Message 06002 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT06002 Message: 1/1 L0 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[ox-en] Short Circuit Production - Eliminating the Exchange of Goods through Property Ownership. (was: The "Free Market" requires scarcity)

Kevin Carson wrote:

I don't think there's any confusion about the fact that people in
business *want* to make money.

That is very unfortunate.

We won't fix this until we begin to make businesses for the purpose of
making products, not for money.  Money is not value in itself, it only
'points' to value.

Destroying product in order to reduce supply and drive up the
price is just great

Poverty is the *difference* between Price and Wage.

Attempting to fix the problem by increasing both will get us nowhere.

Most  people think Workers need a higher Wage and assume nothing can
be done about lowering Price.

But if the Worker were a co-owner in the Means of Production of that
which he *Consumes*, then Price would be as low as possible - Price
would *equal* Cost because he wouldn't buy the Product, but would own
it already as a "side effect" of his ownership in the Sources.

When a Consumer of Apples owns the Tree, he might hire someone to pick
that fruit, and must pay all other Costs as well, but does not even
have a chance to pay Profit because the Exchange of those Goods does
not even occur when they are already the property of the person who
needs them.

 How would that change if customers owned the sweatshops?

We must support those Workers "from below" by helping them also own
the Sources of that which they Consume.

Isn't it just as much in the interest of
consumers to get workers to work for as little as possible?

This is a good point within the traditional mindset of protecting
Workers by propping-up Wages.

But let's look at this from the other direction:

Let's assume Consumer Ownership is a bad idea.

Now, what will we do to protect Workers if Consumers begin organizing
and Owning the Means of Production as i have described?

Since there will be no selling at the end of the season (the owner of
a fruit tree owns the fruit already) there will be no Profit for the
Workers to claim they should deserve.

Profit will never even 'happen'  in this "short circuit" scenario
because the product will already be in the hands of those that will
finally use it.  This means Price will be at the minimum it can ever
be - which is exactly the real Costs of production and Profit will be

Nor will the Workers be able to prop-up Wages since they do not have
ownership in the orchard beyond that which they need for their own
Consumption, and so cannot keep other workers from under-bidding for
that job.

So the only safety I can see for the Workers is to protect their
ability to Consume by helping them co-own their own Means of
Production that will supply them with the goods they need.

This will also 'protect' us from the 'dangers' of automation and
robotics, and all other forms of abundance.

Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT06002 Message: 1/1 L0 [In index]
Message 06002 [Homepage] [Navigation]