The issue isn't so much whether or not your desired system is compatible with human nature; your anthropology 101 textbook obviously proves that. What the real question is here is whether or not you can *apply* the kind of gift economy found in pre-agricultural and some agricultural societies to the kind of society we have today. For example, the "an"-caps want a system similar to what the early US had in 1776, but never think about whether that kind of system can be applied to today's economy.
Ok could you please explain how a gift economy and a free market are incompatible? If people naturally want to give things away, wouldn't a system where people were allowed to do whatever they want with their money quickly turn into a gift economy? In your version of a gift economy, are people required by law to give things away? If not, guess what you're looking at a free market system dude. You have so much more common ground with Agorists than you think. Think about it.
There are causes to why individuals are altruistic or egoistic. As mammals, we don't have the freewill to choose between "altruism" and "egoism". Altruism requires that you relate to another (kinship, friendship, shared experiences, shared values ...) Altruism doesn't and won't happen because you demand it.
Gift economy requires mutual trust. That's why it works badly with strangers but works well with relatives and within groups (tribes) where mutual trust is needed for individual well-being.
#2 Burning stuff is certainly not an act of generosity. So it seems to me that polach is not about generosity but rather about giving away and burning stuff to impress the crowd and/or maybe about a religious wastefull rituals.
#3 In a complexe society ( a society with pluralism and where most individuals are strangers to one an other ) you cannot expect everyone to relate to others and to develop mutual trust with others. Therefore you must expect gift economy and altruism to be mostly limited to simples societies (kinship, tribes, relatives, friendship, famillies etc.).
Anyone who is interested in an analysis of the actual sources of mr1001's "information" in this video, google "Down With Primitivism: A Thorough Critique of Polanyi."
he's been making these videos for years, yet he hasn't realized is that the two options he proposes are not mutually exclusive and that the point of the over-arching market economy is to encourage diversified cooperation between all rational people, whether they have ideal love for one another or not. And to encourage the empathetic relations that natural come about through extended mutually advantageous cooperative behavior.
what he considers to be an ideal mentality is on an individual level. It is not something that should be homogenized for everyone or the assumed premise for social arrangements.
this does no refuting in this vid. it merely states his preferred morality, which is cute, but nothing more.
I'm very aggressive with this guy because his persistent egotistical closedmindedness is very irritating.
A gift economy's capacity for technological advancement is abysmally low. To rely completely on resources that may or may not come in the form of gifts is foolish and unsustainable. People would necessarily have to be self reliant in almost every way.
If someone is proficient in their daily chores and have a surplus of some kind, they will certainly see a benefit in trading, either through barter or through gift giving with implied reciprocation.
Btw, in a famous footnote in Capital, Karl Marx speaks about the myth of 'the originally bartering society' as a "Robinsonade" (after Robinson Crusoe, and his isolated situation on the island). It is an economist, modern day projection of the capitalist society ON the past, and it's an imaginary past.
You are completely ignorant. The free market = The production and exchange of goods and services without interference from the government or from monopolies.
How does this exempt "gifts" from this definition? Stupid video.
"Applied to ultimate ends of action, rationality is meaningless. The ultimate end of action is always the satisfaction of some desires of acting man and nobody is in a position to substitute his own value judgments for those of the acting individual. No critic is qualified to, in dictatorial arrogance blithely disposing of his fellow's will and aspirations, determine what would make another man happier."
This is a half-truth, but Mises's anti-psychologism is false in the context of ethics. Yes, economics has nothing to say about whether your preferences are good or not in themselves. But economics isn't the entire picture. I can critisize your consumer choices and values on "rational grounds", it's just that there is a binary use of "rationality" here. In praxeology, "rationality" is just a decision-making capacity, not the correctness of your values or choices. In another context, it is that.
Rothbard and some other Austrians would have some issues with your phrasing there.. but I don't because I'm not here paraphrasing to describe praxeology, but rather to describe libertarianism, the "free market" position as I stated.
It's the misean position, not a unanimous position among people that support free market economics. Even among austrians, there are shades of disagreement with Mises about this. Roderick Long has an interesting piece about anti-psychologism in economics in which he partially talks about this distinction of senses of "rationality".
I'm not talking about the Misesian methodological absolutism.. I merely used the paraphrase as it's an ode the necessariness of individual pluralism, ie. the understanding among all libertarians that it is invalid to force anyone into what you think is best for them beyond what they'd do voluntarily. It is the Berlin-ian understanding that you don't *know* in any absolute sense what is best for everyone else.. and the Arrow-ian understanding that logically you cannot.
There is no intrinsic part of libertarianism that requires you not to have an ethical opinion about what is in people's long-term interest. Neither does the belief that it's wrong to initiate force to make people do what is best for them mean that you don't think there actually is something that is best for them. You're only thinking in utilitarian economic terms.
The point made here is precisely in opposition to utilitarianism.. this seems to be a recurring misunderstanding for you... I am not saying that you cannot have ethical opinions. You can. That's obviously not what's being addressed.
It should be noted that no serious economic historian denies:
(A) that premarket and prehistoric economies were not "markets" precisely because they couldn't be - the lack of division of labor prevented market conditions from forming (and meant tribalism & subsistence living)
(B) that market formation increased the productive capacity and measurable quality of life
(C) that de-marketization of economies led to feudalism
(D) that re-marketization led to universal increases in quality of life
A. You don't know anything about the "prehistoric" economies. So you cannot say whether they were markets or not. What do you define as "market" anyways?
B.Again, what is a "market"? How do you know when its "formation" occurred and what it did?
C. Define demarketization. What were the "fueds" and WHY did they occur?
D. What is "quality of life" and how do you measure its "increase"?
A. uhh yes we know a lot about prehistoric economies.. "prehistoric" means "before written record of history."
B. a market economy is one based on division of labor & a resulting voluntary trading of goods usually via a price mechanism.
C. uhh... "feudalism" is not about "feuds" as such.. google "feudalism"
D. i said "measurable" quality of life. Ultimate, objective quality of life is not measurable - but we can measure life expectancy, purchasing power, political freedom, & other indicators
A. Who is "we"? 1. Since nothing was written about it, how do you know anything about "prehistory" 2. If something is "written", then that means that it is true?
B....and you are saying that there was no division of labor in the "prehistory" and no "merchanism"?
C. Are you saying that a market eliminated feudalism and that without the market there was feudalism? What are you basing this on?
A. uhhh are you seriously asking me these questions? this is pretty elementary stuff... 1. "we" is just "human beings." 2. we know about it from archaeology, deduction, human paleontology, anthropology, etc.
B. yes, we don't know that there was absolutely none, but we can largely tell what kind of economic arrangements existed.
C. feudalism was demarketized, by definition. feudal lords controlled trade and economic activity by force.
A. google "prehistory" or "archaeology" ..there is immense literature out there about this.
B. see above
C. somewhat, N. Korea is close, though most governments today allow for much more marketized economies.
D. ugh. did you not read what I said? i stated that "THERE IS NO ultimate, objective way to measure quality of life." however, most people agree that higher life expectancies and so forth are good proxies for what they normatively consider "quality of life."
A. In case you haven't realized by now, I don't take "literature" in itself with much of a grain of salt. I need facts, and most "literature" is nothing but SPECULATION.
C. In what was have our governments "allowed" for much more "marketized" economies?
D. How did you measure "life expectancy and so forth"? I am not convinced that what you are SAYING (which seems to be based solely on what you were TOLD by someone else and not what you have witnessed and analyzed for yourself...) is TRUE.
A. if you have a problem with the science of archaeology, so be it. im not going to spend my time dispelling your apparent lack of knowledge on the subject.
C. compare the economy of South Korea to that of North Korea... which is more of a market economy?... do you understand now?
D. are you serious? scientists use chemical analysis on human remains to determine their age of death and calculate average life expectancies among populations based on that... this is not controversial stuff
A. You haven't mentioned anything that is "scientific" by definition. I say you have NO "knowledge" (key word is KNOW...) on the subject...
C. You say North Korea is more of a "market" economy. How so? I understand that you are not thinking with LOGIC...
D. You are telling me they did a test on hundreds of millions of corpses? Do you know how the process even work for "chemically analyzing" the age of a rotted corpse and how accurate it is?
A. are you fucking serious? i feel like im talking to a child here.. google "archaeology" and get back to me
B. no, dimwit, I am pointing out that SOUTH Korea is more of a market economy. duh. i dont think you understand my point here has been PRO-MARKET and in opposition to this anti-market video.
D. no, you don't need to test "hundreds of millions of corpses." google "statistical sampling."
yes, the dating methods work. google "radiocarbon dating" or just google "archaeology"
A.The "archaeology" you are referring to sounds like bullshit. You don't explain how it even backs up your claims...
B.You don't know what a market is...otherwise you wouldn't call modern society a "market"...
D. There were hundreds of millions of people living in the past, so by not testing hundreds of millions of corpses there is a lot of data being left out. Since you haven't witnessed the testing, you have no REASON to consider it to be legitimate.
B. modern economies are not pure market economies, no, and i agree that they, for the most part, should be and i agree that we are in some ways devolving into neo-feudalistic economy and the way to fix that would be to get rid of coercive states.
D. please google "statistical sampling" or any site on the mathematical science of statistics. these are elementary and uncontroversial things that you don't understand.
One of the things astrology has right about me (Taurus) as you can probably tell is that I am not very receptive.
If you want me to understand you, then you need to express your thoughts clearly and in a fashion so I can understand EXACTLY what you are trying to say. Basically say what you mean and mean what you say.
My previous posts were mostly in argument with some of the statements you were making and not really an attack on you or necessarily a disagreement your stance on the matter .
We have a central bank today, called the Federal Reserve. It is basically a government and you have accept THEIR currency and you must pay them some of your hard earned money to them through "taxation". If you and a group of people decide to get together and form your own currency, then you will be prosecuted.
We have a market and it is not free. A market is either a free market or not a market at all...
yes, I know we have a central bank now, yes I know and agree that we don't have a free market now... but it is much more of a market economy than feudalistic economies or their modern equivalents in places like north korea.
I am lazy and explaining why the "slavery" is unimportant to someone who can't think the same way I do is going to be too much work for me.
Okay let's look at the Old West and you have a society that is largely a "market". Or you can look at anarchic Iceland or Ireland.
What is most important is to get a common understanding of the "market" is economy "based on division of labor & a resulting voluntary trading of goods usually via a price mechanism.".
I agree with some of the sentiment of this video.. but you make some blatantly false statements about economists, misrepresent what economics teaches, and base your entire thesis on the work of pseudoscientific non-economists who have been thoroughly debunked by actual economic historians.
Actual economic historians use archaeological evidence to theorize that until the industrial revolution, all economic activity was restricted by (among other things) the Malthusian pop. trap, not "barter."
My question is how exactly does a market-based society prevent gift giving? Does gift giving have to be the basis of the economy in order for people to value generosity? It would seem to me that even in today's warped society, excessive greed is usually looked down upon. Furthermore, would everyone rely on gifts from others for basic needs like food and medicine? How would they assure that there would be a steady flow of these gifts to the community without resources being exhausted?
In "anarchy", there is no "basis" of an economy aside from individual wants and needs and the way other people around them are helping him/her and vice-versa.
It seems, to me, that there are people who call themselves "anarchists" who think that they will get a free lunch. They need to pull their heads out of their asses and look at reality.
Even without the government, you will only get free things based on what other people are willing to give to you and what you can provide yourself with.
This is a very timely video for me as I'm in the process (with just one other guy at the moment) of starting to organise a community garden allotment with the aim of both getting people more involved in a communal, non-consumer project and also to just give the majority of the produce away.
A friend of mine did that here in Britain. I think he did it under the banner of the IWW, actually, but don't quote me on that. He seemed to think it was a great success, so good on you for giving it a go. I'd love to be involved with something like that in my area, but I wouldn't know where to begin.
Thanks bro. I'm in the UK too ... in Wales for my sins ahaha. Do you think you'd be able to put me in touch with your friend so that I could maybe pick his brains a little. That'd be awesome. If not no worries.
There are endless reasons why, as a full-scale model for a society, a gift economy is not a very practical idea. That being said, gift economies can function on small scales and I have no fundamental objection to people engaging in them - and I'm not sure that gift economies are necessarily completely outside of the context of markets.
I'm inclined to agree and definately believe in localised gift economies, but simulataneously find it difficult to envisage the gift economy on a global scale. As you say, I'm sure that, provided the will is there, it's managable, but I do wonder how the iniquity of resources globally would play out practically in what today is international 'trade', but would be gifts. Say one area was awash with essential resources and others weren't.
Perhaps it's one of those wait-and-see communist issues.
Also, when you're face-to-face and working as part of community, there's a natural cohesiveness that follows. Taking decisions in town halls etc. is one thing, but again, on an international scale, that same cameraderie isn't so immediately discernible.
I accept that this isn't a perfect argument, but suppose there's a cat trapped in a burning building on the other side of the road - you might cross the road to save it.
But what if it was on the other side of the world and only you could save?
I agree. The problem I guess would be determining the actual value of giving a gift over the utility of maximizing the resources i.e. trading raw resources being a higher "aspiration" than developing the goods. Stunting growth etc. Maybe I'm overgeneralizing and labor/trade is addressed in a gift economy, but it would seem the very concept of the gift would have to be limited (food perhaps) and localized in order for it to work.
The basis of gift sex is compassion, not pity, and gift sex is given in the same context that a bottle of wine, concert tickets, a dvd etc. would be given as gifts. The giver receives the same empathetic pleasure as (s)he would from feeding a stray cat or donating blood."
Gift sex, patterned after the anarcho-communist concept of gift economics (and coined by an African anarcho-communist), is the act of performing sexual favors of any kind exclusively for the benefit of the other party with no regard for any personal sexual or erotic gratification (ie. because the giver is unattracted to the recipient or isn't sexually aroused for whatever reasons). Gift sex can be provided to strangers, romantic partners, platonic friends,etc
If you look at the Free Software movement on the internet, you will find that most people who receive it will simply take advantage of this fact and not repay in kind.
Interesting objection, if it is an objection at all.
Its not hard to find out why it is that way. Its because of the characteristics of the internet that it to some degree isolates producer from consumer in this software-case. It doesnt arouse only little feeling of human sympathy. Naturally, if I see how a guy produces something for free and sacrificies effort, I have this warm feeling to give him something back and say thank you. I am sure thats pretty common.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this whole video is ironically based on the assumption that people will WANT to give their money away, as in, they maximize their utility by giving it away. IF that was the case, then this situation would occur out of an anarcho-capitalistic as well.
And stop bringing up Spanish anarchism, it was a massive failure that led to totalitarianism.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Um, what part of that does not directly translate to "that led to totalitarianism?" There was anarchy. It failed. Franco fascism took over. Thats a pretty straightforward sequence of events.
Except that fascism was overthrown. In order to be a sound economic system it has to last against other economic systems. Perhaps it will arise again and last, but as of right now that looks unlikely and the only experiences have shown failure.
The shoe lace idea does not follow because tying a show lace is not supposed to be resistant to water. A different analogy would be I tied my shoe a different way, I ran, and it came undone. In this case, yes my shoe string tying technique failed.
overthrown. We'd be as well saying that the fact that it's lasted via coercion makes it superior, which is a nonsense.
If a chattel slave society physically fought off a capitalist economy, then it's also the superior system? Ehm....
You've also forgotten something very important. Most anarchists and communists agree that anarchism/communism has to be international. So if there is a criticism of the Catalunyan anarchists, it's that they couldn't exist in the face of international capital.
There were very very few actual anarchists among the so-called "anarchists" of Spain, but yes I actually agree with PP here; the fact that they were militarily invaded by a massive external force says little-to-nothing about the merit or viability of their economic system.
Wrong. Anachist Catalonia was successful for a period of time. It managed to increase the literacy rate from three to ninety eight percent. Abortion was legalized. Universal education was instituted. And the overall standard of living increased for the average man.
It's failure was in its sustainability and propagation. Communists reestablished the state and prohibited armed militias. State communists brought down the stateless society.
Some areas of productivity actually increased as well.
Just have to pick up on the part about state communists (oxymoronic term, really, but I know what you're saying) bringing it down. There's a prevailing idea that the communists brought it down which has to be overcome.
They were crushed militarily by the Falangists. Whatever circumstances and tactics lead to it, the ultimate destruction for their demise was the fascist army.
no we do, its seen a a prototype, we learn from it, see its success and failures and next time an opportunitiy comes around we'll seize it and hopefully make a better world sorta speak.
why call ppl drones, ppl are saying yes franco one plain and simple but what allowed him to win is what is being discussed.
i dont believe the communists were able to establish a state
either way...
so how does communists reestablishing a state and making a uniformed army have anything to do with them losing a war. in fact you could argue that the stability of hierarchy for an army is a practical and useful thing.
the problem wasnt sustainability because it only lasted a little while...
I am interested in the Spanish anarchism period and the exact mechanisms in which they facilitated gift economies. Naturally, this could probably be only achieved by some form of social contractual agreement and a very good sense of social cohesiveness. We just don't see that in our towns and cities these days.
Some rituals in primitive gift economies make no sense (and at times self-contradictory)--kind of like religion. But hey, what do you expect, they're primitive. (Of course, that is not to say that some current day economic "rituals" aren't ridiculous either. Some even more so...)
(Thumb up and a smile) Indeed she was, but her thoughts are well worth reading all the same. All political idealogies are frought with danger unless one understands the potential risks and can reduce these. Blind utopian ideals always lead to tyranny.
ive read her thoughts, i yes i think shes a cunt.... and yes i see the danger of her work
All political idealogies are frought with danger unless one understands the potential risks and can reduce these. Blind utopian ideals always lead to tyranny.
people don't realize the value of Rand.. much of her ideas were shaped because of perverted Soviet Marxism which led her to fully accept capitalism. In her conception of a purely free market, we can see not only her flaws but the flaws of lassez faire itself; in her denunciation of communism she exposed radically flawed and easily refuted elements in capitalism. In other words, I think Randian philosophy is valuable in demonstrating what not to do.
exactly.... one can read Rand with a kind of bemused smile, because much of what she rallies against is a straw man... and as mr1001nights says egotism/individualism versus altruism/collectivism is a false dichotomy.
What you're saying is that the "free market" allows for private charity. Which of course, is true. And insomuch as our capitalist (or mixed) economy exists, I would encourage the rich to be charitable. However, if capitalism=theft, then even if the rich gave back everything through private charity it would just be changing theft to larceny. Gift economy can exist within the context of capitalism, but why not just replace capitalism with a gift economy altogether?
I wonder what would happen if people started haggling with one another in his hypothetical lala land. Would he grab the guns to make sure they do not engage in a market based transaction?
Since Clearly Mr1001nights is not a 'mutualist' and cannot tolerate peaceful people with different views:
'What would happen if people started haggling with one another in his hypothetical lala land. Would he grab the guns to make sure they do not engage in a market based transaction?'
Because the mutualist position IS the over-arching free market position.
Indeed that is the central question, Kruzer, and mr1001 will not answer it because it will reveal his ideology to be what it is - necessarily authoritarian and violent; or it will reveal him to be what he pretending to criticize - a "free marketeer."
In some ways although they are not the same. In a gift economy, services and goods are freely produced and given without an expectation of being directly paid or any other "quid pro guo" on the part of those giving these goods or services from those who receive. In free exchange, two people agree freely to trade goods or services with each other so there is a stated intent for "quid pro quo".
I fucking knew it! I just typed it in! FUCK YEAH!
D3R3K1600 1 week ago
Free Market = feel free to kill everyone's freedom!
steblizz 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What is the difference between a gift economy and a socialist economy?
I heard that they were the same thing.
CBasie2856 3 months ago
The issue isn't so much whether or not your desired system is compatible with human nature; your anthropology 101 textbook obviously proves that. What the real question is here is whether or not you can *apply* the kind of gift economy found in pre-agricultural and some agricultural societies to the kind of society we have today. For example, the "an"-caps want a system similar to what the early US had in 1776, but never think about whether that kind of system can be applied to today's economy.
juliaisafilmbuff123 7 months ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123
great comment. thankyou
InvincibleNumanist 3 months ago
Ok could you please explain how a gift economy and a free market are incompatible? If people naturally want to give things away, wouldn't a system where people were allowed to do whatever they want with their money quickly turn into a gift economy? In your version of a gift economy, are people required by law to give things away? If not, guess what you're looking at a free market system dude. You have so much more common ground with Agorists than you think. Think about it.
AnarchyRules17 1 year ago
What a beautiful video, been meaning to do a related one for over a year!
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This video is just one big straw man.
The poster needs to remove his cock from Noam Chomsky's arse and grow up. Anarcho-syndicalism? Get a fucking life.
VanDoodah 2 years ago
what a coherent refutation
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
There are causes to why individuals are altruistic or egoistic. As mammals, we don't have the freewill to choose between "altruism" and "egoism". Altruism requires that you relate to another (kinship, friendship, shared experiences, shared values ...) Altruism doesn't and won't happen because you demand it.
Gift economy requires mutual trust. That's why it works badly with strangers but works well with relatives and within groups (tribes) where mutual trust is needed for individual well-being.
anarkoFred 2 years ago
#2 Burning stuff is certainly not an act of generosity. So it seems to me that polach is not about generosity but rather about giving away and burning stuff to impress the crowd and/or maybe about a religious wastefull rituals.
anarkoFred 2 years ago
Potlach*
anarkoFred 2 years ago
#3 In a complexe society ( a society with pluralism and where most individuals are strangers to one an other ) you cannot expect everyone to relate to others and to develop mutual trust with others. Therefore you must expect gift economy and altruism to be mostly limited to simples societies (kinship, tribes, relatives, friendship, famillies etc.).
anarkoFred 2 years ago
Anyone who is interested in an analysis of the actual sources of mr1001's "information" in this video, google "Down With Primitivism: A Thorough Critique of Polanyi."
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
One of your best videos!
DonVoghano 2 years ago
LOL, that graphic is so ignorant
unit023 2 years ago
Oh, hey, BTW
'indirect exchange' is still barter, it is just barter based upon social values.
..dumbass..
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago
omfg.. this guy is so stupidly collectivistic
he's been making these videos for years, yet he hasn't realized is that the two options he proposes are not mutually exclusive and that the point of the over-arching market economy is to encourage diversified cooperation between all rational people, whether they have ideal love for one another or not. And to encourage the empathetic relations that natural come about through extended mutually advantageous cooperative behavior.
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago
what he considers to be an ideal mentality is on an individual level. It is not something that should be homogenized for everyone or the assumed premise for social arrangements.
this does no refuting in this vid. it merely states his preferred morality, which is cute, but nothing more.
I'm very aggressive with this guy because his persistent egotistical closedmindedness is very irritating.
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago
This is completely ridiculous.
A gift economy's capacity for technological advancement is abysmally low. To rely completely on resources that may or may not come in the form of gifts is foolish and unsustainable. People would necessarily have to be self reliant in almost every way.
If someone is proficient in their daily chores and have a surplus of some kind, they will certainly see a benefit in trading, either through barter or through gift giving with implied reciprocation.
KagarBeardtooth 2 years ago 2
Btw, in a famous footnote in Capital, Karl Marx speaks about the myth of 'the originally bartering society' as a "Robinsonade" (after Robinson Crusoe, and his isolated situation on the island). It is an economist, modern day projection of the capitalist society ON the past, and it's an imaginary past.
CaptainBluebear08 2 years ago
You are completely ignorant. The free market = The production and exchange of goods and services without interference from the government or from monopolies.
How does this exempt "gifts" from this definition? Stupid video.
ocelot814 2 years ago
The "free market" position:
"Applied to ultimate ends of action, rationality is meaningless. The ultimate end of action is always the satisfaction of some desires of acting man and nobody is in a position to substitute his own value judgments for those of the acting individual. No critic is qualified to, in dictatorial arrogance blithely disposing of his fellow's will and aspirations, determine what would make another man happier."
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
This is a half-truth, but Mises's anti-psychologism is false in the context of ethics. Yes, economics has nothing to say about whether your preferences are good or not in themselves. But economics isn't the entire picture. I can critisize your consumer choices and values on "rational grounds", it's just that there is a binary use of "rationality" here. In praxeology, "rationality" is just a decision-making capacity, not the correctness of your values or choices. In another context, it is that.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Rothbard and some other Austrians would have some issues with your phrasing there.. but I don't because I'm not here paraphrasing to describe praxeology, but rather to describe libertarianism, the "free market" position as I stated.
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
It's the misean position, not a unanimous position among people that support free market economics. Even among austrians, there are shades of disagreement with Mises about this. Roderick Long has an interesting piece about anti-psychologism in economics in which he partially talks about this distinction of senses of "rationality".
brainpolice2 2 years ago
I'm not talking about the Misesian methodological absolutism.. I merely used the paraphrase as it's an ode the necessariness of individual pluralism, ie. the understanding among all libertarians that it is invalid to force anyone into what you think is best for them beyond what they'd do voluntarily. It is the Berlin-ian understanding that you don't *know* in any absolute sense what is best for everyone else.. and the Arrow-ian understanding that logically you cannot.
ie"interpersonal utility"
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
There is no intrinsic part of libertarianism that requires you not to have an ethical opinion about what is in people's long-term interest. Neither does the belief that it's wrong to initiate force to make people do what is best for them mean that you don't think there actually is something that is best for them. You're only thinking in utilitarian economic terms.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
The point made here is precisely in opposition to utilitarianism.. this seems to be a recurring misunderstanding for you... I am not saying that you cannot have ethical opinions. You can. That's obviously not what's being addressed.
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
gift economy "feels good man" X D
greenhell666 2 years ago
It should be noted that no serious economic historian denies:
(A) that premarket and prehistoric economies were not "markets" precisely because they couldn't be - the lack of division of labor prevented market conditions from forming (and meant tribalism & subsistence living)
(B) that market formation increased the productive capacity and measurable quality of life
(C) that de-marketization of economies led to feudalism
(D) that re-marketization led to universal increases in quality of life
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
A. You don't know anything about the "prehistoric" economies. So you cannot say whether they were markets or not. What do you define as "market" anyways?
B.Again, what is a "market"? How do you know when its "formation" occurred and what it did?
C. Define demarketization. What were the "fueds" and WHY did they occur?
D. What is "quality of life" and how do you measure its "increase"?
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
A. uhh yes we know a lot about prehistoric economies.. "prehistoric" means "before written record of history."
B. a market economy is one based on division of labor & a resulting voluntary trading of goods usually via a price mechanism.
C. uhh... "feudalism" is not about "feuds" as such.. google "feudalism"
D. i said "measurable" quality of life. Ultimate, objective quality of life is not measurable - but we can measure life expectancy, purchasing power, political freedom, & other indicators
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
A. Who is "we"? 1. Since nothing was written about it, how do you know anything about "prehistory" 2. If something is "written", then that means that it is true?
B....and you are saying that there was no division of labor in the "prehistory" and no "merchanism"?
C. Are you saying that a market eliminated feudalism and that without the market there was feudalism? What are you basing this on?
D. How did you measure?
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
A. uhhh are you seriously asking me these questions? this is pretty elementary stuff... 1. "we" is just "human beings." 2. we know about it from archaeology, deduction, human paleontology, anthropology, etc.
B. yes, we don't know that there was absolutely none, but we can largely tell what kind of economic arrangements existed.
C. feudalism was demarketized, by definition. feudal lords controlled trade and economic activity by force.
D. google "quality of life index"
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
A. What did you find out?
B. How do you "tell"?
C. The "fuedal lords" sound like the governments we have today....
D. That doesn't show anything objective that can used as hard facts for measuring anything.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
A. google "prehistory" or "archaeology" ..there is immense literature out there about this.
B. see above
C. somewhat, N. Korea is close, though most governments today allow for much more marketized economies.
D. ugh. did you not read what I said? i stated that "THERE IS NO ultimate, objective way to measure quality of life." however, most people agree that higher life expectancies and so forth are good proxies for what they normatively consider "quality of life."
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
A. In case you haven't realized by now, I don't take "literature" in itself with much of a grain of salt. I need facts, and most "literature" is nothing but SPECULATION.
C. In what was have our governments "allowed" for much more "marketized" economies?
D. How did you measure "life expectancy and so forth"? I am not convinced that what you are SAYING (which seems to be based solely on what you were TOLD by someone else and not what you have witnessed and analyzed for yourself...) is TRUE.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
A. if you have a problem with the science of archaeology, so be it. im not going to spend my time dispelling your apparent lack of knowledge on the subject.
C. compare the economy of South Korea to that of North Korea... which is more of a market economy?... do you understand now?
D. are you serious? scientists use chemical analysis on human remains to determine their age of death and calculate average life expectancies among populations based on that... this is not controversial stuff
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
A. You haven't mentioned anything that is "scientific" by definition. I say you have NO "knowledge" (key word is KNOW...) on the subject...
C. You say North Korea is more of a "market" economy. How so? I understand that you are not thinking with LOGIC...
D. You are telling me they did a test on hundreds of millions of corpses? Do you know how the process even work for "chemically analyzing" the age of a rotted corpse and how accurate it is?
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
A. are you fucking serious? i feel like im talking to a child here.. google "archaeology" and get back to me
B. no, dimwit, I am pointing out that SOUTH Korea is more of a market economy. duh. i dont think you understand my point here has been PRO-MARKET and in opposition to this anti-market video.
D. no, you don't need to test "hundreds of millions of corpses." google "statistical sampling."
yes, the dating methods work. google "radiocarbon dating" or just google "archaeology"
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
A.The "archaeology" you are referring to sounds like bullshit. You don't explain how it even backs up your claims...
B.You don't know what a market is...otherwise you wouldn't call modern society a "market"...
D. There were hundreds of millions of people living in the past, so by not testing hundreds of millions of corpses there is a lot of data being left out. Since you haven't witnessed the testing, you have no REASON to consider it to be legitimate.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
B. modern economies are not pure market economies, no, and i agree that they, for the most part, should be and i agree that we are in some ways devolving into neo-feudalistic economy and the way to fix that would be to get rid of coercive states.
D. please google "statistical sampling" or any site on the mathematical science of statistics. these are elementary and uncontroversial things that you don't understand.
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
D. I understand them and simple logic would tell you that they are not relevant and the reasons are obvious to me....
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
One of the things astrology has right about me (Taurus) as you can probably tell is that I am not very receptive.
If you want me to understand you, then you need to express your thoughts clearly and in a fashion so I can understand EXACTLY what you are trying to say. Basically say what you mean and mean what you say.
My previous posts were mostly in argument with some of the statements you were making and not really an attack on you or necessarily a disagreement your stance on the matter .
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
With the quality of life BS aside.
I argue that the geographic location of the "USA" was much more of a "market" 300 years ago compared to today....
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Change that to "150 years ago" and I would largely agree with you. (slavery and central banks are not market institutions)
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
Slavery is irrelevent...
We have a central bank today, called the Federal Reserve. It is basically a government and you have accept THEIR currency and you must pay them some of your hard earned money to them through "taxation". If you and a group of people decide to get together and form your own currency, then you will be prosecuted.
We have a market and it is not free. A market is either a free market or not a market at all...
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
slavery is irrelevant why?
yes, I know we have a central bank now, yes I know and agree that we don't have a free market now... but it is much more of a market economy than feudalistic economies or their modern equivalents in places like north korea.
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
I am lazy and explaining why the "slavery" is unimportant to someone who can't think the same way I do is going to be too much work for me.
Okay let's look at the Old West and you have a society that is largely a "market". Or you can look at anarchic Iceland or Ireland.
What is most important is to get a common understanding of the "market" is economy "based on division of labor & a resulting voluntary trading of goods usually via a price mechanism.".
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
"Okay let's look at the Old West and you have a society that is largely a "market". Or you can look at anarchic Iceland or Ireland."
I mostly agree with that. Again, you don't understand what I've been saying.
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
What are you saying, then?
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
The "market" is DEAD!
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
If "fuedalism" is the lack of a market, then we are living in a marketless society TODAY!
The government is controlling us and using us as cattle.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
feudalism is not just the "lack of a market," but it did entail demarketization.
i would agree that we are in some ways moving back to a feudalistic economy (eg. bank bailouts)
i've seen that stefbot video too... i agree with most of it
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
I agree with some of the sentiment of this video.. but you make some blatantly false statements about economists, misrepresent what economics teaches, and base your entire thesis on the work of pseudoscientific non-economists who have been thoroughly debunked by actual economic historians.
Actual economic historians use archaeological evidence to theorize that until the industrial revolution, all economic activity was restricted by (among other things) the Malthusian pop. trap, not "barter."
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
Loved the video. Haha. I love all your videos. It was very well explained. :)
Tsukae 2 years ago
Great Video
SocialAnarchism 2 years ago
im glad you uploaded a vid like this
seigneurvoland666 2 years ago
My question is how exactly does a market-based society prevent gift giving? Does gift giving have to be the basis of the economy in order for people to value generosity? It would seem to me that even in today's warped society, excessive greed is usually looked down upon. Furthermore, would everyone rely on gifts from others for basic needs like food and medicine? How would they assure that there would be a steady flow of these gifts to the community without resources being exhausted?
2Nassassin 2 years ago
In "anarchy", there is no "basis" of an economy aside from individual wants and needs and the way other people around them are helping him/her and vice-versa.
It seems, to me, that there are people who call themselves "anarchists" who think that they will get a free lunch. They need to pull their heads out of their asses and look at reality.
Even without the government, you will only get free things based on what other people are willing to give to you and what you can provide yourself with.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
This is a very timely video for me as I'm in the process (with just one other guy at the moment) of starting to organise a community garden allotment with the aim of both getting people more involved in a communal, non-consumer project and also to just give the majority of the produce away.
CaptainFrantic 2 years ago
Good move.
PersianPaladin 2 years ago
Cheers man. It's really just an experiment to see what happens. Wish us luck. =)
CaptainFrantic 2 years ago
A friend of mine did that here in Britain. I think he did it under the banner of the IWW, actually, but don't quote me on that. He seemed to think it was a great success, so good on you for giving it a go. I'd love to be involved with something like that in my area, but I wouldn't know where to begin.
Good luck, I'm sure it'll be a success.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Thanks bro. I'm in the UK too ... in Wales for my sins ahaha. Do you think you'd be able to put me in touch with your friend so that I could maybe pick his brains a little. That'd be awesome. If not no worries.
CaptainFrantic 2 years ago
Yeah man, he's one of the good guys, so I'm sure he'll be glad to help. He was in the Reading area, but he's in Sweden just now.
If you drop me a message I can pass you MSN or email onto him for you.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Thanks so much man ... some advice from someone who's already been the course may well be invaluable. Incoming PM.
CaptainFrantic 2 years ago
There are endless reasons why, as a full-scale model for a society, a gift economy is not a very practical idea. That being said, gift economies can function on small scales and I have no fundamental objection to people engaging in them - and I'm not sure that gift economies are necessarily completely outside of the context of markets.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
An economy is what we make it.
PersianPaladin 2 years ago
I'm inclined to agree and definately believe in localised gift economies, but simulataneously find it difficult to envisage the gift economy on a global scale. As you say, I'm sure that, provided the will is there, it's managable, but I do wonder how the iniquity of resources globally would play out practically in what today is international 'trade', but would be gifts. Say one area was awash with essential resources and others weren't.
Perhaps it's one of those wait-and-see communist issues.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Also, when you're face-to-face and working as part of community, there's a natural cohesiveness that follows. Taking decisions in town halls etc. is one thing, but again, on an international scale, that same cameraderie isn't so immediately discernible.
I accept that this isn't a perfect argument, but suppose there's a cat trapped in a burning building on the other side of the road - you might cross the road to save it.
But what if it was on the other side of the world and only you could save?
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
I agree. The problem I guess would be determining the actual value of giving a gift over the utility of maximizing the resources i.e. trading raw resources being a higher "aspiration" than developing the goods. Stunting growth etc. Maybe I'm overgeneralizing and labor/trade is addressed in a gift economy, but it would seem the very concept of the gift would have to be limited (food perhaps) and localized in order for it to work.
abortabraham 2 years ago
Good video, check your pronunciation on "heirloom" though
bobbooty 2 years ago
Thanks very much for that, bro.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
I've always accepted the barter theory outlined at the beginning of the video, so this is a very interesting video for me.
Don't suppose you could recommend some anthropologists to read up on who explain the alternative gift economy theory you mentioned?
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
The basis of gift sex is compassion, not pity, and gift sex is given in the same context that a bottle of wine, concert tickets, a dvd etc. would be given as gifts. The giver receives the same empathetic pleasure as (s)he would from feeding a stray cat or donating blood."
HAHAHAHAA
PersianPaladin 2 years ago
From wiki article on "Free love": -
Gift sex, patterned after the anarcho-communist concept of gift economics (and coined by an African anarcho-communist), is the act of performing sexual favors of any kind exclusively for the benefit of the other party with no regard for any personal sexual or erotic gratification (ie. because the giver is unattracted to the recipient or isn't sexually aroused for whatever reasons). Gift sex can be provided to strangers, romantic partners, platonic friends,etc
PersianPaladin 2 years ago
Please site your sources. Its really important.
HailRasec 2 years ago 2
If you look at the Free Software movement on the internet, you will find that most people who receive it will simply take advantage of this fact and not repay in kind.
PersianPaladin 2 years ago
Interesting objection, if it is an objection at all.
Its not hard to find out why it is that way. Its because of the characteristics of the internet that it to some degree isolates producer from consumer in this software-case. It doesnt arouse only little feeling of human sympathy. Naturally, if I see how a guy produces something for free and sacrificies effort, I have this warm feeling to give him something back and say thank you. I am sure thats pretty common.
Staubdumm 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this whole video is ironically based on the assumption that people will WANT to give their money away, as in, they maximize their utility by giving it away. IF that was the case, then this situation would occur out of an anarcho-capitalistic as well.
And stop bringing up Spanish anarchism, it was a massive failure that led to totalitarianism.
OntologicalQuandary 2 years ago
"Spanish anarchism, it was a massive failure that led to totalitarianism."
No it wasn't. The anarchists were attacked by both Marxists and then finally over-run by Franco's fascists.
PersianPaladin 2 years ago 16
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Um, what part of that does not directly translate to "that led to totalitarianism?" There was anarchy. It failed. Franco fascism took over. Thats a pretty straightforward sequence of events.
OntologicalQuandary 2 years ago
The mistake you're making is to suggest that an economic system failed because it was militarily crushed. This is flawed logic.
An anolgy would be:
You bend down to tie your shoe lace in a reasonably responsible fashion.
I come past and push you in a puddle.
Your shoe-tying technique has then been proven to fail.
As you can see (hopefully), this is absurd.
The anarchism didn't fail internally, it was the victim of an external state. More importantly, if this is how you judge success, then
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago 9
you may as well say that fascism is desirable, because (regardless of all mitigations) they won a war. Seems a bit counter-intuitive, no?
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago 4
Except that fascism was overthrown. In order to be a sound economic system it has to last against other economic systems. Perhaps it will arise again and last, but as of right now that looks unlikely and the only experiences have shown failure.
The shoe lace idea does not follow because tying a show lace is not supposed to be resistant to water. A different analogy would be I tied my shoe a different way, I ran, and it came undone. In this case, yes my shoe string tying technique failed.
OntologicalQuandary 2 years ago
No, because in your example, the downfall was a direct consequence of your strange technique. Look:
Anarchists have their own society.
It works well.
External force crushes them.
You tie your shoes with the usual technique.
It normally works rather well.
External force (that's me) pushes you into a puddle.
Do you therefore have to concede that your shoe-tying technique is 'flawed', because it couldn't withstand my physical force?
Don't be absurd.
Besides that, fascism was never really
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago 4
overthrown. We'd be as well saying that the fact that it's lasted via coercion makes it superior, which is a nonsense.
If a chattel slave society physically fought off a capitalist economy, then it's also the superior system? Ehm....
You've also forgotten something very important. Most anarchists and communists agree that anarchism/communism has to be international. So if there is a criticism of the Catalunyan anarchists, it's that they couldn't exist in the face of international capital.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago 2
In fact, while I'm debunking this insane analysis of yours, I may as well bury it once and for all.
There's a fascist society of 100 people.
Neighbouring it is an anarchist society of 10,000,000.
They go to war, the anarchists win.
Your conclusion: Anarchism is the superior system
My conclusion: Anarchists had the bigger numbers, which helped them win. There are other circumstances to consider besides the socioeconomic system.
Now apply that to your claim that fascism is superior. o_0
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago 12
There were very very few actual anarchists among the so-called "anarchists" of Spain, but yes I actually agree with PP here; the fact that they were militarily invaded by a massive external force says little-to-nothing about the merit or viability of their economic system.
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
Wrong. Anachist Catalonia was successful for a period of time. It managed to increase the literacy rate from three to ninety eight percent. Abortion was legalized. Universal education was instituted. And the overall standard of living increased for the average man.
It's failure was in its sustainability and propagation. Communists reestablished the state and prohibited armed militias. State communists brought down the stateless society.
HailRasec 2 years ago 6
Some areas of productivity actually increased as well.
Just have to pick up on the part about state communists (oxymoronic term, really, but I know what you're saying) bringing it down. There's a prevailing idea that the communists brought it down which has to be overcome.
They were crushed militarily by the Falangists. Whatever circumstances and tactics lead to it, the ultimate destruction for their demise was the fascist army.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Wtf is wrong with you drones, by reading what I just said, I am right. You might also want to re-look into those figures you provided.
Btw anarchist catalonia lasted 3 years. Don't know if you are aware of that or not.
OntologicalQuandary 2 years ago
no we do, its seen a a prototype, we learn from it, see its success and failures and next time an opportunitiy comes around we'll seize it and hopefully make a better world sorta speak.
why call ppl drones, ppl are saying yes franco one plain and simple but what allowed him to win is what is being discussed.
prjctcivilian 2 years ago
i dont believe the communists were able to establish a state
either way...
so how does communists reestablishing a state and making a uniformed army have anything to do with them losing a war. in fact you could argue that the stability of hierarchy for an army is a practical and useful thing.
the problem wasnt sustainability because it only lasted a little while...
prjctcivilian 2 years ago
anyone know a good book about gift economy and indigenous people?
PlasticJesus341 2 years ago
I am interested in the Spanish anarchism period and the exact mechanisms in which they facilitated gift economies. Naturally, this could probably be only achieved by some form of social contractual agreement and a very good sense of social cohesiveness. We just don't see that in our towns and cities these days.
PersianPaladin 2 years ago 3
Some rituals in primitive gift economies make no sense (and at times self-contradictory)--kind of like religion. But hey, what do you expect, they're primitive. (Of course, that is not to say that some current day economic "rituals" aren't ridiculous either. Some even more so...)
UnhealthySalad 2 years ago
You must really hate Ayn Rand.
JacobSpinney 2 years ago 4
Ayn Rand was a horrible woman.
PersianPaladin 2 years ago 23
she was a cunt
prjctcivilian 2 years ago 9
lol
Cefuroxx 2 years ago
(Thumb up and a smile) Indeed she was, but her thoughts are well worth reading all the same. All political idealogies are frought with danger unless one understands the potential risks and can reduce these. Blind utopian ideals always lead to tyranny.
flyhead2 2 years ago 5
ive read her thoughts, i yes i think shes a cunt.... and yes i see the danger of her work
All political idealogies are frought with danger unless one understands the potential risks and can reduce these. Blind utopian ideals always lead to tyranny.
what do you mean by this,
prjctcivilian 2 years ago
people don't realize the value of Rand.. much of her ideas were shaped because of perverted Soviet Marxism which led her to fully accept capitalism. In her conception of a purely free market, we can see not only her flaws but the flaws of lassez faire itself; in her denunciation of communism she exposed radically flawed and easily refuted elements in capitalism. In other words, I think Randian philosophy is valuable in demonstrating what not to do.
rey9883 2 years ago 7
exactly.... one can read Rand with a kind of bemused smile, because much of what she rallies against is a straw man... and as mr1001nights says egotism/individualism versus altruism/collectivism is a false dichotomy.
PolemicalCommentary 2 years ago 6
isn't the gift economy versus free exchange also a false dichotomy?
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago 3
What you're saying is that the "free market" allows for private charity. Which of course, is true. And insomuch as our capitalist (or mixed) economy exists, I would encourage the rich to be charitable. However, if capitalism=theft, then even if the rich gave back everything through private charity it would just be changing theft to larceny. Gift economy can exist within the context of capitalism, but why not just replace capitalism with a gift economy altogether?
PolemicalCommentary 2 years ago
I wonder what would happen if people started haggling with one another in his hypothetical lala land. Would he grab the guns to make sure they do not engage in a market based transaction?
IIKruZerII 2 years ago
Yea..
Answer that ^ one, Mr1001nights
Since Clearly Mr1001nights is not a 'mutualist' and cannot tolerate peaceful people with different views:
'What would happen if people started haggling with one another in his hypothetical lala land. Would he grab the guns to make sure they do not engage in a market based transaction?'
Because the mutualist position IS the over-arching free market position.
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago
Indeed that is the central question, Kruzer, and mr1001 will not answer it because it will reveal his ideology to be what it is - necessarily authoritarian and violent; or it will reveal him to be what he pretending to criticize - a "free marketeer."
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
@FreiheitKampfer
In some ways although they are not the same. In a gift economy, services and goods are freely produced and given without an expectation of being directly paid or any other "quid pro guo" on the part of those giving these goods or services from those who receive. In free exchange, two people agree freely to trade goods or services with each other so there is a stated intent for "quid pro quo".
Maphisto86 1 month ago