Talk:Anarchist economics

Purpose of Article

Since the anarchism article is already quite lengthy, I felt this was an important expansion of it. The discussion of various economic theories should be limited to simply overview, with article text explaining how they do or do not fit within anarchist theory itself.

Already I feel like the opening section is way too long, and there is probably a better article on objections to capitalism that I did not find. I would rather focus my attentions on explaining the alternative value theories. --albamuth 02:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Finally a place to put information about this! Info on the web about anarchist economics is scattered and often hard to find, I hope this article helps group it together in this place. Nice job. --Fatal 22:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abolition of monetary systems

The article states that only primitivists want to abolish money. This isn't true. There are many anarchist economic arguments against money, namely the economic system right underneath that statement, the kind of economics put forth by anarcho-communists most often deal with the abolition of money. In What is Anarchism?, Berkman argued that money should be abolished. I don't think this part of the article is worded correctly. --Fatal 22:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

good point. i've changed the wording a little. i think in the context of globalized economies (some) anarchists have come around to the idea of currency as indispensible. Also remember that Berkman was anti-war during WWI, isolationist even, and I think most anarchists would regard that as wrong in retrospect. Berkman was a little crazy, too -- remember when he tried to kill that dud? "propaganda by the deed" he called it. --albamuth 06:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Almost all the anarchists I've known advocate the abolition of money. A few believe in a transition state of some sort, but those who advocate currency are definately in the minority. I can't say I've heard the objection that globalization makes currency necessary.

Relatively new?

"Since economics is a relatively new subject within anarchism, most discussion is limited to theory."

Sounds like crap to me: Kropotkin talked quite a lot about exactly how an anarchist society would function economically in, for example, The Conquest of Bread. It's only limited to theory as much as any other aspect of anarchism. -- Sam Francis 19:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bad wording, agreed. I suggest you do the rewording though -- I couldn't think of a good intro blurb so that crapulance is my fault. --albamuth 23:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Critique of Subjective Theory of Value

As such it has an effect on the price, as will be shown

Is this a dangling reference? If not, it's not very clear. -- Beland 18:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

but as the means to determine a product's price it ignores the dynamics of a capitalist economy and the production relations that underlie the market. In effect, the STV treats all commodities like works of art, and such products of human activity (due to their uniqueness) are not a capitalistic commodity in the usual sense of the word (i.e. they cannot be reproduced and so labour cannot increase their quantity). Therefore the STV ignores the nature of production under capitalism.

After reading the explanation of STV at Marginalism, I still don't understand the above paragraph. The typical case in explanations of STV are for widely available, identical commodities. While it supposes that each consumer might put a different value on any given good or service, it doesn't seem to imply that the same person would value identical goods differently. Most supporters of capitalism would agree that supply-and-demand imbalances definitely affect prices because of STV. Because different people have different valuations, there's a range of prices people are willing to pay. In a supply shortage, the price gets bid up by those with higher valuations, which increases profit and theoretically increases the incentive to produce more. Perhaps someone more familiar with the anarchist critique(s) of this theory could elucide the above. -- Beland 18:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know, I think that the critique of STV is unneccessary altogether. If anywhere, the anarchist of STV should be explained in the Anarchism and Capitalism article. --albamuth 01:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Anarchists claim that STV is a myth and as an explanation of how to determine the price of a commodity, it has serious flaws."

Do all anarchists claim the above? Who in particular? Can someone provide references to anarchist critiques of marginalism?

The few Anarchist economists I have come across, like the more numerous Marxists, do often stick with labour theory of value. But I wonder if this is more to do with how the tradition has developed and with a rejection of 'bourgeois economics' than with intrinsic merits of the theories. (After all, labour theory of value was itself developed by 'bourgeois' economists, only a century or so before. It often strikes me as a real problem with many left economists I've met that they are happy to study Ricardo in great depth but dismiss the idea that they might have anything to learn from the neoclassicals.)

My personal opinion is that labour theory of value is deeply flawed - at least as a positive theory to explain prices (and/or 'values' if indeed such a distinction is tenable) as they occur in capitalism. And I think that marginalism was in fact a big step forward in economics. Is this belief incompatible with anarchism? I'm not sure how - but would be very interested to read detailed arguments that might persuade me otherwise.

Note - when talking about theories of value and anarchist (and indeed socialist) social models I think it is imperative to distinguish between 'positive' and 'normative' theories of value. (Clumsy terminology, but can't think of anything better right now.) So - saying that LTV explains prices as we see them is one thing (positive theory). Saying, as some anarchists have argued, that we should replace markets as they exist by a fairer system based on accountimg for labour time is something quite different. Therefore I think:

1. You could support a marginalist type system based on labour time even if you reject LTV as a positive economic theory.

2. You could believe that marginalist hypotheses give better explanations of events in capitalist economies, or even the best explanations available, and yet be opposed to capitalism.

Bengalski 12:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free Market?

Since when did anarchists advocate a free market? --Jazz Remington 6 July 2005 12:03 (UTC)

Who says they do? Ah, I did. Well consider the definition of free market: it simply means that people have free choices in terms of making consumption-decisions. I don't think any anarchist is for rationing out goods. capitalism is something else entirely.--albamuth 6 July 2005 23:08 (UTC)

Anarchists in the mutualist tradition embrace the free market, most others reject it in some way, as is described somewhat in the libertarian socialism article. However the alternatives to it that are offered, such as in Parecon, appear to fall well within your definition of a "free market". The misunderstanding is in how Pareconists define the term, which I expect would have little resemblance to your own. buermann 01:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parecon a command economy?

"Parecon is technically a command economy scheme, though it relies on feedback loops to regulate production/consumption."

I do not think this is fair or in fact true at all. I have researched parecon extensively and I have found no evidence to support this and unless someone can show it to me convincingly, I will remove that statement. Parecon I think is a new kind of economy, a democratic one that does not fit neatly into the terms “free” or “command”. --Fluxaviator 14:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, it doesn't fit into that dichotomy exactly, but it depends on how you look at it. In Parecon, pricing and production is set by a decentralized, democratic process, not by individual merchants or sellers. In that sense it is a command economy. On the other hand, since there is no centralized gov't agency controlling the economy, you might also say that it is not a command economy. If we were to attach a description of Parecon that was neither "free market," nor "command economy." then we need to show that there is an academic basis for it (something that comments on Parecon and assigns a different label). --albamuth 08:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say we use the terms it's creators give it. A theoretical "participatory planning process", or "democratic planning process". there are many sources besides the author’s for this description. Shall I dig them up or can we agree to tweak the wording. I also have an issue with the word "scheme", perhaps "theory" is a better way of wording it. We can even say specifically that the model does not fit exactly into either of the traditional economic binary. --Fluxaviator 02:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When something doesn't fit into a dichotomy it means you have a false dichotomy. This one, "free markets vs. command economy" happens to be identical to the false dichotomy of "capitalism vs. communism". buermann 01:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two Anarchisms

I advocate that both Anarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism have there own seperate pages, though the arguments both for and against this Idea are vast, I think that both philosophies would be more accurately represented by this. Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarchism are two completely disharmonious mutually exclusive philosophies, this "war of ideas", though productive, probably has no place in the dessimination process of the information in this wiki, it does people a disservice and further conflates the problem of the confusion. It would be an out and out lie to try to put forth anarcho-capitalism as a system of anarchism, and further a lie to put forth anarchism as a system of anarcho-capitalism. And so I propose that some brave persons help to create two seperate pages. Anarcho-capitalists have about as much in common with Anarchists as libertarians do, and it does all a disservice to pretend otherwise.

I agree with the above call for separate articles for traditional left anarchist economic ideas and anarcho-capitalist ideas.BernardL 00:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what Anonymous wants. There is already separate anarcho-socialist and anarcho-capitalist pages. The anarchism article is for all types of anarchism, not just the socialist schools. Are you saying that this article should be forked into Anarcho-socialist economics and Anarcho-capitalist economics? Hogeye 00:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancap is a branch of liberalism, not of anarchism. It's only connection with anarchism is the name. // Liftarn

You are mistaken. Ancap is a branch of both liberalism and capitalism. Hogeye 22:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it's both a branch of liberalism and capitalism, but I don't really see capitalism as a political ideology and I haven't seen any anti-capitalist liberals. // Liftarn

I agree with this anonymous user as well. It is much better to keep things separate than putting two systems in direct opposition to one another listed on the same page. I would say the same for anarchist law, where Hogeye keeps trying to insert very POV text saying things such as "In short, anarchists are not against police and courts per se; they are against the state being the sole provider of these services." Creating new anarcho-capitalist law and anarcho-capitalist economics articles makes more sense and is less contestable. Sarge Baldy 01:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cost-Price Theories of Value

"The notion that there is an objective just price depending on the cost of production was generally abandoned by economic science after the marginalist revoltion in the 1800s. Many anarchists still cling to this "creationism of the left," though many have abandoned it in favor of an unequal bargaining position rationale for the exploitation theory."

This strikes me as both a vacuous statement and POV in numerous ways...

1. I think you are conflating the concept of "just price" which principally belonged to pre-capitalist medieval "economics" with "cost of production theory" considered to have been erratically expressed by Ricardo, Mill, and, according to some, partially by Marshall.

2. "Many anarchists cling to this "creationism of the left,".... give specific examples of notable anarchist texts demonstrating that "many anarchists" maintain the theory you have in mind. The use of "many anarchists" without specificity is just weasel-wording.

3. "creationism of the left," - this is blatantly POV. Don't expect an article explicating the mainsprings of anarchist economic thought to grovel before the myths of mainstream economic ideology. As a full blown theory of long term prices and economic allocation, marginalism hardly qualifies as "science" on the same level of Darwin's theory vs. creationism.

4. Sorry but mainstream economics is a far cry from authentic science.

5. It required 2 seconds with google to find an example of left anarchist value theory that, while finding a place for notions of objective costs of production, is far more nuanced and better reasoned than the vacuous posturing of the removed paragraph. [1]BernardL 03:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently it reads:

The notion that there is an objective just price depending on the cost of production was generally abandoned by economic science after the marginalist revoltion in the 1800s. However, many anarchists (and socialists in general) still hold a form of this theory, in order to justify their exploitation theory - the claim that workers (renters, borrowers) are exploited. Some have abandoned cost-price theories in favor of unequal bargaining position rationales for the exploitation theory.

1. The labor theory of value (and other forms of cost-price theory) do derive from the medieval just price doctrine. The claim of cost-price theories is that the production cost is the just price for selling. Yes, it's primitive creationism of the left (but I won't call it that in the article anymore.)

2. You want me to name anarchists who held a cost-price theory such as the labor theory of value? Virtually all the anarcho-socialists and nearly all the individualist anarchists. Don't be an idiot.

3. Okay, I deleted the "creationism of the left" description, despite its aptness.

4. Whether econ is "authentic science" is irrelevant; the claim is that cost-price theory "was generally abandoned by economic science after the marginalist revoltion in the 1800s." That is indisputably true. Only a few diehard socialists buy that shit nowadays.

5. That (notoriously biased) FAQ does not explain or justify cost-price that I can see. The page you linked simply gives a rather bad critique of the STV. It's so bad, it can't even define "marginal utility" correctly in the second paragraph! By the way, a much better FAQ, written by a professor instead of a crackhead, is [Anarchist Theory FAQ]. Hogeye 18:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critique of Subjective Theories of Value - 2

I cut out this whole section (copied below) because: it hasn't got any references; until someone provides a serious reference, I don't believe that criticism of 'STV' is central to anarchist thought at all; it includes some basic errors. I commented on this some months ago (above) but no one replied - so any critics of STV, take me to task now.

Some specific criticisms of the text:

-sources of utility - modern economists don't believe in a primary good called 'utility'. They see utility functions as expressions of (at least in theory) observable behaviour in choosing between bundles of goods (revealed preference theory).

-marginalism is reductionist in its illegitimate narrowing of economic behaviour to rational self-interest.: no, marginalism doesn't imply self-interest - any first year economics student could explain how to incorporate others' preferences into utility functions.

-class and other forms of domination as important factors accounting for human agency - I'd argue game theory gives us valuable tools for understanding class and domination.

-irrelevance of theoretical models based upon competitive equilibrium with regard to modern oligopolies - yes, but what 'orthodox' economists mowadays believe that economies can be modelled with perfect competition general equilibrium models? Now we have highly developed theories of oligopoly, imperfect competition, market failure, game theory etc.

-leaves important aspects of economic life that enter into valuation out of the picture, such as the household and production relations, and draw attention to its failure to adequately account for dynamic processes related to long-term economic change - yes there's something in that, although there are theories to 'endogenise' preference formation, intra-household models, even theories of household production - even theories of marriage a la Gary Becker etc. I think the point is that methodologically sound 'orthodox' economists view preference models and utility functions as useful abstractions that they believe do produce empirically verifiable (or falsifiable) results when applied on a large scale. Whether they're right or wrong is an interesting question, but I don't think you can write off the whole idea because many models abstract away from preference formation or intra-household issues. Any labour theory of value model has to use equally massive, or even greater, abstractions.

-hollow stance of value neutrality - I'm not sure what this means. If it means 'trying to be an objective science', I'm not sure why it's a bad thing. If it means 'orthodox economists pretend to be objective but they're really capitalist hypocrites', then yes many of them are, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the whole marginalist approach. Weren't Smith and Ricardo capitalist bastards too? Bengalski 22:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters of capitalism usually agree with what is called the Subjective Theory of Value (STV). The prevalent form of the (STV) which usually appears in economics textbooks is known as the marginal utility theory of value. In academia, this school supersedes the older classical economics of Adam Smith and David Ricardo.

As with previous theories based upon a utility theory of value the marginalists maintained that commodities exchanged on the market were sources of utility for consumers. However the defining innovation of the marginalists was a rigorous abstract explanation of how market prices reflecting supply and demand were, in the last analysis, a net aggregrate expression of the economizing behaviour of the independent individuals who populated the market. The theory was anchored by the notion that, since utility satisfaction for a given commodity diminishes with each additional increment consumed, rational individuals balance their consumption choices so as to maximize total marginal utility for their given set of preferences. Market prices were the expression of this marginalizing rationality as it is constrained by the interacting competititve context of the market economy.

Anarchist economists join many other leftist economists, notably Marxists, neo-Ricardians, and critical institutionalists, in dissenting against mainstream economics which "far from being the 'science' it claims to be, instead serves as capitalism's ideology." (Dowd, Understanding Capitalism, 4) They have argued that marginal utility theories of value contain fundamentally incoherent views of human agency, institutions, valuation and allocation. Accordingly, they have argued that marginalism is reductionist in its illegitimate narrowing of economic behaviour to rational self-interest. Social anarchists point to the role of social institutions, including that of class and other forms of domination as important factors accounting for human agency. They have also pointed to the irrelevance of theoretical models based upon competitive equilibrium with regard to modern oligopolies that are sustained by a complex fabric of dominance in the form of economic, legal, political and cultural institutions. Additionally they maintain that a marginal utility of value leaves important aspects of economic life that enter into valuation out of the picture, such as the household and production relations, and draw attention to its failure to adequately account for dynamic processes related to long-term economic change. Underlying many of these sharp disagreements are qualitatively different approaches to the methodology of economic enquiry. Social anarchist economists vociferously reject the preliminary intellectual dispositions of marginalists towards economic enquiry including their methodological individualism, emphasis on mathematical and logical formalism, and what they regard as a hollow stance of value neutrality.

mutualism ==

since when do mutualist support private property? "Individualist anarchists are mutualist rather than socialist; they support "private property" but oppose usury"". If you read section G.2 of an anarchist faq it will give a short summary on why mutualist are also socialist and do not support private property. Private property, in todays contemporary use, is all to affiliated with the private property regime of capitalism and should not be a phrase used to describe mutualist defenition of property. Mutualist could not be anything else other than socialist abecause they advocate that workers own the meansd of production. For crying out loud proudhon is a mutualist/socialist and he coined the the term property is theft. how could mutualist not be socialst? i dont understanmd the reasoning for this. Can someone please explain.

Well off the top of my head I'll tell you what I think. Some folks might not enjoy hearing it because it is a bit blunt, but that's the way it goes. The change was really effected in the sphere of popular political discourse rather than in academia; it is wound-up with the phenomena of the internet. For decades and decades prior to the 1980's it was considered normal to refer to mutualism as a form of socialism. However in the 1980's libertarian-capitalist theories and associated petty-bourgeois spin-offs rose in popularity particularly among white middle-class American males. Part of their ideological baggage included a fervent form of anti-statism and a complementary belief that "economic efficiency" and "freedom" required that most of the state's functions be assumed by the market. Assumption of economic and social functions by a state was considered a slippery slope potentially leading to totalitarianism. Around the same time there was also a resurgence of interest in historical anarchism. The new breed of libcap ideologues came to recognize affinities with the anti-statist elements of historical anarchism. However despite the surface similarities historical anarchism is in fact anathema to libcap because it typically advocates a radical transformation or replacement of the state apparatus by confederal arrangements of grassroots democratic institutions and at the very least radically embeds the market in democratic institutions, if not doing away with the market altogether. So the ideologues, who were seeped in paranoid anti-communism, could recognize both affinites with anarchism as well as a threat because of its potentially powerful grassroots message. Libcap is an essentially predatory tendency of thought, it seeks to eradicate or subsume anything that threatens to be a rival alternative. So with anarchism, the game was either to attack it through various misrepresenting devices or to co-opt it by attempting to subsume it under the folkore of laissez-faire. In my opinion these were among the main impulses that factored into Bryan Caplan's notoriously distorted Anarchist Theory FAQ. Proudhon himself was little help in this manner, since he was a sloppy, mostly half-baked thinker whose ideas became more reactionary over time. With a little creativity it became possible to reinterpret him as a kind of quasi-free marketeer advocating petty-bourgeois property relations. The internet played a huge role in this episode, because it became so easy to regurgitate volumes upon volumes of these distorted intepretations to growing legions of fawning libertarian capitalist cultists without having to deal with the discomforting work of honest reflection on the words written and the cultural milieu and historical context in which they were written. Once disseminated to legions on the internet these (mis)interpretations assume an automonous life, they evolve into entities that are barely recognizable form the original's intentions after being subjected to repeated reinterpetation and distortions.70.55.141.47 00:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well i defenetly understand wear your coming form and ,for the most part, i agree with a lot of what your saying. But i still strongly disagree with the statement of alligning proudhons thoughts and theories of mutualism with petty-bourgeois ones. Doing this only fules the anarcho-capitalist school of though by giving them misinterpretated acounts of proudhons theories. Not to metion it would give prestest and excuses to other non anarchist socialist and marxists to dissmis anarchism as being infected with traditional and or contemporary bourgeois though. To dismiss proudhon's mutualism as reactionary is, in my opinion, dangerous to the anarchist movement and in the long run may threaten autonomy and solidarity between true anarchist economies. I recognize that mutualism may not be as an efficiant threory to put into paractice(in todays times) as others would be, but once a worker revolution is in motion the economic outcome should have the abillity for diversety in the atounomous choices of workers; weather a worker joins a gift economy, collectivises some property or not collectivise any at all. Rather then allow this american phenomena to take hold of a traditional anarchist school of though, we should combat it wearever it rears its ugly head by preserving true conceptions of anarchist economies. I aslo am quick to question your statement on proudhon being slopy. I simply do not understand wear this notion of yours is comming from. I still say the person who wrote the intro should change the lines that say mutualist are not socialist.she/he/they should also rephrase the part wear it describes what anarcho-syndacalist and anarchist-communist are against(i.e.heirarchical production relationms, collecting rent from propery, and private proeprty) seing as mutualist are against all those things as well.

This is wikipedia, so the "person who wote the intro" is something like 30 different people. I actually started the article, and the intro is nothing like what I wrote orginially, but I think it is much better. If you trust the wikipedia concept, then you should either edit the intro yourself, or trust that someone else will eventually.

Anyhow, I have to agree with 70.55.141.47 - Proudhon's mutualism was pretty poorly defined. Bookchin even describes Proudhon as a federalist - another term that could be wildly misconstrued by people unfamiliar with political science terms (and even those who are).

As it stands, the quality problem with many of the anarchism articles is that they are written with a target audience of politicos in mind, not the everyday person. It may help to wikify more terms, but with something as complex as "anarchist economics", you can only hope that the novice reader will self-educate themselves sufficiently. --albamuth 06:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]