@ambiguous_yelp Capital services (services of the means of production) are a real thing. Why would people use the capital otherwise?
Economic planning in any form is incompatible with workers’ self-management as workers have to obey the plan, which is imposed from on high. I don’t see how a society could be stateless if based on economic planning. The bodies engaged in planning are obviously a states.
@jlou I'm envisioning an economic planning committee as more of a consultant body than a managing body. Free associations deserve up to date information about the needs of the market and overproduction will still be a problem that needs solving otherwise.
What happens if a group of workers chooses to deviate from the planning committee’s advice and/or squander the resources allocated to them on pet projects that the planning committee doesn’t think are important? How are decisions made between competing uses of resources when the resources in question are scarce?
@jlou Scarcity is not as big a problem as you think it is it is manufactured by capitalists through the control of supply, resource hoarding and inventory destruction. As well as market manipulation, planned obsolescence and an obsession with an ever expanding extractive growth model of economics.
I like the ideology of degrowth I think it is necessary to stay within ecological limits, and if free associations of workers don't voluntariliy comply with these limits it is in every persons survival interest to fight them on it
#Socialism #Anarchism #Ecology #ClimateCrisis #ClimateCollapse #Degrowth
I’m aware of these issues, but at a bare minimum people’s time is limited. Even if all other resources are abundant, that fundamental scarcity is still there.
Keeping production within ecological limits is entirely solved with #Georgism’s common ownership of land and natural resources.
Note that growth, once it accounts for social costs such as ecological considerations, is good. There are ways to make it take that into account. Economic value is based on people’s desires.
@jlou hmm. I'm not entirely convinced Georgism does solve us going over ecological limits.
Yes, it should be way better than the current situation, but Georgism (whether capitalist or socialist) is still very much productivist. It is, after all, supposed to remove inefficiencies and turbocharge productivity.
Yes, we could place limits on extraction and pollution with severance and pigouvian taxes, respectively, but will people actually agree to set those taxes high enough?
@jlou LVT is human-centred. It values land based on it human economic value, not any natural value. So yes, it's supposed to encourage density of human settlements, which should mean more land for nature, but *which* land we leave to nature is not part of the economic calculus of LVT.
We can still decide to make certain land public land not subject to LVT, but it's not an economic decision.
My whole point being, this is another way Georgism doesn't respect ecology.
