Authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism: do they exist?

[zompist]

My experience has been very different from those in the West.

In my childhood, I grew up under a government that claimed to be weakly ideologically Communist. How Communist they were is up for debate, but they did redistribute land and for a long time, the state had chief ministers who were publicly atheist. (To this day, "advanced" Americans say they will never accept atheist politicians.) This was a time when Hindu-Muslim tensions (called Communalism in India) were somewhat under control.

Then there was an anti-industrialization movement that opposed the Communist government's plans to acquire land to build cars locally, creating industrial jobs. The center-left party Trinamool ("Grassroots" or populist) represented the agrarian interests. They won, and as a result, there are no jobs in West Bengal. The state has become India's Nigeria, with tons of people operating international scams to get money. The farmers got to make their precious flour, but because of the general lack of spending power, they are also feeling the squeeze.

I appreciate the Indian perspective. To my knowledge, India is one of the few places that have have communist governments (at the state level) which respected electoral democracy. So, more power to them to figure out a form of democratic communism. I'm sure it falls short of communist ideals, but so do all systems.

As you describe it, the problem in West Bengal sounds like a problem of opposing interests. According to Wikipedia, 15,000 farmers were displaced, though the jobs created by the factory would be only 1,000. People always think importing an entire factory will produce Developtment™, but it really doesn't, for reasons Jane Jacobs explained decades ago.

[Raphael]

Travis, I have my disagreements with rotting bones, but I still suspect that he knows better what he himself means to say than you do.

That said...

I don't accept that a system without an alternative to monetary profit is socialism. A majority of 21st century "socialists" are liberals cosplaying as socialists.

I don't see how a large complex modern society could function without some version of monetary profit. I mean, if you have neither serious coercion nor any kinds of financial incentives, how do you want to convince the people who work in the production and provision of food, housing, clothes, and medical care, to produce or provide more of these things than are needed by themselves, their families, and their friends? OK, some of the medical workers might do their jobs out of the goodness of their hearts, but agricultural, textile, or construction workers? Not a chance.

[Raphael]

People always think importing an entire factory will produce Developtment™, but it really doesn't, for reasons Jane Jacobs explained decades ago.

Not sure about the "importing" part. Wasn't the proposed factory meant to produce cars by Tata, which is an Indian company? Sounds more like replacing imported cars than like bringing in transplants to me.

[zompist]

People always think importing an entire factory will produce Developtment™, but it really doesn't, for reasons Jane Jacobs explained decades ago.

Not sure about the "importing" part. Wasn't the proposed factory meant to produce cars by Tata, which is an Indian company? Sounds more like replacing imported cars than like bringing in transplants to me.

To Jacobs economies are about cities, not countries. One of her examples of the uselessness of importing entire factories is a US company investing in the US! So no, Tata being in India doesn't make anything it does reasonable development.

[Raphael]

To Jacobs economies are about cities, not countries. One of her examples of the uselessness of importing entire factories is a US company investing in the US! So no, Tata being in India doesn't make anything it does reasonable development.

OK, point taken.

[rotting bones]

As you describe it, the problem in West Bengal sounds like a problem of opposing interests. According to Wikipedia, 15,000 farmers were displaced, though the jobs created by the factory would be only 1,000. People always think importing an entire factory will produce Developtment™, but it really doesn't, for reasons Jane Jacobs explained decades ago.

That was just the first step in a plan to create a large industrial zone. Since then, Trinamool has refused to invest in any industrialization and has consistently supported the opponents of job creation that would inconvenience farmers in any way. They only invest in traditional Bengali arts and siphon away the rest of the funds to pay the international scammers who back Mamata's government. (Then again, the CPI (M) and the BJP are corrupt too, even if not at this scale. The amount of money people will be tempted to accept as a bribe is directly proportional to the average salary in the region.)

[rotting bones]

I don't see how a large complex modern society could function without some version of monetary profit. I mean, if you have neither serious coercion nor any kinds of financial incentives, how do you want to convince the people who work in the production and provision of food, housing, clothes, and medical care, to produce or provide more of these things than are needed by themselves, their families, and their friends? OK, some of the medical workers might do their jobs out of the goodness of their hearts, but agricultural, textile, or construction workers? Not a chance.

1. Like you said, people do things because it will bring them respect. People are willing to kill themselves to be noticed.

2. A majority of workers are willing to see their work as romantic if they are given decent working conditions. Marx says people find meaning in life through their work.

3. People who are suffering from lack are willing to work to support themselves. If no one works in a given industry, no one will have the goods produced by that industry. Then the people inconvenienced by this will be willing to work to produce those goods. People whose essential needs are met are often willing to do this for free, even when the work is hard and underappreciated like shoveling snow.

Parts of point 3 is what economists say. The problem is that the capitalist market doesn't line up with the reasoning economists use to talk about it. E.g. What counts as demand in the market is not demand expressed by human beings but rather demand expressed by big spenders, a spender is big when the market thinks they will be able to amass large amounts of capital for whatever reason, and this is unrelated to social benefit, etc.

[rotting bones]

While people do say that capitalism is a new thing in the big scheme of things etc. etc. etc., I haven't heard anyone who has actually put good thought into it say that pre-capitalist systems like feudalism/manorialism really were better than capitalism. Remember that liberalism was originally a reaction to the failings of pre-capitalist society, not a movement lauding it. In many ways people are freer under modern capitalism than they were before; while most people do have to sell their labor to survive, people are no longer tied to and subject to the whims of a feudal lord.

The standard liberal position is that feudalism is bad because it involves the imposition of one's will over another. The position of Marx himself is that capitalism represents progress over feudalism, but that this progress doesn't consider the freedom of the majority of people in society conceived of as a material structure.

My position is that whatever capitalists are currently doing is creating fascism all over the world. Would they please stop and reverse course?

I should note that there are other alternatives to market socialism to consider such as the use of labor vouchers in the place of currency. For those here not familiar with labor vouchers, they are superficially like currency in that they are used by individuals to buy things, but are non-transferable, are destroyed when used to purchase something, and cannot be used to buy capital. Also, aside from a fixed quantity everyone would get per unit time as basic income, and additional amounts given to people who are retired or cannot work, they represent time spent working, with the same rate of pay being the same for everyone.

...

Of course, worker-owned and managed workplaces would not have this issue within an economy based on, say, labor vouchers.

My full proposal uses labor vouchers to decide the proportion in which to pay government workers. The issue is that the actual buying power of any currency depends on the amount of goods available for sale on the market, not the denomination of notes being used to pay workers.

As for "small business owners", the would be no such thing in the current sense, as small businesses would be collectively owned by their workers, not by petit bourgeoisie.

The size of the business is what's relevant here, not the number of members on the committee that owns the business. Even in a co-op economy, businesses with large amounts of capital can still out-spend small ones. This means small businesses can only hold their own in isolated niches in the overall social structure until they get bought out and integrated into oligopolistic co-ops.

As for worker co-ops being disincentivized to hire new full employees under a market economy, within a market economy that could be dealt with by requiring worker co-ops to create N number of new job positions as a condition of investment by public investment bodies.

Most humans are not superrational (technical term) decision makers. They don't optimize based on what would be best for society overall; only what's best given their current position. When most people work in co-ops, they would simultaneously pressure the government to change their policies pressuring co-ops to hire more full employees. It's the market that would create this perverse incentive.

[rotting bones]

So, more power to them to figure out a form of democratic communism. I'm sure it falls short of communist ideals, but so do all systems.

Ehhh... I wouldn't trust them in the central government outside a coalition. I do think Marxism has some valuable perspectives that have been lost in mainstream 21st century thought. OTOH, Marxism is better in some ways and worse in others like all ideologies. Like Marx himself wanted, we shouldn't be satisfied with the failures of any one side but rather try to create a new society that addresses the problems of both the old and the new.

[rotting bones]

As you describe it, the problem in West Bengal sounds like a problem of opposing interests.

What isn't? According to Marxism, all ideologies are outward justifications of such differences. Marxism reduces them crudely to class interests. Game theory has a more general framework to analyze them.

[rotting bones]

My point is that narrowly prioritizing their work didn't work out so well for the farmers either.

[zompist]

As you describe it, the problem in West Bengal sounds like a problem of opposing interests.

What isn't? According to Marxism, all ideologies are outward justifications of such differences. Marxism reduces them crudely to class interests. Game theory has a more general framework to analyze them.

My point is that narrowly prioritizing their work didn't work out so well for the farmers either.

Sure, and my point is that conflicts are not limited to capitalism. This particular case seems to be a defeat for both communism (since they were in power, and the debacle decimated their support) and for capitalism (since Tata didn't get its factory and West Bengal didn't get its cars). Or maybe it's a contradiction within socialism, since farmers and factory workers are, by the best theories available in 1917, the bulwarks of socialism. Leftists often forget that when a class gets some benefits, they immediately start to think about how to deny those benefits to others.

Development is hard; we know a lot about what impedes it, but still don't have a universal recipe to produce it. One of the known failiure modes is to attempt to build entire factories in agricultural regions.

[WeepingElf]

I am out of this, just in order not to be overrun by goalposts - those things move at breathtaking speed here. There are about as many meanings of "socialism" as there are meanings of "liberalism".

[rotting bones]

Sure, and my point is that conflicts are not limited to capitalism. This particular case seems to be a defeat for both communism (since they were in power, and the debacle decimated their support) and for capitalism (since Tata didn't get its factory and West Bengal didn't get its cars). Or maybe it's a contradiction within socialism, since farmers and factory workers are, by the best theories available in 1917, the bulwarks of socialism. Leftists often forget that when a class gets some benefits, they immediately start to think about how to deny those benefits to others.

I'm not arguing for Marxist approaches of class empowerment. My proposal is quite different from anything any of the participants have tried in this debacle. I was just arguing against agrarianism because it ruined the farmers' chances for a better life as well.

Development is hard; we know a lot about what impedes it, but still don't have a universal recipe to produce it. One of the known failiure modes is to attempt to build entire factories in agricultural regions.

I think CPI (M) was trying to follow China's Special Economic Zones. This is not the ideal way forward, but it was better than the agrarian alternative. IIRC Tata went to Gujarat or some place after Bengal turned them down, and it helped their economy.

BTW, I don't think it was out in the countryside. It was quite close to the city. West Bengal is a largely agrarian society. The farms come right up to the city limits. The bus I took to college passed quite a few farms on the way.

[rotting bones]

I am out of this, just in order not to be overrun by goalposts - those things move at breathtaking speed here. There are about as many meanings of "socialism" as there are meanings of "liberalism".

The goal is the same: creating a society where everyone can be free. Words like "liberalism" and "socialism" are not the goals. They are just names that help us stake out our positions on the map.

[rotting bones]

Other than arguing against agrarianism, I'm of course arguing against the "happy with what you have" ideology more generally.

BTW Kolkata is one of the biggest cities in the world.

[rotting bones]

I'm giving arguments for what makes socialism distinctively different given liberalism's failures. An argument for a different point of view is not changing goalposts.

[Ares Land]

Other than arguing against agrarianism, I'm of course arguing against the "happy with what you have" ideology more generally.

BTW Kolkata is one of the biggest cities in the world.

This isn't a very uniform world. I'd say that the West can generally expect to have little, or pretty slow economic growth in the future and that it's not necessarily bad.
I certainly wouldn't try to say what is needed in India, a place I know very little about.

[rotting bones]

This isn't a very uniform world. I'd say that the West can generally expect to have little, or pretty slow economic growth in the future and that it's not necessarily bad.

Under capitalism, "less economic growth" may take forms you don't expect. For profit companies only produce and sell when line go up. When line no go up, nothing happens even when all the resources are at hand to produce the necessities of life. You see, the market doesn't produce because the customers need goods. It produces when amassers of capital think they can amass bigger capital by producing goods.

When life becomes hard, people turn to nostalgia, an emotion fascism feeds on.

[Ares Land]

This isn't a very uniform world. I'd say that the West can generally expect to have little, or pretty slow economic growth in the future and that it's not necessarily bad.

Under capitalism, "less economic growth" may take forms you don't expect. For profit companies only produce and sell when line go up. When line no go up, nothing happens even when all the resources are at hand to produce the necessities of life. You see, the market doesn't produce because the customers need goods. It produces when amassers of capital think they can amass bigger capital by producing goods.

When life becomes hard, people turn to nostalgia, an emotion fascism feeds on.

Oh, sure but that's a point against capitalism and not in favor of economic growth!

EDIT: That one is bound to launch another argument... Capitalism would adjust to reduced growth, or rather growth adjusted to what is environmentally sustainable just fine. Business adjusts to rules and limits without issue, as long as there's a political will to set them, which is rather lacking at the moment.
As for fascism and nostalgia... People who vote far right react to imaginary problems rather more than they do to real ones. I'm really not convinced fascism is a product of economic hardship.