Distribution of goods [Archive]

View Full Version : Distribution of goods

Robocommie

27th December 2009, 10:35

FSL

27th December 2009, 12:24

However even there I am concerned, because I have read that while Gosplan was very effective at being able to predict and accomodate the production of capital goods, it was not so good at the prediction of demand for consumer goods

Did it produce more than needed? It produced less than needed because that's what happens in socialism, your production capabilities can't yet meet the people's needs. Nor can they in any market economy of course but you don't see people queueing for products they know they won't be able to afford.
Long lines for consumer products became prevalent during the latter years of Soviet Union and moreso under perestroika. If someone attributes that to Gosplan, they have little idea of what they 're talking about. At that point, central planning had little importance and companies could decide the volume of production, bargain the prices, had to raise their own money for further investments etc. Bonuses given to those employed in a company -mostly to those heading it- were decided by profit and not as it happened during the first years by volume of production. They also were a much bigger part of someone's earnings than they used to be.
This was a very good reason for these socialist companies to act in the same manner capitalist businesses do. Reduce production to drive prices up. Obviously, less products were available to the consumers but the company's profits were maximized and so was the income of its managers.

I don't understand how goods would be distributed in a moneyless society nor do I really understand how it would be decided how much would be needed of any given thing.

Regarding your actual question. You don't immediately "jump" to a moneyless society. This happens when the productive forces are adequate to allow you that. Think of it as the same thing that happens in some countries with schools or hospitals, simply expanded to include all products.
As the society's ability to produce flour and bread's other ingredients increases, you increase its supply. Its price is lowered and might even become nominal, say a few cents per loaf. Eventually, everyone will be able to get bread so there is no need for a price. Prices are a way to distribute finite resourses, they aren't needed otherwise. Once the production goals of bread are met you can calculate how much flour you'll be needing to produce bread. The flour needed to produce one unit of bread multiplied by the number of units. The total flour needed by the whole of society will be flour needed for breads + flour needed for cakes + flour needed for pies etc.

This of course gets quite more complicated when you look at the amount of products that need to be produced and how a change in one would mean a change is needed in about a dozen others. This is why there have been mathematical models developed to help with this organizing. Like the input-output model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input-output_model. Or linear programming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_programming and later non-linear programming to ensure we minimize waste achieving a certain production goal or that we're achieving the highest possible production goal, while given spesific resourses.
Linear programming was in fact thought out and developed by a soviet economist who was looking for ways to make the production more efficient.

We're assuming of course that technology has developed, that everyone is employed etc so this is what makes this possible. We're living in a post-scarcity society. Markets prevent something like that from happening. Look at the autoindustries or the housing market. Too many cars or homes produced reduces their profit margin and leads them to cut investments. Cars are left standing still and homes remain empty, while unemployment is rising.
So even today, in many capitalist countries we have the capacity of producing goods according to our needs or at least to a degree that would much more saisfy our needs. We choose not to do so because it would drive profits down.

Robocommie

27th December 2009, 18:09

FSL

27th December 2009, 18:29

I understand the idea of artificial scarcity, I actually already related a story about coffee beans being left to rot in the fields because the landowners wanted a higher price. I also understand that after a revolution, you don't jump immediately to a moneyless economy, but my misgivings are centered on the efficacy of that post-socialist phase even working out. Formulas for the amount of goods needed for consumer goods rely on relatively constant values, right? But what happens if people behave outside of those predictions? What if people take 2 or 3 pounds of flour a week instead of just the one predicted in the model?

And how is any of these even administered in a stateless society?

Demand can be higher or lower than expected for a certain period, yes. This happens today as well however, it's how companies create stocks ( when demand is lower than expected) of products and how they end up using them (when demand is higher than expected).

A stateless society isn't an unorganized society. The state as a tool of repression in the hands of the rulling class is abolished. There are still statistical agencies gathering data and people using them to set forth the economic plan. People in these positions can be electable and recallable or even selected by "lottery" assuming everyone has some knowledge on the subject.
The state along with democracy are considered abolished because now the plan is decided through consensus as it serves everyone's interests and not just those of one class.

Robocommie

27th December 2009, 22:42

So I shouldn't necessarily assume state is synonymous with government?

ckaihatsu

28th December 2009, 03:24

One of the biggest questions, one of the biggest hurdles I have yet to overcome in understanding Marxism, and one of the biggest things that keeps me from being an unreserved Communist instead of a hardline, militant Socialist in general is that I don't understand how goods would be distributed in a moneyless society, nor do I really understand how it would be decided how much would be needed of any given thing.

I think that the way in which you're *formulating* this question indicates a corrupt-Stalinist-bureaucracy *conceptualization* of the question to begin with.

This is certainly an understandable understanding to have, since it's historical, but at the same time I tend to get somewhat impatient with conceptualizations that *defer* (or refer) to historical instances *too much*. I don't think we should be stuck and *beholden* to historical precedent necessarily.

So, in short, let me put it *this* way -- how do *you* think goods should be distributed in a moneyless society?

Let's take the staff of life as a very basic example: bread. Everyone wants bread, everyone needs it. But how, in a stateless, moneyless society, is society supposed to be able to know just how much flour to produce to meet everyone's demands, and just how is a stateless society to ensure that everyone's getting flour, and nobody's hoarding any, or even simply taking too much without any malicious intentions, leaving not enough for other sectors of society?

If we consider the mechanics of how this sort of thing is done with *today's* (capitalist) methods and technology I don't think it's too difficult to *extrapolate* in the direction of a liberated worldwide distribution system that's *not* based on market speculative buying and all of the resulting chaos to the productive economy that it spawns. Many systems of supply-chain logistics have now been *very* well developed in practice throughout *gargantuan* networks of finance, suppliers, stores, sales, and shipments. In the hands of the workers themselves these systems could finally be made entirely *rational*, in the best interests of those who need the products and services the most.

Simple universal financial *transparency* would go a *long* way in revealing just what's going where, especially at larger scales that involve massive amounts of public funds (freely given over into *non-transparent* private hands).

Regarding your actual question. You don't immediately "jump" to a moneyless society. This happens when the productive forces are adequate to allow you that. Think of it as the same thing that happens in some countries with schools or hospitals, simply expanded to include all products.

This is an *excellent* "shortcut" to keep in mind -- we currently have a situation where private capital, or the private sector, is *dominating* over the public sector. Since the provision of a basic standard of social services, including education and health care, is done through the *public* sector, it would be in humanity's best interests as a whole to *see* that public sector grow to the point where it *displaces* the private sector altogether. This is *synonymous* with a political revolution of the world's working class over profit-making interests in their entirety.

There have recently been some good discussions here on these precise topics -- one is 'Hours as a measure of labor,’ at tinyurl.com/yh3jr9x

I personally have put together a model, or framework, of how the parameters of a common-conception communist administration could be situated -- it's attached here as a PDF file. I also described a sample scenario that could play out within the societal model -- that's at the post here:

http://tinyurl.com/yfjmjzc

Chris

--

--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

-- Tearing up more shit than a weightless astronaut on the toilet --

Robocommie

28th December 2009, 05:55

I think that the way in which you're *formulating* this question indicates a corrupt-Stalinist-bureaucracy *conceptualization* of the question to begin with.

This is certainly an understandable understanding to have, since it's historical, but at the same time I tend to get somewhat impatient with conceptualizations that *defer* (or refer) to historical instances *too much*. I don't think we should be stuck and *beholden* to historical precedent necessarily.

So, in short, let me put it *this* way -- how do *you* think goods should be distributed in a moneyless society?

Well, incidentally I think you're right. I have often felt that Marxist dialectic has been too enslaved to clashes between Trotsky and Stalin, or arguments over which historical theorist was most right, seldom have I seen many folks argue that every tendency has valid ideas but also bullshit. In this sense I think Marxists limit themselves and bind themselves to doctrinal interpretations.

But the thing is, partly I'm trying to understand the vision of Marxist-Leninists or Anarchists as to how these things will be developed. Frankly, I have thus far been very skeptical of the idea of a stateless, moneyless society. For a while now I've been relatively convinced that the most stable and flexible system would be a one-party representative democracy in which electricity, water, gas, healthcare and education are nationalized and provided free of charge, land is redistributed into small scale farms (along with some voluntarily-organized collectives similar to Israeli kibbutzim) to the rural poor and factories assembled into coooperatives controlled by the workers. Furthermore, there would need to be a strong social safety net to pick up people who have fallen down on hard times and give them the means to restore their own economic autonomy, as well as a state bank available to provide fair, low interest loans to worker's cooperatives for expansion or to people to open small businesses, and so on.

I believe this because I often feel that the idea of achieving a truly moneyless, stateless society might be too utopian, too perfect to be real. But on the other hand, what my studies HAVE shown so far is that all of these methods I mentioned earlier are proven effective to raise the standards of living and provide an acceptable bare minimum of human development. I don't think we can utterly abolish inequality on every level of existence, but I think we can build a society that fosters communities and human social unity to the point where everyone is healthy, well fed, educated and warm, with the personal freedom to explore one's own potential.

If we consider the mechanics of how this sort of thing is done with *today's* (capitalist) methods and technology I don't think it's too difficult to *extrapolate* in the direction of a liberated worldwide distribution system that's *not* based on market speculative buying and all of the resulting chaos to the productive economy that it spawns. Many systems of supply-chain logistics have now been *very* well developed in practice throughout *gargantuan* networks of finance, suppliers, stores, sales, and shipments. In the hands of the workers themselves these systems could finally be made entirely *rational*, in the best interests of those who need the products and services the most.

Well, I did have an interesting conversation with one of my Anarchist friends who essentially pointed out that the method of distribution in the private sector is very decentralized in a sense, which is one reason it tends to work when a population has sufficient wealth to spend on consumer goods. A specific shop puts in orders for goods from a factory (directly or indirectly) and these orders let the factory know exactly how much to produce (though naturally they may produce less or sell from stock, as you said) and in this way the demands of consumers are met organically. He pointed out that it wouldn't be hard at all to do the same kind of thing without money.

He made a good point about why people wouldn't just take the whole store's inventory in one trip, as well - namely, because people would be guaranteed equal access, there would be no pressure. Like, if a store started giving away it's goods for free there'd be a rush on the place - because no other store does that and eventually the shop will run out of goods. But there would be no rush if the shop was always free, because people would know that when they needed more later the goods would still be available and for free.

It was interesting food for thought.

Ben Seattle

28th December 2009, 06:42

ckaihatsu

28th December 2009, 12:51

Well, incidentally I think you're right. I have often felt that Marxist dialectic has been too enslaved to clashes between Trotsky and Stalin, or arguments over which historical theorist was most right, seldom have I seen many folks argue that every tendency has valid ideas but also bullshit. In this sense I think Marxists limit themselves and bind themselves to doctrinal interpretations.

While *I* tend to be as doctrinaire as possible, if only for reasons of consistency, I think that one *major* shortcoming of orienting one's *forward-looking* conceptions for society to *past historical models* is that the past -- to put it simply -- is *anachronistic by definition*.

Sure, we can *build* on *what works*, but, also by definition, the *future* needs to be brought about by some kind of *creative process*, otherwise we've *ceased* to be *active participants*, or revolutionaries, in the political shaping of it.

But the thing is, partly I'm trying to understand the vision of Marxist-Leninists or Anarchists as to how these things will be developed. Frankly, I have thus far been very skeptical of the idea of a stateless, moneyless society.

For a while now I've been relatively convinced that the most stable and flexible system would be a one-party representative democracy in which electricity, water, gas, healthcare and education are nationalized and provided free of charge, land is redistributed into small scale farms (along with some voluntarily-organized collectives similar to Israeli kibbutzim) to the rural poor and factories assembled into coooperatives controlled by the workers. Furthermore, there would need to be a strong social safety net to pick up people who have fallen down on hard times and give them the means to restore their own economic autonomy, as well as a state bank available to provide fair, low interest loans to worker's cooperatives for expansion or to people to open small businesses, and so on.

Your skepticism is borne out here in your adopted vision of an improved society -- I would tend to call it a *liberal*, *reformist* kind of model, the (conservative) liberal ideal marketed to the world by the postwar U.S. political establishment -- think Kennedy, Johnson....

The telltale giveaway that this is *reformist* is your description's reliance on a *market* system of some sort, with a "state bank" providing "low interest loans"....

I believe this because I often feel that the idea of achieving a truly moneyless, stateless society might be too utopian, too perfect to be real. But on the other hand, what my studies HAVE shown so far is that all of these methods I mentioned earlier are proven effective to raise the standards of living and provide an acceptable bare minimum of human development. I don't think we can utterly abolish inequality on every level of existence, but I think we can build a society that fosters communities and human social unity to the point where everyone is healthy, well fed, educated and warm, with the personal freedom to explore one's own potential.

I don't question your *humanistic intentions* here, but your *politics* are *far* from being either "Robo-" or "-commie"....

Well, I did have an interesting conversation with one of my Anarchist friends who essentially pointed out that the method of distribution in the private sector is very decentralized in a sense,

I'd have to *differ* with this characterization of the banking industry, or finance, which tends to be *more concentrated* and *centralized* than ever before, thanks to capitalism's deflation.

which is one reason it tends to work when a population has sufficient wealth to spend on consumer goods. A specific shop puts in orders for goods from a factory (directly or indirectly) and these orders let the factory know exactly how much to produce (though naturally they may produce less or sell from stock, as you said) and in this way the demands of consumers are met organically. He pointed out that it wouldn't be hard at all to do the same kind of thing without money.

Yeah, I *agree* on the *logistics* part, but that's a *far different* matter from the *economic-political composition* of the economy itself.

He made a good point about why people wouldn't just take the whole store's inventory in one trip, as well - namely, because people would be guaranteed equal access, there would be no pressure. Like, if a store started giving away it's goods for free there'd be a rush on the place - because no other store does that and eventually the shop will run out of goods. But there would be no rush if the shop was always free, because people would know that when they needed more later the goods would still be available and for free.

It was interesting food for thought.

The determining factor as to whether people have a hoarding impulse or not has to do with the relative stability of the society in question. A societal infrastructure that is not well-grounded, that people cannot be sure of the future of, is one in which private hoarding will be seen as preferable to working together on projects for the common good, for the distant future. An objective situation of scarcity will also tend to drive people towards hoarding since they can't be certain of future common availability.

The converse is when people feel satiated in the midst of plenty -- how much water can one possibly drink if one has easy access to it by merely turning on a faucet? And how much of a roof over one's head does a person need if one is present that does the job, in relation to the dwelling?

The same goes for anything else -- all hoarding in the present day is due to the dictate (and ideology) of the profit system, and not for any intrinsic human-animal behavior.

Robocommie

28th December 2009, 15:35

While *I* tend to be as doctrinaire as possible, if only for reasons of consistency, I think that one *major* shortcoming of orienting one's *forward-looking* conceptions for society to *past historical models* is that the past -- to put it simply -- is *anachronistic by definition*.

Well, unquestionably each and every revolution has occured within it's own historical context, this is a self-evident statement but what I feel it means is that the material conditions of each and every revolution will be different and so will require unique approaches each and everytime - this is generally what interested me in Titoism.

Your skepticism is borne out here in your adopted vision of an improved society -- I would tend to call it a *liberal*, *reformist* kind of model, the (conservative) liberal ideal marketed to the world by the postwar U.S. political establishment -- think Kennedy, Johnson....I've been a long time admirer of LBJ for various reasons, he was a schoolteacher earlier in his career, teaching the children of Mexican immigrants, and he was a Texan who hated the Klan. He fucked up big on Vietnam but even he admitted that.

Anyway, I won't deny that my envisioned policies are market socialism, but I don't see any reason to. I see folks use terms like liberalism and reformism like it's an inherently unqualified evil. But in my view, after a proletarian revolution, we can use the rule of law and the control of market forces to politically castrate the elite, and enfranchise the working class.

Frankly, one of the things I've found from my studies of historical revolutions and socialist states is that certain radical policies have destabilized the flow of vital commodities with disastrous results. From what I've gathered, the famine in China after the Great Leap Forward was a result of Mao reallocating labor from the farms in favor of rapidly industrializing the country, and the Ukrainian Holodomor is an example of difficulties associated with Stalin's collectivization policies. We've seen that in Vietnam, the country felt it was necessary to shift towards socialist-oritented market reforms, and it did have a beneficial effect on the economy. Likewise with many of Khruschev's reforms in the Soviet Union, and the policies that were adopted in Cuba after the Special Period.

I don't question your *humanistic intentions* here, but your *politics* are *far* from being either "Robo-" or "-commie"....The name is just a name. I consider myself a militant Socialist, who subscribes to Marx's analysis of capitalism, though disagreeing with some conclusions, who is sympathetic to Communism and is interested in learning more about it's viability.

I feel my politics are still very firmly on the radical Left however, believing as I do in heavily nationalized industry and democratized labor. Frankly, a lot of my views are similar to mutualism.

I'd have to *differ* with this characterization of the banking industry, or finance, which tends to be *more concentrated* and *centralized* than ever before, thanks to capitalism's deflation.Banking, no, it's definitely centralized. What I mean by decentralized is not banking but retail, and I mean this more in a sense of the means of distribution, since demand is derived from street level consumers. Supply of course is very much centralized, but it radiates outwards.

Yeah, I *agree* on the *logistics* part, but that's a *far different* matter from the *economic-political composition* of the economy itself.Which is why I feel the political composition of the economy needs to be smashed through armed struggle. None of my reforms will be possible in a society controlled by a corporate republic.

ckaihatsu

28th December 2009, 16:15

Well, unquestionably each and every revolution has occured within it's own historical context, this is a self-evident statement but what I feel it means is that the material conditions of each and every revolution will be different and so will require unique approaches each and everytime

Yeah -- right, right -- agreed.

- this is generally what interested me in Titoism.

Do tell.... Any links or anything to point to in particular?

I've been a long time admirer of LBJ for various reasons, he was a schoolteacher earlier in his career, teaching the children of Mexican immigrants, and he was a Texan who hated the Klan. He fucked up big on Vietnam but even he admitted that.

Anyway, I won't deny that my envisioned policies are market socialism, but I don't see any reason to. I see folks use terms like liberalism and reformism like it's an inherently unqualified evil.

Well, socio-political progress being what it is, we can do it *quickly*, *slowly*, or not at all -- *that's* the point of dealing with all of this stuff....

There *is* a *contradiction* in calling yourself a "Marxist-anything" and then saying that you'd be okay with market socialism. *Anything* market-oriented is *also* profit-oriented, by definition....

But in my view, after a proletarian revolution, we can use the rule of law and the control of market forces to politically castrate the elite, and enfranchise the working class.

This is *all* mottled and twisted around -- if there's a *proletarian revolution* why then would the proletariat *need* the rule of law or control of "market forces" -- ??? Once the revolution is complete the elite *has been* politically castrated, and the working class *has* been "enfranchised".

(Really, in a post-capitalist environment there would no longer *be* any classes, so the need for law or markets would make about as much sense as having law or markets within your own household.)

Frankly, one of the things I've found from my studies of historical revolutions and socialist states is that certain radical policies have destabilized the flow of vital commodities with disastrous results. From what I've gathered, the famine in China after the Great Leap Forward was a result of Mao reallocating labor from the farms in favor of rapidly industrializing the country,

(Uh, is Bob here? Bob Kindles to the front of the building, please....)

and the Ukrainian Holodomor is an example of difficulties associated with Stalin's collectivization policies. We've seen that in Vietnam, the country felt it was necessary to shift towards socialist-oritented market reforms, and it did have a beneficial effect on the economy. Likewise with many of Khruschev's reforms in the Soviet Union, and the policies that were adopted in Cuba after the Special Period.

So basically you're a Stalinist revisionist, at best.

The name is just a name. I consider myself a militant Socialist, who subscribes to Marx's analysis of capitalism, though disagreeing with some conclusions, who is sympathetic to Communism and is interested in learning more about it's viability.

I feel my politics are still very firmly on the radical Left however, believing as I do in heavily nationalized industry and democratized labor. Frankly, a lot of my views are similar to mutualism.

Banking, no, it's definitely centralized. What I mean by decentralized is not banking but retail, and I mean this more in a sense of the means of distribution, since demand is derived from street level consumers. Supply of course is very much centralized, but it radiates outwards.

Which is why I feel the political composition of the economy needs to be smashed through armed struggle. None of my reforms will be possible in a society controlled by a corporate republic.

Well, the militancy is certainly appreciated, but my concern is why you would want to give it all back once victory is achieved....

Technocrat

28th December 2009, 16:24

One of the biggest questions, one of the biggest hurdles I have yet to overcome in understanding Marxism, and one of the biggest things that keeps me from being an unreserved Communist instead of a hardline, militant Socialist in general is that I don't understand how goods would be distributed in a moneyless society, nor do I really understand how it would be decided how much would be needed of any given thing.

Let's take the staff of life as a very basic example: bread. Everyone wants bread, everyone needs it. But how, in a stateless, moneyless society, is society supposed to be able to know just how much flour to produce to meet everyone's demands, and just how is a stateless society to ensure that everyone's getting flour, and nobody's hoarding any, or even simply taking too much without any malicious intentions, leaving not enough for other sectors of society?

I ask this because I have no faith whatsoever in the Invisible Hand of the free market, the pagan god of the Libertarians, and I can at least understand the effectiveness of state planning committee's like Gosplan in the Soviet Union. However even there I am concerned, because I have read that while Gosplan was very effective at being able to predict and accomodate the production of capital goods, it was not so good at the prediction of demand for consumer goods. However, even if this could be rectified, organizations like Gosplan still require a state, and to some extent, currency.

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

Particularly this:

Some writers have gone on to suggest that with detailed use of real unit accounting and demand surveys a planned economy could operate without a capital market, in a situation of abundance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_%28economics%29),[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem#cite_note-17)[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem#cite_note-18) The purpose of the price mechanism is to allow individuals to recognise the opportunity cost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost) of decisions: in a state of abundance, there is no such cost.
Steady state

Robinson also noted that in a non-growth economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_economy) (what Marxists would call a situation of simple reproduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simple_reproduction&action=edit&redlink=1)) there would be an effective abundance of means of production, and so markets would not be needed.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem#cite_note-19) Von Mises acknowledged such a theoretical possibility in his original tract:
“ The static state can dispense with economic calculation. For here the same events in economic life are ever recurring; and if we assume that the first disposition of the static socialist economy follows on the basis of the final state of the competitive economy, we might at all events conceive of a socialist production system which is rationally controlled from an economic point of view.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem#cite_note-Mises-0) ” He contended, however, that stationary conditions never prevail in the real world. Changes in economic conditions are inevitable; and even if it were, the transition to socialism would be so chaotic as to preclude the existence of such a steady state from the start.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem#cite_note-Mises-0)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economic_calculation_problem&action=edit&section=13)] Project Cybersyn

Project Cybersyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn) is an example of attempting to plan the Chilean Economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Chile) through computer-aided calculation. It consisted of Telex machines located in workplaces communicating information in real time to a central control system. It was designed to manage investment based on the specifics of processes and their dependencies, but was only ever applied to internal investment within and between state owned businesses, not to consumer relationships. As such the system never included a way to calculate human utility, although this was planned, starting from a basis of rationing. Its overall impact is difficult to assess, as it was destroyed in 1973.(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem)
I've been a long time admirer of LBJ for various reasons, he was a schoolteacher earlier in his career, teaching the children of Mexican immigrants, and he was a Texan who hated the Klan. He fucked up big on Vietnam but even he admitted that.LBJ is one of my heroes - signed the civil rights act even though he knew he would be screwing his own party for at least 20 years. THAT'S sticking to your values.

Robocommie

29th December 2009, 07:25

Do tell.... Any links or anything to point to in particular?

No, just what I've picked up in general, but what Tito emphasized in his time was that the revolution has to take the form most suited to the country it takes place in, both because of it's material conditions and the regional culture. For him this meant that Yugoslavia had to go in it's own independent direction without taking orders from Moscow, but in a more general sense it means that no single pattern can be universally applied, and instead the revolution must adapt to fit the demands of culture and local conditions.

Well, socio-political progress being what it is, we can do it *quickly*, *slowly*, or not at all -- *that's* the point of dealing with all of this stuff....

There *is* a *contradiction* in calling yourself a "Marxist-anything" and then saying that you'd be okay with market socialism. *Anything* market-oriented is *also* profit-oriented, by definition....Given that no socialist nation in the history of humanity has done away with currency, I don't see how it's a contradiction. I'll concede that perhaps there is a definition of "market" which is not helping me here, but I have to say I kinda resent being cast as some kind of oddity or contradiction when most of the types of programs I've referred to here have been very common parts of transitional socialist visions.

This is *all* mottled and twisted around -- if there's a *proletarian revolution* why then would the proletariat *need* the rule of law or control of "market forces" -- ??? Once the revolution is complete the elite *has been* politically castrated, and the working class *has* been "enfranchised".

(Really, in a post-capitalist environment there would no longer *be* any classes, so the need for law or markets would make about as much sense as having law or markets within your own household.)
It's naive to suggest that people won't have disagreements between one another that would require a neutral court, these things did not arise in human societies by accident. It's also naive to suggest that a new elite could not arise even after a successful revolution, and so permanent safeguards, enforced by a democratically-elected state will be necessary to ensure the proper distribution of wealth so that resources continue to be available to everyone.

I'm not an anarchist, and there are certain institutions that will be necessary. Institutions like the FDA to control and enforce standards of quality, institutions to ensure that physicians are properly certified to practice medicine and that they continue to behave ethically and responsibly. I had this realization after a friend of mine who works at a hospital recently had to report a doctor for coming in to work drunk.

Law, markets, they're all just mechanisms of practicality that can be made to serve the purposes of the masses, and not used to corral and oppress them as they currently are.

So basically you're a Stalinist revisionist, at best.
I don't know if anyone ever uses terms like Stalinist or revisionist as anything but derogatory terms, and certainly the qualifier "at best" seems to be implied to be denigrating, but whatever.

Look, to quote Desmond Tutu, "When people were hungry, Jesus didn't say, "Now is that political or social?" He said, "I feed you." Because the good news to a hungry person is bread."

I don't really care much about political labels, something this place helped me realize after I posted a thread about making my mind up about things. Labels like state capitalist, liberal, Stalinist, even absurd things like "reactionary" get thrown around a great deal here. But the policies I believe in, the mechanisms of economics I believe in, I do so because I have come to feel that they are the most effective way of ensuring that every human being has unimpeded access to the fundamentals of human existence. Because the revolution to a hungry person is bread.

If there are those who will take issue at my interpretation and call names or cast me out for it, well, so be it. But I'm going to continue to believe as I do, because I know what I care about, and I don't need the approval of political cliques to feel secure in that. It's not about them, it's about everyone.

Well, the militancy is certainly appreciated, but my concern is why you would want to give it all back once victory is achieved....Er, I mean, if you consider the forcible reallocation of farmland, and the worker seizure of factories and the free provision of utilities and services to be "giving it all back" then I can't really say I understand what you stand for.

ckaihatsu

29th December 2009, 08:50

No, just what I've picked up in general, but what Tito emphasized in his time was that the revolution has to take the form most suited to the country it takes place in, both because of it's material conditions and the regional culture. For him this meant that Yugoslavia had to go in it's own independent direction without taking orders from Moscow, but in a more general sense it means that no single pattern can be universally applied, and instead the revolution must adapt to fit the demands of culture and local conditions.

Okay.... I've heard that Yugoslavia during the Tito years was quite socially progressive and ethnically integrated. It worked until it came under increasing international pressure.

Well, socio-political progress being what it is, we can do it *quickly*, *slowly*, or not at all -- *that's* the point of dealing with all of this stuff....

There *is* a *contradiction* in calling yourself a "Marxist-anything" and then saying that you'd be okay with market socialism. *Anything* market-oriented is *also* profit-oriented, by definition....

Given that no socialist nation in the history of humanity has done away with currency, I don't see how it's a contradiction.

Yes, there haven't been any areas of the world that have been able to be *successfully* socialist -- perhaps that's why they've *had* to depend on conventional (market / capitalist) systems of value exchange.

But, as you just noted, we don't *have* to apply past patterns to future revolutions, so there *may* be a way to push past the traditional dependency on market-based, labor-squeezing, profit-making capitalist banking.

I'll concede that perhaps there is a definition of "market" which is not helping me here, but I have to say I kinda resent being cast as some kind of oddity or contradiction when most of the types of programs I've referred to here have been very common parts of transitional socialist visions.

Okay -- well, don't take it personally. We're just talking politics here and it doesn't extend through to your entire life and personality or personal identity.

It's naive to suggest that people won't have disagreements between one another that would require a neutral court, these things did not arise in human societies by accident.

Certainly, but please notice that you're again *leaning* on past historical practices, almost as *inevitable* models for future politics. In the case of disagreements that *don't* have to take private property rights into account would there be an objective need for such a heavy-handed authority, like a judge, to exist?

It's also naive to suggest that a new elite could not arise even after a successful revolution, and so permanent safeguards, enforced by a democratically-elected state will be necessary to ensure the proper distribution of wealth so that resources continue to be available to everyone.

Okay, this is decidedly an anarchist argument -- allow me to, ahem, *recycle* some past content here:

I *like* to think that this classic anarchism vs. Marxism schism is simply a difference of *focus*, that of micro vs. macro, respectively. But I just can't accept the profound anxiety and mistrust of the anarchist position that the proletariat would be inherently *unable* to correctly wield its control over the state as a means of undoing the bourgeoisie. It's certainly understandable and appreciable that there's a concern about a vanguard "staying too long" in a specialized position of coordinating the revolution against the capitalists, but I maintain that once the capitalist enemy is overthrown and scattered the general proletariat population will be freed up to refocus their energies in self-determined ways, at their localities.

Consider how much of our political attention is taken up with keeping tabs on the atrocities created by the bourgeoisie, *at the international level* -- with this "political overhead" removed there would only be the self-activity of the workers wherever they're at. Even a class-war-victorious vanguard would not be able to surreptitiously "command" enough political capital to become an elitist, privileged layer of its own, against the masses, if the revolution was truly worldwide and won full control over the assets and resources that we see today (or better). Simply put, a post-revolution vanguard in a classless society would be absolutely *extraneous* and any claims to power could easily go unheeded by the world's then-self-liberated population.

I'm not an anarchist, and there are certain institutions that will be necessary. Institutions like the FDA to control and enforce standards of quality, institutions to ensure that physicians are properly certified to practice medicine and that they continue to behave ethically and responsibly. I had this realization after a friend of mine who works at a hospital recently had to report a doctor for coming in to work drunk.

Yes, I consider myself to be pro-regulations as well. The *difference* to consider, though, is what the role of the (capitalist) state is *today* in regards to the public interest, versus what it could be in the *absence* of domineering private interests.

Law, markets, they're all just mechanisms of practicality that can be made to serve the purposes of the masses, and not used to corral and oppress them as they currently are.

Well, I *do* have to take issue with you on the *markets* part, because, by any standard definition, the use of markets implies a process by which economic activity is motivated by the goal of extracting a profit from the use of labor (and from exchanges).

As long as markets and profit-seeking exist there will be a large-scale, aggregate interest in protecting the interests of private wealth and profit-making opportunities throughout all of society.

So basically you're a Stalinist revisionist, at best.

I don't know if anyone ever uses terms like Stalinist or revisionist as anything but derogatory terms, and certainly the qualifier "at best" seems to be implied to be denigrating, but whatever.

I assure you I'm not here to throw around juvenile insults -- a Stalinist revisionist is someone who did what they could to bring about the dissolution of the Stalinist-bureaucratic state, in favor of international bourgeois financial forms of economic control, particularly in the latter years of the U.S.S.R. -- think Gorbachev.

While the bureaucratic-collectivist states of the U.S.S.R., Cuba, and others were *not* directly working-class controlled, they *were* relatively more-collectivized and less-privatized in composition than under wholly market-based systems like the United States or the European Union.

I was pointing out the "lower end" of the politics you've been espousing -- if you would readily identify with economic growth for its own sake, without considering *who* that economic growth is benefitting, then you've firmly established yourself as someone who is *fully* in favor of *pro-market* revisions ("reforms").

Look, to quote Desmond Tutu, "When people were hungry, Jesus didn't say, "Now is that political or social?" He said, "I feed you." Because the good news to a hungry person is bread."

Sure, that's fine and all to be anti-hunger and pro-food, but *now* who's being naive? I think we *both* know that the politics and logistics of getting humane living conditions around to the neediest people of the world takes a bit more than good intentions.

I don't really care much about political labels, something this place helped me realize after I posted a thread about making my mind up about things. Labels like state capitalist, liberal, Stalinist, even absurd things like "reactionary" get thrown around a great deal here. But the policies I believe in, the mechanisms of economics I believe in, I do so because I have come to feel that they are the most effective way of ensuring that every human being has unimpeded access to the fundamentals of human existence. Because the revolution to a hungry person is bread.

If there are those who will take issue at my interpretation and call names or cast me out for it, well, so be it. But I'm going to continue to believe as I do, because I know what I care about, and I don't need the approval of political cliques to feel secure in that. It's not about them, it's about everyone.

Okay, again, your intentions and motivations are as pure as the driven snow, but the reason the pantheon of political labels exists is because of the complexities of political positions that arise in relation to historical political realities. What we're able to do here at RevLeft is to *use* these political labels *constructively* in order to *see* the entire taxonomy of political positions. Hashing these things out with the use of concepts is *much easier* than hurtling oneself into the political arena in the real world *without* understanding what one is getting oneself into.

Er, I mean, if you consider the forcible reallocation of farmland, and the worker seizure of factories and the free provision of utilities and services to be "giving it all back" then I can't really say I understand what you stand for.

Okay, let me put it this way, then -- in the case of a minor, yet persistent disagreement between two neighboring farmers *after* this forcible reallocation of farmland en masse, *how* would they *settle* their dispute? There would *have* to be some kind of overarching *authority*, correct? And what would the economic-political *basis* for this authority be? If you allow *markets* to exist then there will definitely be a political faction (at least) that will argue and politick for a certain market-based *valuation* of *both farms* (all farms) that will be a major factor in determining ownership, jurisdiction, and even potentially the outcome of the dispute.

My underlying point here is that *market-based* valuations are *inherently* at odds with truly working-class control of productive assets like farmland and factories. A mass workers' movement *could* very well seize the major implements of societal progress, as you're showing support for here, but if it then uses that political power to institute a *return* to a market-based system of economic valuations then it's effectively returned *political power* to those who deal primarily in market-based transactions.

Robocommie

29th December 2009, 22:04

Okay.... I've heard that Yugoslavia during the Tito years was quite socially progressive and ethnically integrated. It worked until it came under increasing international pressure.

Ethnic conflict in polyglot nations is an interesting subject. Recently I read a lot of stuff on the situation in Indonesia, how many people are dismissive of the conflicts there as being, "Well those people have always hated each other and they always will." Referring to the fact that these conflicts flared up after Suharto lost power, they say only a strongman like Suharto could keep such a fractured nation together, just like they say only a man like Hussein could keep Iraq orderly. But as I was recently reading, this completely overlooks the fact that such strong-arm regimes tend to aggravate existing conflicts and tensions by alienating minority groups through repression. In other words, sure, Suharto could keep things orderly while he was in power, but once he was out, the very methods by which he kept power made things even worse than they were before.

I don't think Tito did the same things, as I understand it his repressions were mainly aimed at pro-Soviets, but it's something I'd be interested to read.

Yes, there haven't been any areas of the world that have been able to be *successfully* socialist -- perhaps that's why they've *had* to depend on conventional (market / capitalist) systems of value exchange.

I'd disagree that there aren't areas that have been successfully socialist. The situation in Cuba has vastly improved over the way things were under Batista, the situation in Vietnam has vastly improved as well, and while things are not as ideal as Ho Chi Minh wanted them, the fact is that Vietnam IS a lot more developed and autonomous then it was under French control.

But, as you just noted, we don't *have* to apply past patterns to future revolutions, so there *may* be a way to push past the traditional dependency on market-based, labor-squeezing, profit-making capitalist banking.

"Labor-squeezing" makes it sound like I'm in favor of keeping a strong managerial class, but that's not the case. I am a proponent of the democratization of labor and making the worker the primary beneficiary of his or her own efforts. And as far as banking goes, it's really just a method of delivering funds to where they were needed for the development of new industry/agriculture or the expansion of existing ones. It would be state controlled and not for profit.

Okay -- well, don't take it personally. We're just talking politics here and it doesn't extend through to your entire life and personality or personal identity.

Okay, cool. In that case you're a lot more pleasant to discuss things with than some on this board, that's for sure. ;)

Certainly, but please notice that you're again *leaning* on past historical practices, almost as *inevitable* models for future politics. In the case of disagreements that *don't* have to take private property rights into account would there be an objective need for such a heavy-handed authority, like a judge, to exist?

To a certain extent, past historical practices are going to have to be relied on because we can use them as examples of what have worked and what have not worked. But as far as judges and courts go, certainly law does not exist solely for property rights. Any kind of grievance that would need to be arbitrated, whether domestic family issues like child custody or issues of violent crime, or even redress against the decisions of regulatory bodies, all of which will necessitate an impartial judicial authority, albeit one that is both accountable to oversight and transparent at all levels.

Okay, this is decidedly an anarchist argument -- allow me to, ahem, *recycle* some past content here:

That's not a very convincing argument to me, simply because a governing body, whether you want to refer to it as a vanguard or not, is an a priori for the proper functioning of the mechanisms of society, and since I do not believe in the rapid attainability of anarcho-syndicalism, social mechanisms and institutions remain an a priori for socialism, in my view.

Yes, I consider myself to be pro-regulations as well. The *difference* to consider, though, is what the role of the (capitalist) state is *today* in regards to the public interest, versus what it could be in the *absence* of domineering private interests.

Most certainly I intend to dismantle the influence of private interests from the state. Make no mistake, Goldman Sachs, Starbucks, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Phillip Morris what have you, they will all be dismantled, their assets confiscated and redistributed to the masses.

Well, I *do* have to take issue with you on the *markets* part, because, by any standard definition, the use of markets implies a process by which economic activity is motivated by the goal of extracting a profit from the use of labor (and from exchanges).

As long as markets and profit-seeking exist there will be a large-scale, aggregate interest in protecting the interests of private wealth and profit-making opportunities throughout all of society.

Okay, here's my thinking on this issue: When it comes to my personal expenses, I spend the most on rent & groceries, utilities, and education, in the form of college tuition. I don't have health insurance and my health is decent so I don't spend anything on healthcare, though I surely would get checkups more frequently if I could. If my education was free, and my healthcare was free, and I no longer had to worry about paying for electricity, water OR gas, then I would have an abundantly larger amount of money to pay for rent and groceries and still have more left over for whatever ridiculous waste of my time I felt like buying at the time.

More or less this would be the same situation for most people. And since agriculture, like cereal crops, fruit orchards and livestock, would be distributed amongst the rural population into small scale commercial farms, which statistically are far more productive than large scale farming projects, including large scale commercial farms, every individual would have command of a significant source of renewable wealth. Likewise with industry, because each worker would receive a fair payout of the cooperative's annual earnings.

In this system, every worker would receive a substantial reward from their OWN labor, which they would have full democratic control over, and the state would assist in ensuring that many basic needs, like power and water, are provided for anyhow.

Furthermore, if any of these farmers, miners, or factory workers, or their children, should decide they'd like to become a doctor or an engineer or a lawyer, education is free and they can do so without having to worry about where the money is going to come from.

Import-export imbalances will be addressed by the development of import substitution industrialization. There won't be unemployment in the long term, because state oversight committees can look at where there is shortfall in employment and construct new sources of industry or agriculture in those places, giving them over to the workers once completed. The nature of these new workplaces can even be tailored to fit the import demands of a given economy, further improving a given nation's self-sufficiency.

I was pointing out the "lower end" of the politics you've been espousing -- if you would readily identify with economic growth for its own sake, without considering *who* that economic growth is benefitting, then you've firmly established yourself as someone who is *fully* in favor of *pro-market* revisions ("reforms").

My concern is most definitely very much with who economic growth benefits. I loathe voodoo economists and their supply side bullshit.

Sure, that's fine and all to be anti-hunger and pro-food, but *now* who's being naive? I think we *both* know that the politics and logistics of getting humane living conditions around to the neediest people of the world takes a bit more than good intentions.

Of course, which is why I'm outlining policies, which would be enforced by socialist states, to ensure these logistics are handled properly.

Okay, let me put it this way, then -- in the case of a minor, yet persistent disagreement between two neighboring farmers *after* this forcible reallocation of farmland en masse, *how* would they *settle* their dispute? There would *have* to be some kind of overarching *authority*, correct? And what would the economic-political *basis* for this authority be? If you allow *markets* to exist then there will definitely be a political faction (at least) that will argue and politick for a certain market-based *valuation* of *both farms* (all farms) that will be a major factor in determining ownership, jurisdiction, and even potentially the outcome of the dispute.

I'm afraid that in order to really address this scenario more, I'd have to know more about the scenario in question. If it's a boundary dispute then that should be readily fixable by actually looking at the details of land distribution. If it's a question of damages incurred, then the guilty party should compensate the plaintiff. I fail to see how ownership will become an issue though, if proper agrarian reform is instituted than absentee landlordism will not be allowed.

My underlying point here is that *market-based* valuations are *inherently* at odds with truly working-class control of productive assets like farmland and factories. A mass workers' movement *could* very well seize the major implements of societal progress, as you're showing support for here, but if it then uses that political power to institute a *return* to a market-based system of economic valuations then it's effectively returned *political power* to those who deal primarily in market-based transactions.

My question is, who is it that makes up "those who deal primarily in market-based transactions"? A lot of speculators and investment banking will become irrelevant and obsolete since factories will be operated under the assumption of one worker, one share, and farms will be owned by those who work the land and nobody else.

ckaihatsu

30th December 2009, 14:12

Ethnic conflict in polyglot nations is an interesting subject. Recently I read a lot of stuff on the situation in Indonesia, how many people are dismissive of the conflicts there as being, "Well those people have always hated each other and they always will." Referring to the fact that these conflicts flared up after Suharto lost power, they say only a strongman like Suharto could keep such a fractured nation together, just like they say only a man like Hussein could keep Iraq orderly. But as I was recently reading, this completely overlooks the fact that such strong-arm regimes tend to aggravate existing conflicts and tensions by alienating minority groups through repression. In other words, sure, Suharto could keep things orderly while he was in power, but once he was out, the very methods by which he kept power made things even worse than they were before.

Right.

I don't think Tito did the same things, as I understand it his repressions were mainly aimed at pro-Soviets, but it's something I'd be interested to read.

I'd disagree that there aren't areas that have been successfully socialist. The situation in Cuba has vastly improved over the way things were under Batista, the situation in Vietnam has vastly improved as well, and while things are not as ideal as Ho Chi Minh wanted them, the fact is that Vietnam IS a lot more developed and autonomous then it was under French control.

I definitely agree with you on Cuba, but I don't normally see Vietnam touted (by the left) the same way as Cuba. My understanding is that Vietnam won the political (combative) war against the U.S., but it had to right away allow in world trade for its own economy anyway. I tend to see it as part of the East Asian "emerging markets", with high rates of growth (until recently) due to a well-exploited domestic population.

[T]here *may* be a way to push past the traditional dependency on market-based, labor-squeezing, profit-making capitalist banking.

"Labor-squeezing" makes it sound like I'm in favor of keeping a strong managerial class, but that's not the case. I am a proponent of the democratization of labor and making the worker the primary beneficiary of his or her own efforts. And as far as banking goes, it's really just a method of delivering funds to where they were needed for the development of new industry/agriculture or the expansion of existing ones. It would be state controlled and not for profit.

Okay, this sounds like the revolutionary socialist transition away from capitalist economic mechanisms. Here's how I described it, recently:

Let's counterpose the current *political meaning* of currency to that which would develop at the hands of a(n increasingly) victorious working class revolutionary movement.

In using the *exact same* pool of existing currency notes the working class could *immediately* change the *political meaning* and *usage* of that circulation system. Too much of it dammed up on banks' balance sheets, and in hedge funds and private equity funds? The proletariat's revolutionary mass control of the formerly bourgeois state would be the deciding factor -- it would have the mass support to *dictate* the freeing up of blocked funds so as to provide liquidity for immediate re-employment and wages.

Too many white-collar hacks ossifying the financial / political superstructure? The entire strata of those "job" positions could be collapsed, thus changing the actual *organs* of the economy altogether, in favor of job positions in the social services that fulfill working class (human) needs.

Okay, cool. In that case you're a lot more pleasant to discuss things with than some on this board, that's for sure. ;)

Hey, thanks -- I like being liked!

To a certain extent, past historical practices are going to have to be relied on because we can use them as examples of what have worked and what have not worked. But as far as judges and courts go, certainly law does not exist solely for property rights. Any kind of grievance that would need to be arbitrated, whether domestic family issues like child custody or issues of violent crime, or even redress against the decisions of regulatory bodies, all of which will necessitate an impartial judicial authority, albeit one that is both accountable to oversight and transparent at all levels.

I tend to see even domestic issues like child custody or acts of violence as *also* being mostly attributable to the institution of private property. If people, including children, had the freedom and safety to go and live anywhere they chose -- or even *didn't* fully intentionally choose -- then the stresses and strains of *having* to live in certain private-property-mandated arrangements would be relieved altogether.

We could get a clue from the likes of the wealthy who *already* live in a kind of socialism due to their ease of movement through the world-as-it-is -- the very notion of being "stuck" in a relationship is laughable at such strata since all are more than capable of setting up on their own in the nearest real estate of their choosing at a moment's notice.

That's not a very convincing argument to me, simply because a governing body, whether you want to refer to it as a vanguard or not, is an a priori for the proper functioning of the mechanisms of society, and since I do not believe in the rapid attainability of anarcho-syndicalism, social mechanisms and institutions remain an a priori for socialism, in my view.

Then perhaps we have differing *notions* of what a vanguard is, and is for -- in my understanding a vanguard is the *political leadership* of a nascent international revolutionary workers' society. This means that the vanguard would *never* be an *elite*, or *substitute* for the self-empowerment and activity of the workers themselves, it would be more of a "go-to" body in dealing with the ongoing offensive against the capitalist class. In this way it would be more like a "hired gun" rather than a "sitting potentate", for the working class.

Most certainly I intend to dismantle the influence of private interests from the state. Make no mistake, Goldman Sachs, Starbucks, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Phillip Morris what have you, they will all be dismantled, their assets confiscated and redistributed to the masses.

Yup....

Okay, here's my thinking on this issue: When it comes to my personal expenses, I spend the most on rent & groceries, utilities, and education, in the form of college tuition. I don't have health insurance and my health is decent so I don't spend anything on healthcare, though I surely would get checkups more frequently if I could. If my education was free, and my healthcare was free, and I no longer had to worry about paying for electricity, water OR gas, then I would have an abundantly larger amount of money to pay for rent and groceries and still have more left over for whatever ridiculous waste of my time I felt like buying at the time.

More or less this would be the same situation for most people. And since agriculture, like cereal crops, fruit orchards and livestock, would be distributed amongst the rural population into small scale commercial farms, which statistically are far more productive than large scale farming projects, including large scale commercial farms, every individual would have command of a significant source of renewable wealth. Likewise with industry, because each worker would receive a fair payout of the cooperative's annual earnings.

In this system, every worker would receive a substantial reward from their OWN labor, which they would have full democratic control over, and the state would assist in ensuring that many basic needs, like power and water, are provided for anyhow.

Furthermore, if any of these farmers, miners, or factory workers, or their children, should decide they'd like to become a doctor or an engineer or a lawyer, education is free and they can do so without having to worry about where the money is going to come from.

Import-export imbalances will be addressed by the development of import substitution industrialization. There won't be unemployment in the long term, because state oversight committees can look at where there is shortfall in employment and construct new sources of industry or agriculture in those places, giving them over to the workers once completed. The nature of these new workplaces can even be tailored to fit the import demands of a given economy, further improving a given nation's self-sufficiency.

Okay -- I won't quibble. I think this is all consistent, again, with a revolutionary socialist transition towards full communism.

My concern is most definitely very much with who economic growth benefits. I loathe voodoo economists and their supply side bullshit.

Of course, which is why I'm outlining policies, which would be enforced by socialist states, to ensure these logistics are handled properly.

My underlying point here is that *market-based* valuations are *inherently* at odds with truly working-class control of productive assets like farmland and factories. A mass workers' movement *could* very well seize the major implements of societal progress, as you're showing support for here, but if it then uses that political power to institute a *return* to a market-based system of economic valuations then it's effectively returned *political power* to those who deal primarily in market-based transactions.

My question is, who is it that makes up "those who deal primarily in market-based transactions"? A lot of speculators and investment banking will become irrelevant and obsolete since factories will be operated under the assumption of one worker, one share, and farms will be owned by those who work the land and nobody else.

As long as the workers and farmers *decide* to *disallow* market-based transactions *altogether*, instead favoring *their own* control of the economic levers of the economy, through state control, then I think you're solid. Remember these: -- ?

Most certainly I intend to dismantle the influence of private interests from the state. Make no mistake, Goldman Sachs, Starbucks, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Phillip Morris what have you, they will all be dismantled, their assets confiscated and redistributed to the masses.

And as far as banking goes, it's really just a method of delivering funds to where they were needed for the development of new industry/agriculture or the expansion of existing ones. It would be state controlled and not for profit.