Can discussion of state/market economics help us to frame Commons economics?

asimong

Richard Murphy is an economist (and a Quaker, fwiw) who recently has been highly prolific on his YouTube channel and related blog. If we were to ignore the Commons, I really like his views, though we can question the political feasibility of them. He sets out very well what the State should do, in an economy with just Market and State. He it an excellent – and extremely well-informed – critic of neoliberal economics.

This morning he posted what was to me a very interesting video: "There are no free markets". For markets to work well, he points out what needs to be done outside the market system. Now of course, from his Commons-blind perspective, this has to be done by the state. But when I was watching this, I thought, this is a very useful list of what needs to happen in the Commons if we are to benefit from benign markets.

You might say "but this is the opposite of the Commons!" Yes, that is one perspective. But that is exactly not the point I'm making here. It is, rather, a challenge to think over how the Commons can perform the functions that the State has been doing up to now — and this is challenging particularly because what the State does feels invisible … it's just part of the furniture, has been there all our lives, so we don't notice it.

Anyone up for starting to take the points Richard makes, one by one, and set out which ones can be effectively substituted by Commons?

DaveDarby

This is interesting, and a huge conversation with many facets. Thank you. I disagreed with virtually everything he said. He thinks we can somehow take control of the state and make it benign. But I think we're too late. States are corporate, and now the state destroys free markets by granting corporate monopolies in every economic sector. I'll come back with more later, but basically, the good things (that the state does badly), like care, the commons could do much better (and that's before even mentioning surveillance, war and growth-maximisation). But most of what the state does is malign, at the behest and service of corporations, and shouldn't be done at all. But fair enough, you're looking at ways that the commons might take over state functions, and I'm definitely with you on that. But that's not what Murphy wants. He's statist left, rather than libertarian (anarchist) left, and I think that's a big mistake. For me, commons is as far from the statist left as from the neoliberal right.

asimong

yeah, as I was trying to say, fair enough, you and Richard are both welcome to your points of view. But the way you're responding, @DaveDarby feels rather unnecessarily oppositional and divisive. Let's face it: RIchard is very well intentioned, and the only thing I see that he is missing is Commons awareness. Yes, he wants a benevolent state. Yes, in your opinion we can't have that. But that is, just, your opinion. Either of you could back up your positions and argue it out, but what's the point? I appreciate where Richard is coming from, and I see his programme as extremely well-intentioned. If we could have a state like the one he wants, great! Where I agree with you, Dave, is on the pragmatic difficult to getting to that State. A way round this … stop thinking of "the State" as something massive, impersonal, and subject to capture by vested capitalist interests, and start thinking of "the State" as whatever is necessary, and not Market, for society to thrive. As I see it, if you really take on "subsidiarity" to the fullest extent, you get exactly what I'm asking for: functions that the "State" used to do at a gross level, being done by commoners at a very local level.
But we still need coordination for some things. "Defence" would get lots of people engaged, for instance. I count it as highly impractical to implement local defence commons — any malign dictator would make mincemeat out of us in short order. So I want defence, and maybe some commonly agreed rules of law, to be done at a very wide level.
So … again … I'm asking that you refrain from setting yourself against Richard, and instead engage in the way I'm suggesting.

DaveDarby

Quick responses to a couple of things you mentioned first.
'As I see it, if you really take on "subsidiarity" to the fullest extent, you get exactly what I'm asking for: functions that the "State" used to do at a gross level, being done by commoners at a very local level.' - exactly. I don't see any indication that Murphy would agree with that. I had a conversation with a statist once who said that he'd close down mutual credit schemes if he could because the money system should be controlled and regulated by the state.
'I count it as highly impractical to implement local defence commons — any malign dictator would make mincemeat out of us in short order. So I want defence, and maybe some commonly agreed rules of law, to be done at a very wide level.' - we build commons in the order that we need them. Starting with housing and the small business sector is good I think. But eventually, as things start to fall over, we'll definitely need commons defence. Gangsterism could grow quite quickly, which is where malign dictators will come from, and they'll make mincemeat of us much faster if we can't defend ourselves. Rojava would be a good local defence model. But that's for later. Hopefully much, much later. Plus 'wide level' needs to be done via federation, not the state.
But I really don't understand the 'let's not debate' thing. You don't want debate about the state on a commons forum? Debate is really healthy. I had a debate with a Reform guy recently, and we disagreed on virtually everything (except the commons, interestingly). It was completely friendly. Maybe I swayed him on a few things - who knows? We've got to do the politics, and that involves talking with people that we completely disagree with, in a friendly way. I'm an anarchist, Murphy is the opposite - a statist. I disagree with him as much as I do with neoliberals. I hope that if I met him, we could talk as amicably as I did with the 'Reformer' (although I prefer to debate in writing now). Honestly though, I find the right easier to debate with. They don't throw their toys out of the pram or play the moral superiority card - they just talk (maybe it's because they see the left as misguided, whereas the left tend to see the right as evil, which is harder to deal with). The left tends to be right about corporations but (some) wrong about the state, and the right tend to be right about the state but (some) wrong about corporations - although many on the right are becoming anti-corporate and many on the left are moving away from state solutions (hopefully both will move towards the commons). Murphy seemed quite angry, and said that views different to his were 'antisocial' or ''nonsense'. I don't do things like that, so maybe it's him you should be berating, not me.
But anyway, to turn to what he said (and this is all 'just my opinion'). This focus on the state is a huge problem on the left and it wastes so many resources that we could be using to build commons (as well as, of course, alienating the right, who could easily be commons allies). A commons-friendly state would be nice of course, but that's not really possible with a corporate-captured state, as it would ultimately require it to dissolve itself in favour of federated governance rooted in communities, which I'm guessing Murphy doesn't support at all. States give monopolies to corporations, and the finance sector writes its own regulations. Markets are not free precisely because of the state. Neoliberalism is not at all laissez-faire. It requires huge state intervention in the market on behalf of corporations. Not accidentally - states are corporate. We have the 'left' party in the UK boasting that it's going to run the economy in collaboration with Blackrock, and appointing the ex-head of Amazon UK as the chair of the Competions and Markets Authority (seems like a joke when you see it written like that).
'40% of small businesses don't pay their corporation tax' is a) not true - it's that there's a 40% shortfall in corporation tax collection for the small business sector, for all sorts of reasons, including losses, or low profits that put them below the tax threshold, or because of cashflow pressures (often because corporations pay very late), not that 40% of small businesses are evading taxes; and b) a good thing - non-corrupt governments would remove the tax burden from small businesses by taxing corporations properly instead of giving them welfare. Multinationals barely pay tax at all, because they register profits in low-tax jurisdictions and losses in high-tax jurisdictions (legally, all enabled by states).
I don't want to list the ways that the state benefits corporations or that corporations control the state here, because there's a lot of it. But I'll blog more about it this year. You can rip it apart (which is what I want you to do, so that I can refine the arguments).
Murphy believes that the state can be captured by the left and fixed – made competent and benevolent. That’s impossible imo. What’s that saying - “You can't dismantle the master’s house with the master’s tools.” The state belongs to the master. The state has never been and can never be a counterbalance to corporations. Not even the post-war state, which provided welfare for working people because it was scared of communist revolution. That threat has gone now, and welfare provision is being withdrawn.
And environmental regulations by the same state that's trying to maximise economic growth is incoherent. Sticking-plasters on self-inflicted wounds. The solution isn't wealth redistribution or environmental regulation, it's about building the commons, so that wealth isn't concentrated in the first place and there's no growth imperative that detroys the environment. States are all pursuing wealth concentration and growth policies. We have to try to build a commons alternative.
We need to stop looking to the state for solutions. The best we can hope for is a state that doesn't close down a budding commons. What is possible is a combination of commons for essential infrastructure (housing, utilities, transport, land, care), and local free markets for personal possessions and consumables. Murray Bookchin and Michael Albert (both anarchists) believe that the economy can be planned by municipalities, which work out how many shoes (etc.) they will need the following year, and give instructions to shoemakers to come up with that many. But I disagree with them. See - even anarchists disagree, but we get over it. It's ridiculously hard to get that information, but the market provides it automatically. Hayek was right about that. Plus so many boring meetings. People won't do it; and working people don't have time. Farmers' markets, veg boxes, farm shops, independent shops, small businesses, mutual credit networks, barter etc. is a much better idea. No meetings, no planning. It just happens. And not reliant on the state - although the state will still tax them, while continuing to allow corporations to avoid tax.
Businesses will stay small if we can stop the state intervening in the market. Corporations need the state to be the size they are. As I said, I'll list all the ways in future blog articles.
State regulation of corps = corps actually regulating themselves. We can do much better via commons, including governance commons eventually.
(Murphy is also wrong about states creating money, but that's a whole new conversation)

DaveDarby

Simon, I completely agree with you about looking at how state functions can be transferred to commons. I think that's really important and the process could be very enlightening and interesting. I'm very happy to be involved in a conversation here about state functions one by one, and talk about a) whether they're needed at all, or b) how they can be transferred to commons (and yes, basically all of them, apart from the ones that aren't necessary at all).

But I had to say the above first, because a lot of what Murphy talked about is unnecessary and just wrong (states don't regulate the finance sector, or corporations at all really, and they certainly don't prevent monopolies, they create them).
I'd prefer others to get involved though, so it's not just you and me. And of course we have to make the commons much larger before it becomes a live issue.