Nate Cull (.social)

A reason I'm not a hugely political activist is that I feel quite conflicted about the fundamental political principles of both today's Left and Right.

Like, I feel I deeply get Marx and Piketty's critique of capital, that it accumulates and disempowers all but a few. I've seen that happen before my eyes over the life of the Internet.

But also I get the capitalist's desire for personal freedom, to have something YOU own and can make better.

What I don't agree with is owning people's labour.

Apr 14, 2017 at 3:35amWeb
Show threadNate Cull (.social)Apr 14, 2017
And that gets complicated, because a small managerial class directing other people's labour is something both 'capitalist' and 'socialist' models of production settled on in the Cold War. It also pre-dated capitalism, in the form of kings and emperors. It's how science and education and the military run. And I kind of think it's wrong! But.. How *do* you get things done, if someone doesn't have (via money or aristocracy or peer-review) the right to boss others?
Show threadNate Cull (.social)Apr 14, 2017

Also, a big crisis right now - one that's very clearly zero-sum, defying the conventional economic wisdom of the 1990s - is house prices, which is good old land. Not even labour. And I like homeowners being free to land! I just don't like that, now, they actually can't because the prices are too high.

At some point "economic freedom" became "economic non-freedom" without the economic system actually changing.

I don't have an answer. I just know something's wrong.

Show threadwillApr 14, 2017
@natecull the idea of land as an investment (cash vehicle) instead of a place to live is core to this problem I think. Too much money chasing too few real things of value. It's more cost-effective to rent out a place you own on weekends to vacationers than to lease it to a permanent tenant. So you are incentivized to let it sit empty 5 days out of 7.
Show threadMatt Cropp (now @ social.coop)Apr 14, 2017
@natecull "Against the Renting of Persons" #DavidEllerman
http://www.thestraddler.com/201715/piece2.php
Show threadDanny O'BApr 14, 2017
@natecull oh have you read Kevin Carson? I think you might be interested in his point of view (hands out leaflet)
Show threadNate Cull (.social)Apr 14, 2017

@mala I haven't read Carson specifically, but glancing at his Wikipedia I think he represents a problem I see in many anarchist writers: a focus on 'the state' as the cause of human oppression.

I think 'the state' doesn't exist as a separate category - instead we just have a web of power relations. If I have a gun and a piece of land (force and property), or the equivalents (a deniable needed resource), I *am* a tiny state. From there it's just size; I can bootstrap to kingdoms, empires, etc.

Show threadNate Cull (.social)Apr 14, 2017

@mala And in fact for much of human history, there didn't exist formal 'states' in the modern nation-state sense. Instead there was this vast web of tribes, chiefs, local kings, 'kings of kings', eg emperors, interwoven with religious and trade powers... so it was quite distributed in a sense. But slavery and other forms of oppression still existed.

I think generally big disparities of power run against human kindness and should be moderated, in whatever institution that power is seated.

Show threadDanny O'BApr 14, 2017
@natecull well there's definitely a focus on the state, but there's also a consideration of non-state oppression as well: see https://c4ss.org/content/26154
Show threadsquinkyApr 14, 2017
@natecull Read F.A Hayek's stuff. The guy predicted bitcoin and provided major insight into economic calculation problems in Socialism that would lead to its downfall, but was also critical of Keynesianism's love of endless banker bailouts. He's very difficult to read though, which is probably why he isn't more popular.
Show threadNate Cull (.social)Apr 14, 2017

@squinky I've read Hayek and unfortunately I don't agree with him. His version of libertarian pure capitalism is the kind that's coming apart, in my opinion.

It leads to concentration of power in landlords and large companies that might as well be states, and then we're back to feudalism - since customers and workers have no voting power on the board.

Show threadsquinkyApr 14, 2017
@natecull You should at least understand the critical problem of socialist calculation with respect to creating and using goods of higher orders. I.E How to use a resource that is not directly consumable, such as a freight railroad, a lathe or a backhoe? What does one choose to build with these things? This was the fundamental problem with socialism. It was very hard to make these decisions without money. Read "Economic Calculation In the Socialist Commonwealth" for more.
Show threadNate Cull (.social)Apr 14, 2017

@squinky Sadly it's also hard to make these decisions *with* money - the financial capitalism world is quite obviously misallocating trillions of dollars of funding towards - at best - trivia, and at worst, building systems actively hostile to human community and biological life.

I agree that central planning has big drawbacks. That's one reason why I'm saddened to see the rise of large corporations which employ such planning to move markets.

Show threadsquinkyApr 14, 2017
@natecull The Chinese model is interesting. The banks make bad decisions all the time, but the gov bails out the bad loans continuously with debt free money they print themselves. They prevent moral hazard and cronyism through severe penalties for financial fraud, up to and including execution. They also direct the bank lending policy very closely, telling banks which sectors to invest in and which to not invest in. It's almost partially privatized central planning.