >> outputs
> >>  of production he needs even before they are produced.
> >
> > On the other hand, the whole purpose of a worker's production is his
> > own consumption, either directly by production for use or indirectly
> > by production for exchange with equal producers.
> >
> > The disutility of labor is the source of all exchange value, in a free
> > market, for goods whose supply can be increased indefinitely in
> > response to demand.  Profits on capital and rent on land are
> > deductions from this exchange value created by labor, resulting from
> > the ability of owners of capital and land to collect artificial
> > scarcity rents.
> >
> > Interpreting things in terms of a society of laborers attempting to
> > maximize the output of use-value per input of labor makes more sense,
> > to me, than a society of consumers trying to minimize the wages of
> > labor.
> >
> >>  To explain that last sentence, just imagine the owner of an apple
> >>  tree.  He owns the apples even before they are produced, and can
> >> only
> >>  pay pure costs, since it would be impossible to pay profit unless he
> >>  were to pay it to himself.  To scale this all the way down, we
> >> can see
> >>  that an individual actually might choose to pay "price above
> >> cost" to
> >>  himself in a manner - in that he might be investing in future
> >>  production by buying more trees or better tools or more land etc.
> >>  This seems to prove that profit should be understood as a consumer's
> >>  investment.
> >
> > Not necessarily.  The owner of the orchard is still transforming his
> > own labor directly into consumption, and the apples he consumes are
> > the product of his labor.  His use of part of his labor-product for
> > capital investment is a way of making his own labor more productive,
> > so that his ratio of labor input per unit of consumption is minimized.
> >  In other words, he is a worker maximizing the use value created per
> > unit of labor.
> >
> >>>>  How can a consumer increase utilization to the point of making
> >>>>  ownership "worth it"?  One way is to buy the machine with a
> >>>> group of
> >>>>  other consumers.  Organizing with your neighbors to buy a rug-
> >>>> doctor
> >>>>  is cheaper if there are enough of you to keep that equipment
> >>>> busy, so
> >>>>  why don't we (consumers) do this more often?  Why do we leave that
> >>>>  work of organizing up to a business that intends to charge us
> >>>> price
> >>>>  above cost?
> >>>
> >>>  The intention to charge a price above cost does not automatically
> >>>  translate into the ability.  If market entry is free,
> >>> competition will
> >>>  lower the price to cost.  The only way the equilibrium price can
> >>>  remain above cost is if some entry barrier prevents competition
> >>> from
> >>>  lowering it.
> >
> >> But market entry is not free, even on a deserted island because of
> >>  costs such as the difficulty in "ramping up" and the time needed for
> >>  those investment to begin producing.
> >
> > It's free in the sense that there is no coercive constraint on it.
> > During the lag time it takes for new market entrants to get an
> > operation up and running, the original producer will collect
> > entrepreneurial profits for being first in the field.  But these
> > entrepreneurial profits are themselves an incentive for others to
> > enter the field.  And the result is that new entrants drive the price
> > down to cost of production.  This is the normal process, if artificial
> > entry barriers prevent others from entering an industry, or give one
> > firm a legal monopoly on some productive innovation.
> >
> >>  For instance, let's say I am in a large cruise ship that crashes,
> >>  killing all but 7 people - including me - shipwrecked on an
> >> uncharted
> >>  island.  As I look around I notice the plants and animals seem oddly
> >>  familiar.  It suddenly dawns on me these are the same ornamental
> >>  organisms that the people of 1st world countries have chosen to have
> >>  running on the soil around their homes and througout all of their
> >>  cities.  There is green and flowering everywhere, but it is all a
> >>  wasteland of worthless, and in some cases even poisonous
> >> fabricators.
> >>  None of the mushrooms are useful for medicine or food.  No chicken,
> >>  cattle, turkey or geese - only dogs, cats and songbirds.  No nut
> >>  trees.  No grape vines.  No bees.
> >>
> >>  Luckily some sealed rations wash ashore, including some steel
> >> cans of
> >>  wheat and few whole spices that we are able to sprout and begin
> >>  growing.
> >>
> >>  We build simple bellows and construct a crude forge to melt the
> >> steel
> >>  and aluminum scraps that also wash ashore.  We also use the forge to
> >>  make glass from some of the more pure beach sand.
> >>
> >>  After a couple years, you crash-land onto the same island in a much
> >>  smaller boat.  You have no food, no tools, no seed, and not even any
> >>  land to stand on.
> >>
> >>  Let's say the 7 original islanders are not happy about your arrival,
> >>  and treat you similarly to how "M. Fioretti" mentioned in his
> >> response
> >>  to this thread:
> >>
> >>> (semi-serious) we, that is any generic group of neighbors in a
> >>>  generic city, all hate each other and the least interact the better
> >>>  we feel:-)''
> >>
> >>  Even if we 'let' you work for us, we could price the food we sell to
> >>  you so high, and the land and tools so high that it may take you
> >> years
> >>  to be able afford some land and fully own a house, in fact we could
> >>  delay it forever - just as almost nobody in the US actually owns
> >> their
> >>  house, they all OWE their house.  You'd "owe your soul to the
> >> company
> >>  store".
> >>
> >>  Wouldn't you agree there are barriers to entry even without a large
> >>  state?  I would say it is because the estate IS the state.  When you
> >>  pay a price higher than the cost (including wages) that it really
> >> took
> >>  to grow the wheat and bake the slice of bread you ate, wouldn't
> >> it be
> >>  nice if that 'extra' you paid (profit) became your investment in
> >> more
> >>  fields, ovens, etc. even if  you don't have any of those exact
> >> skills
> >>  - so that you slowly become "set up" as you pay "price above cost"?
> >
> > Yes, under those circumstances.  But it's an artificial situation
> > which abstracts out precisely the conditions that I consider relevant
> > for eliminating exploitation.  On your island, the land and natural
> > resources have been completely appropriated by the original seven
> > settlers (let's stipulate for the sake of argument that they make full
> > use of them, so their appropriation is legitimate and not the kind of
> > political appropriation of vacant and unused land described by Henry
> > George and Franz Oppenheimer).  In the real world, however, the vast
> > majority of land is held out of use by political appropriation, and is
> > artificially scarce.  In the real world, if artificial title to vacant
> > land were abolished, labor would have independent access to the means
> > of subsistence, which would exert upward pressure on wages.  The
> > effect of state-enforced legal privilege, in the world we actually
> > live in, is to artificially create the conditions of scarcity that
> > exist naturally on your island.
> >
> >>>>  I think another part of the problem is in figuring out how those
> >>>>  resources should be shared among the owners.  It is a difficult,
> >>>>  sticky situation that most people would rather just avoid
> >>>> altogether
> >>>>  because of the in-fighting they perceive would occur.  It seems
> >>>> such a
> >>>>  group could write some 'rules' about how to schedule access and
> >>>> how
> >>>>  much each individual must compensate the others for any extra
> >>>> wear or
> >>>>  exclusion they cause.  I see such a contract, if 'properly'
> >>>> written,
> >>>>  would be the only thing our society needs to begin down the
> >>>> road of
> >>>>  peace and abundance, but will delay that discussion for now.
> >>>
> >>>  This general principle of cooperative consumer ownership of cars,
> >>>  appliances, etc., is a good one IMO.  Another example would be the
> >>>  pooling of resources by a village to share tractors and other
> >>>  mechanical equipment and use them in common, rather than hiring a
> >>>  capitalist firm.
> >>>
> >>>  But I think the reason for taking the own rather than hire approach
> >>>  whenever possible is really to increase one's economic
> >>> independence:
> >>>  specifically, to reduce future needs for outside income, to reduce
> >>>  dependence on future wage labor to meet one's basic consumption
> >>> needs,
> >>>  and to reduce vulnerability to the business cycle and the threat of
> >>>  unemployment.
> >>
> >>
> >> Those are good reasons too.  But are you also claiming it is possible
> >>  for the owner of an apple tree to pay profit for the procurement of
> >>  those apples?  In other words, is consumer ownership is more
> >>  operationally efficient than having the trees owned only by those
> >> that
> >>  happen to possess the skills needed to plant, tend, harvest, etc.?
> >>  Won't the workers overpay themselves if they are the owners?
> >
> > Not if other workers have free access to vacant land on which to raise
> > apples, and there are no artificial barriers (like occupational
> > licensing) to the transfer of skill.
> >
> > But I think you're getting things backward.  The disutility of labor
> > is the source of exchange value.  The only reason people engage in
> > productive labor is either for their own direct consumption, or to
> > receive in exchange the labor-product of others.  In a society of
> > productive laborers, the real economic calculus will be of the ratio
> > of effort to consumption.  Workers will engage in productive labor in
> > those cases where the consumption (either through direct production
> > for use or production for indirect consumption for exchange) is
> > sufficient to make the expenditure of labor worth it.  In an autarkic
> > farm, the subsistence farmer will expend effort in those pursuits that
> > he considers worth it in terms of the unit of consumption per unit of
> > effort, and he will refrain from effort in those pursuits not worth
> > it.  The calculus is the same when he begins exchanging his effort for
> > the product of others.
> >
> >>  If it is most efficient for the workers to own, and many small
> >>  businesses are worker-owned, and if the concepts of efficiency in
> >>  scale are overrated, then why is there a problem?  Oh yes, you will
> >>  say it is the privilege handed out by the state.  I wholeheartedly
> >>  agree that almost every government on earth is directly
> >> puppeteered by
> >>  corporations that sometimes even write the very legislation that
> >> gives
> >>  them even more privilege.  Much of this is fully above-board
> >>  (technically legal), again because the rules of interaction were and
> >>  are written by those very same corporations.  So enormously
> >> important
> >>  policy decisions - such as whether or not to invade the nearly
> >>  defenseless countries of Afghanistan and Iraq are influenced by the
> >>  profits those policy makers receive because of their investments in
> >>  offense contractors.
> >
> > That's basically my argument.  Worker ownership is far less widespread
> > than it would be in a free market.  But I might issue the same
> > counter-challenge:  if consumer-ownership is more efficient, and it
> > exists in some cases, then why is there a problem?
> >
> > --
> > Kevin Carson
> > Mutualist Blog:  Free Market Anti-Capitalism
> > http://mutualist.blogspot.com
> > Studies in Mutualist Political Economy
> > http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html
> > Anarchist Organization Theory Project
> > http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-
> > of.html
>
>


-- 
The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
alternatives.

Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p

Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at
http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html
BEST VIDEO ON P2P:
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU

KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20080311/91abf278/attachment-0001.html