I'm Ana, web designer and roller derby player from #Mexico.
I was active in #Grassroots organization and the #FreeCulture and #FreeSoftware movements when I was a student and I'm hoping to get involved in projects related to these topics.
@dt I don't support authoritarian state socialism.
@dt Not really
Oh, OK. So you're an anarchist socialist?
@dt Mostly. But strictly speaking I align somewhat with autonomists and like to borrow some ideas from third-worldism (I'm from #LatinAmerica)
@dt Autonomism prefers self governance over a centralized power, but it doesn't always reject hierarchy within the self-governed group.
Third-worldism is an ideology that addresses the specific context of third world countries and their revolutionary potential. It did inspire the socialist revolutions of Latin America, Africa and Asia that resulted in some authoritarian regimes, but I think as an ideology itself it has some important points about the importance of latitude in class analysis.
I don't have a principled objection to the first one, but I do to the second one. Revolutions will most of the time bring statism.
@dt That's debatable. Still, the revolutionary part of the ideology isn't my favorite either. But I do place value in amplifying the social concerns and recognizing the context of groups of people who have been historically opressed.
Anyway, have you ever heard of the socialist calculation problem?
@dt I have, but I'm not particularly well read on it.
1) Socialism abolishes private property in capital goods (means of production) and natural resources.
2) Since there is only one owner, there is no exchange of capital goods.
3) Without exchange there can be no market prices.
4) Under socialism, therefore, the owner cannot calculate the costs of production for the goods the socialist commonwealth produces.
5) In the absence of economic calculation of profit and loss, socialist planners cannot know the most valuable uses of scarce resources and therefore a socialist economy is strictly *impossible*.
You can read the whole argument by Ludwig von Mises at https://mises.org/library/economic-calculation-socialist-commonwealth/html/c/9
There are chapter links on the right.
@dt @gacela The discussion about planning is an interesting one. Clearly capitalism is not opposed to central planning in itself, since the institutions required to keep capitalism going (e.g. courts, police, etc) are centrally planned and most companies are hierarchically organized (i.e. centrally planned within themselves.)
My point being that there are nuances, both cap. and soc. advocating for different things to be centralized. Centralization seems to be a bit of a smoke-screen in that way.
>Clearly capitalism is not opposed to central planning in itself
True. But what I preach is free market capitalism.
>since the institutions required to keep capitalism going (e.g. courts, police, etc) are centrally planned
They don't have to be, and there is even historical evidence that they were not always centrally planned.
>most companies are hierarchically organized (i.e. centrally planned within themselves.)
If you want to be this pedantic, then I can say that you're centrally planned.
Anyway, centralization on some scale can be beneficial. The main point is that it has to be voluntary.
To me, capitalism just means "free exchange". Therefore, anarcho-capitalism means "free exchange without the state".
@dt yeah, I'm not being pedantic about centralization, it's just that a lot of market advocates make that extension.
Do you really believe that ancap/minarch would lead to better wealth distribution than the status quo? (Power distribution.) Do you agree with Hobbes state of nature, and if yes, why is ancap not the same? Have you considered the use of cryptocurrencies with universal dividend baked in, like #duniter? Cheers.
>Do you really believe that ancap/minarch would lead to better wealth distribution than the status quo? (Power distribution.)
What does it mean to "be better" for wealth distribution?
>Do you agree with Hobbes state of nature, and if yes, why is ancap not the same?
No, I do not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RILDjo4EXV8
>Have you considered the use of cryptocurrencies with universal dividend baked in, like #duniter?
Nope. It's not easy to get cryptocurrency where I live, so I don't have ,uch experience.
@dt OK! I watched the video. Some interesting points, but quite one-sided. I never understood the source from which libertarians believe their rights originate.
Anyway, I'm not a state fan-boy, nor a market fan-boy. Have you read 'Governing the Commons' by Elinor Ostrom? It empirically analyses groups who have collectively, sustainably used resource without the state, it blew my mind.
Earlier you mentioned you're not into revolutions, me neither. What path do you see from here to your desire?
>Have you read 'Governing the Commons' by Elinor Ostrom?
Nope.
>It empirically analyses groups who have collectively, sustainably used resource without the state, it blew my mind.
I consider using empirical studies to construct economic theory to be invalid and antiscientic. However, using this as historical evidence is alright.
>What path do you see from here to your desire?
Gradual secession from the state in all areas of life.
@dt The rejection of empiricism is a central part of the Austrian school, right? I still don't get why. I subscribe to Karl Poppers philosophy of science and claim that there is *no* invalid inspiration for theory.
(btw, I'm happy to find a proponent of ancap since I don't find many irl! There are elements that are really attractive. I feel like basically the whole cryptocurrency scene is the face of it. Exciting times.)
>The rejection of empiricism is a central part of the Austrian school, right?
True.
>I still don't get why. I subscribe to Karl Poppers philosophy of science and claim that there is *no* invalid inspiration for theory.
Do you believe that all sciences must be inductive?
@dt I think that induction can be useful for making hypotheses/theory, but I don't think scientific knowledge can be gotten by induction, only by testing theories against meaningful tests that could show the theory to be false.
I don't know if I made myself clear... Another thing: I don't think that economics can be fundamentally scientific (in my definition) since it is based on philosophy: it starts with axioms/beliefs on what an exciting is meant to do. This is a human fabrication.
So basically what you call "science" I call "natural science". And I think that it is appropriate to use the inductive method to construct theory in natural sciences.
However, in sciences like mathematics, economics, history, etc. it's appropriate to use aprioristic methods.
Austrian economics, for example, starts with the axiom of action. All the other concepts are deduced from this axiom. Later, additional assumptions are added, such as disutility of labor, for example. And again, Austrians proceed in deductive reasoning.
@dt I personally believe that economics lies in a weird zone between philosophy and (natural) science. I think the axioms are ultimately non-empirical (i.e. freedom/equality/action/welfare/etc should be optimized.)
However, I think that these many axioms lend themselves to empirical observation such as trade and production.
Ignoring experience in favor of belief (which could happen with Austrianism?) is surely the hallmark of an ideology.
Please correct me if I got you wrong!
@gacela welcome! Thanks for joining!
@gacela welcome!
@gacela Ello Ana, welcome to Mastodon.