

The Telekommunist Manifesto: a useful but faulty map - ctoth
http://spiritofcontradiction.eu/modulus/2013/01/17/telekommunist-manifesto-a-useful-but-faulty-map

======
baddox
I'm curious about the economic justification behind this statement:

> _Without market inefficiencies, capital would be unable to capture any more
> than its own reproduction cost in any branch of industry. The elimination of
> competition is central to the logic of capitalism. Without unfair
> advantages, a capitalist class of owners could not accumulate wealth and
> there could be no capitalism._

I'm well aware that market inefficiencies are real and inevitable, but why is
all net value increase attributable to them? In the most obvious case, I can
certainly buy a shovel and recover way more value by digging and finding gold.
Net wealth can and does increase over time, due both to the harvesting of
natural resources and the cumulative advantages of human knowledge and
technology.

Perhaps the whole statement hinges on the definitions of " _unfair_
advantages." If the speaker considers exclusive ownership of capital to be
unfair, then the claim is a tautology.

~~~
scarmig
A world without market inefficiencies is a world where there are no excess
profits--everything converges to the natural rate of profit. Any place money
could be that offers an economic profit would immediately receive many
competitors who would drag it down to the natural rate.

What I gather he's saying is that the natural rate of profit is itself zero:
given that and no economic profit, capitalism could not reproduce itself. It's
probably true that, in a world with complete and perfect knowledge, the
natural rate is zero: that world, however, is so radically different from our
own or any conceivable socialist one that I've got to reject that part of his
point.

~~~
baddox
It would require more than just perfect knowledge, wouldn't it? Market
inefficiency has other sources, too, like transaction costs, non-excludability
and non-rivalry (e.g. public goods), etc.

------
tjic
Related:

I'm a right libertarian who didn't really understand what "left libertarian"
even meant.

This essay seems to explain it well:

[http://www.popehat.com/2012/12/28/wherein-a-right-
libertaria...](http://www.popehat.com/2012/12/28/wherein-a-right-libertarian-
sticks-a-toe-in-left-libertarianism-and-finds-that-the-water-is-fine/)

~~~
scarmig
As a left libertarian, I'd say one other big difference between right and left
libertarians is how rigorous people are in opposing the State. Most right
libertarians (except those of certain strains of anarcho-capitalism)
wholeheartedly embrace State recognition and enforcement of property rights,
while left libertarians take a more laissez faire approach toward them.

------
Jach
It'd be nice to have more time to properly deconstruct this. Did anyone else
feel that the author and the author of the linked page about decentralization
don't really grasp the decentralization ideas elaborated within cypherpunk
culture?

------
Finster
I guess I spend so much time on reddit, I tend to think the internet community
in general is much more liberal and Democrat-leaning. Certainly, there is a
strong Libertarian thread, but most of the online communities that I interact
with are definitely socialist-leaning.

Net neutrality, for example, is decidedly an anti-capitalist stance. On the
other hand, copyleft certainly seems compatible with certain anarcho-
capitalist ideals. So, I don't know.

~~~
baddox
> Net neutrality, for example, is decidedly an anti-capitalist stance.

I don't see how. If customers of ISPs value neutrality, then there is profit
motive for ISPs to offer it. Obviously, it's a balance between how many
potential customers care about neutrality and how much they're willing to pay
for it. Net neutrality _legislation_ , along with any regulations or subsidies
on privately-owned infrastructure, is definitely anti-capitalist, just like
legislation that says McDonald's must always offer the McRib.

~~~
prodigal_erik
Without network neutrality legislation, an incumbent can simply pay for the
privilege of having no viable competitors. Is there a strain of capitalism
that doesn't hold it critically important that new entrants should have
unfettered access to the market?

~~~
baddox
> an incumbent can simply pay for the privilege of having no viable
> competitors.

Pay who exactly? They could pay the government, of course, and that's usually
how things go, but that's what I am opposed to.

> Is there a strain of capitalism that doesn't hold it critically important
> that new entrants should have unfettered access to the market?

It depends on your definition of "unfettered access." Most capitalists, for
example, are fine with the failure of a competitor who has no idea how to run
a business, even though his incompetence certainly fetters him. Pro-
capitalists are generally strong advocates of private property, so the only
types of fettering they would oppose would be violations of property rights
(like theft, assault, or threats thereof). Simply using capital to one's
advantage and to the disadvantage of one's competitors is, as the name
suggests, not generally considered a bad thing in capitalism.

------
Isamu
Can someone tell me if this is crypto-satire? I really can't tell. Maybe
something along the lines of the Sokal hoax, maybe not.

~~~
modulux
I can tell you that it isn't, as I've written it (thought I should show up
here when I saw the traffic spike). I suppose though, that if people come to
this conclusion on reading it, I've failed to make it clear and accessible
enough. The original manifesto I'm reviewing/criticising is written in the
same language register, which I would admit is perhaps too academic.

There's also a certain tendency to using this register in Marxist circles,
which certainly doesn't help us put our message across. I could also plead
second-language privilege. Sorry about that.

~~~
prodigal_erik
Thank you. I have to admit when I reached

    
    
      By this I mean that the category of rent is deployed to explain
      the hegemonic power of the bourgeoisie vis-a-vis the working
      class.
    

I found myself wondering whether it was a conscious imitation of "The
Architect", but I'll give it another chance when I have more time.

------
dreamdu5t
Has the author considered it's because hackers value liberty? There is no
place for liberty, individual sovereignty, or natural rights in a communist
state.

In a communist society, you don't get to hack. You only get to do the things
provided for and prescribed to you by the ruling party.

~~~
modulux
Definitely, the author has considered this. I think that liberty and
capitalism don't go well together though. Capitalism gives people abstract
rights: if they have property, they can use it how they want; if they have
money, they can spend it how they want; and so on. But this doesn't preclude
the absence of concrete choices when one has none of those things.

I'm obviously opposed to a state which tyranizes over people, but I think it's
interesting to consider how much the hacker community sprung out of academic
institutions, which aren't exactly private. The control by bosses,
supervisors, and company owners can be just as stringent in determining
people's day-to-day choices and potential to hack.

~~~
dreamdu5t
> I think that liberty and capitalism don't go well together though.

Property rights _are_ liberty. If I don't own my property then necessarily
someone else does. Capitalism is a natural consequence of property rights.
Money is property.

> The control by bosses, supervisors, and company owners can be just as
> stringent in determining people's day-to-day choices and potential to hack.

The difference is you're trading voluntarily with your boss, supervisor, or
company owner. You entered into an agreement to trade labor for something. In
communism, the boss is chosen for you by someone you've never met.

