What does an anarchist country look like?

[Nesse]

The title says it all. What does it look like?



*Sorry about the misspelling i mean an anarchist not and.
Im new here

[Broletariat]

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/pam_intro.html


Essentially it looks like a Communist "country", Communist in this sense being used to mean the final progression of Communism.

[StoneFrog]

No such thing as an Anarchist country.
A country means a government and state, which anarchists denounce.

[ContrarianLemming]

No such thing as an Anarchist country.
A country means a government and state, which anarchists denounce.

Thta's not actually true, a country is simply a geographical area.

An anarchist region would look like 1936 spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_revolution)

[Red Saxon]

In an Anarchist "country," collectives would manage areas and provide services.

It really depends on your definition of the word 'country'. If you're talking about geo-political borders defined by governments, then no, anarchists would be against that. If you're talking about areas of common language or cultural ties, then those could work in an Anarchist "country."

Government is basically being chopped to so small a scale that it just inhabits the confines of the individual collectives, the rules of which to be defined by the members of the community who live there.

[AK]

Anarchist country: A territory where there is no state and the means of production are owned by all of society; (i.e., no individual) thereby eliminating all classes.

However, the aims of both anarchism and communism are to create a global, stateless, classless society.

[Crusade]

No such thing as an Anarchist country.
A country means a government and state, which anarchists denounce.

Define "government". Being a "government" doesn't mandate being in a position of authority, it's merely an occupation. Just like a janitor's job of mopping up a hallway doesn't mean he has authority over people walking through that hallway, and it's not "illegal" for them to clean the floor themselves.


Also, an Anarchist "country" can exist. You don't need a monopoly on force to be considered a country.

[ComradeOm]

Also, an Anarchist "country" can exist. You don't need a monopoly on force to be considered a country.Mute was apparently interpreting the term "country" as "nationstate". Which is not uncommon practice

[Crusade]

Mute was apparently interpreting the term "country" as "nationstate". Which is not uncommon practice


Ah, I see. Lots of distinctions need to be made when Anarchists are speaking. :lol:

[Nesse]

I thinki i know the basic idea of how anarhcist "country" would work. But how would anarchists keep it that way? If there is no society how can they defend themselves from imperialism?

[Spawn of Stalin]

Nobody wants to abolish or eliminate society, anarchists however do want to do away with the state. For what it's worth I agree with you, I personally do not believe that an anarchist country could defend itself from an imperialistic attack, however most anarchists will tell you that the workers' militia will take care of defence.

[bie]

I know that question was directed to anarchists, and I personally don't know the answer, but it reminds me a case presented by M.Parenti:

Engels offers an apposite account of an uprising in Spain in 1872-73 in which anarchists seized power in municipalities across the country. At first, the situation looked promising. The king had abdicated and the bourgeois government could muster but a few thousand ill-trained troops. Yet this ragtag force prevailed because it faced a thoroughly parochialized rebellion. "Each town proclaimed itself as a sovereign canton and set up a revolutionary committee (junta)," Engels writes. "[E]ach town acted on its own, declaring that the important thing was not cooperation with other towns but separation from them, thus precluding any possibility of a combined attack [against bourgeois forces]." It was "the fragmentation and isolation of the revolutionary forces which enabled the government troops to smash one revolt after the other."
from: http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/2009/01/27/left_anticommun_1.php

[Os Cangaceiros]

Thta's not actually true, a country is simply a geographical area.


Perhaps, but the common usage almost always refers to the nation-state. No one refers to the Rocky Mountains as a "country", for example.

EDIT: Ah, I see that ComradeOm already mentioned this.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I know that question was directed to anarchists, and I personally don't know the answer, but it reminds me a case presented by M.Parenti:

from: http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/2009/01/27/left_anticommun_1.php

I'm not entirely sure how a revolt in pre-industrial Spain is relevant to how modern anarchists see the future and coordinate strategy. Anarchism is an ever-evolving praxis, and most of us are open to changing tactics as situations evolve.

[Robocommie]

I'm getting the impression that an anarchist society would basically be like a league of city states, similar to ancient Greece, except these city states would be genuine direct democracies and worker's collectives instead of slave-owning plutocracies.

[AK]

I'm getting the impression that an anarchist society would basically be like a league of city states, similar to ancient Greece, except these city states would be genuine direct democracies and worker's collectives instead of slave-owning plutocracies.
Pretty much, yeah. I remember an anarchist saying it would be like a decentralised federation of workers councils.

[this is an invasion]

Sorta like this

http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/earth.jpg

[AK]

Sorta like this

http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/earth.jpg
Tsk tsk, that's capitalist society.

[Psy]

Pretty much, yeah. I remember an anarchist saying it would be like a decentralised federation of workers councils.

Yet a anarchist world would still need to deal with centralized production they inherit from capitalists, Marxists see this centralization as a blessing with more efficient production resulting in lower social labor time yet for anarchist it make a decentralized federation of workers councils problematic.

That I said I don't see any reason why anarchists would object to a established communist order with centralized planning and means of production if actually had effective local representation and workers rather have more free time through centralization of production then more local production.

[Red Saxon]

That I said I don't see any reason why anarchists would object to a established communist order with centralized planning and means of production if actually had effective local representation and workers rather have more free time through centralization of production then more local production.The key word there is order, which brings to mind images of force.

[AK]

Define "government".
In this case, I'm suggesting the centralised institution which has legal authority over the state.

[The Hong Se Sun]

It would look good till the capitalist started to act autonomously, then the Anarchist either arrest/kill them thus destroying the anarchist structure. So in short they either abandon actual anarchy to stay off capitalism or they fall to revisionism. And I have to disagree that Spain was an example of anarchism which I'm sure may cause an up roar but it's true. All the anarchist I know claim many historical events in which anarchism was practiced but most all were actually cases of anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism. While it is a beautiful idea it is a Utopian one.

[AK]

It would look good till the capitalist started to act autonomously, then the Anarchist either arrest/kill them thus destroying the anarchist structure. So in short they either abandon actual anarchy to stay off capitalism or they fall to revisionism. And I have to disagree that Spain was an example of anarchism which I'm sure may cause an up roar but it's true. All the anarchist I know claim many historical events in which anarchism was practiced but most all were actually cases of anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism. While it is a beautiful idea it is a Utopian one.
Capitalists in an anarchist society? Anarchist revisionism? Where the hell are you getting this from?
I think you ought to learn more about anarchism, comrade...

[Crusade]

It would look good till the capitalist started to act autonomously, then the Anarchist either arrest/kill them thus destroying the anarchist structure. So in short they either abandon actual anarchy to stay off capitalism or they fall to revisionism.

What? If there was a minority of Capitalists in an Anarchist society how would they ever gain power? How would they somehow gain private ownership? Who would give it to them? Why would they when they have nothing to gain? :confused: And why would you have to kill them? There are other ways of solving problems without FORCING people to do things.

An Anarchists guide to resisting Capitalism, Lesson 1:

Capitalist: I'll give you this spankin' new piece of paper if you give me private ownership of this factory.
Anarchist: No

[Psy]

The key word there is order, which brings to mind images of force.
You can't get away from having a social order especially with Marx's definition where it comes from relations to production thus you can't have production without a social order.

[bie]

I thinki i know the basic idea of how anarhcist "country" would work. But how would anarchists keep it that way? If there is no society how can they defend themselves from imperialism?
In my opinion they don't really care about that. I doubt if any thought about this sort of things seriously. It is just like a youth subculture - they will grow out of this.

[Red Saxon]

You can't get away from having a social order especially with Marx's definition where it comes from relations to production thus you can't have production without a social order.Then we have to distinguish between a centralized authoritarian authority like the Soviet government and a direct democracy controlled by the workers within an commune. The Soviet Government simply forced workers to grow crops and raise cattle and then promptly took their products away from them. In an Anarchist "state," there would be power vested only in the commune and it would ultimately be the commune's decision over the means of production.

Direct democracy of the workers themselves is the only form of authority I would respect.


In my opinion they don't really care about that. I doubt if any thought about this sort of things seriously. It is just like a youth subculture - they will grow out of this.We've been around for a few hundred years with an organized belief system and you call it a youth subculture? I'm offended by that.

[Zanthorus]

Maybe we should ask Engels who wrote about "the organization of a society which still has no state" in his discussion of the Iroqouis Gens (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch03.htm). Interesting by the way how in this society without a state there was "two principal war-chiefs, with equal powers and equal authority". So much for an anarchist territory being unable to defend itself as per the usual beuracratic apologism we see on these boards.

Or maybe Engels was right when he noted that "all the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term."

[Psy]

Then we have to distinguish between a centralized authoritarian authority like the Soviet government and a direct democracy controlled by the workers within an commune. The Soviet Government simply forced workers to grow crops and raise cattle and then promptly took their products away from them. In an Anarchist "state," there would be power vested only in the commune and it would ultimately be the commune's decision over the means of production.

Direct democracy of the workers themselves is the only form of authority I would respect.
The USSR is not really a model of a centralized communist social order as it did not inherit a significant centralized industrial base and by the time it got one Stalin purged the USSR of Bolsheviks.

If we go back to the Bolsheviks they only took products away from farmers as a war measure after NEP was adopted as a stop gap measure till revolution spread to a industrial nation that could modernize Russia. Also collectivization under the Bolsheviks was encouraged but not forced like under Stalin.

As for an Anarchist "state", like I said early the problem is production being centralized on a global scale meaning you have a problem of production producing for consumption far beyond the boundaries of the community it is in and most communities not being self-sufficient instead depending on production far outside their boundaries.

[bie]

Apart of the all ideological and imaginary etc. crap should I assume that you cannot even answer a simple question?



I thinki i know the basic idea of how anarhcist "country" would work. But how would anarchists keep it that way? If there is no society how can they defend themselves from imperialism?

[Zanthorus]

Apart of the all ideological and imaginary etc. crap should I assume that you cannot even answer a simple question?

Again, maybe you should've asked Engels who noted the existence of "two principal war-chiefs, with equal powers and equal authority" in "the organization of a society which still has no state."

[bie]

Again, maybe you should've asked Engels who noted the existence of "two principal war-chiefs, with equal powers and equal authority" in "the organization of a society which still has no state."
Should I understand that you want to defend against imperialism by taking the example from Iroquis tribe? Don't you think that the modern warfare could be a little more complex? Can we know in detail how do you imagine yourself such defense in XXI century?

[eyedrop]

Apart of the all ideological and imaginary etc. crap should I assume that you cannot even answer a simple question?
I thinki i know the basic idea of how anarhcist "country" would work. But how would anarchists keep it that way? If there is no society how can they defend themselves from imperialism?

The same way it's usually done, divert parts of the industrial capasity to war production and train people.

If a hypothetical anarchist controlled area has 90% of the world against them with little social instability, it's going be a bloodbath no matter what they do.

[bie]

The same way it's usually done, divert parts of the industrial capasity to war production and train people.

If a hypothetical anarchist controlled area has 90% of the world against them with little social instability, it's going be a bloodbath no matter what they do.
This is too general. Who will organize all of that if there are no state institutions, only a loose network of productive units (even assuming that they can cooperate, that is not so certain)?

[eyedrop]

This is too general. Who will organize all of that if there are no state institutions, only a loose network of productive units (even assuming that they can cooperate, that is not so certain)?

I don't really have a crystal ball to plan exactly how things will go down for the generalised hypothetical situation.

Let's say the industrial federation and/or the residents federation calls out for a unified war effort. Then the local cooperatives sends in information on what they can help with.

Then a bunch of propositions for how those available resources should most efficiently be used are voted on. Or a war council are elected (or chosen according to demarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy)) and organises the unified war effort, while one still keeps a localised veto right.

All of this is off-course dependant on that most of the local municipalities want and are willing to sacrifice to repel the invaders.

War games masturbating isn't particularly fun :(

[bie]

I don't really have a crystal ball to plan exactly how things will go down for the generalised hypothetical situation.

Let's say the industrial federation and/or the residents federation calls out for a unified war effort. Then the local cooperatives sends in information on what they can help with.

Then a bunch of propositions for how those available resources should most efficiently be used are voted on. Or a war council are elected (or chosen according to demarchy) and organises the unified war effort, while one still keeps a localised veto right.

All of this is off-course dependant on that most of the local municipalities want and are willing to sacrifice to repel the invaders.

War games masturbating isn't particularly fun
This question is relevant since the revolutionary society will face the state of war not accidentally but - inevitably. The historic experience tells us that the revolutionary workers republics (starting from Paris Commune) were in the constant state of war. Look at the history of the Soviet Union. Civil War, the constant threat of another invasion in late 1920, second world war, cold war etc. Bourgeoisie will not give away its privileges easily. Revolution is not a picnic. You will need to maintain not only a "War Council" but thousands of other institutions, ministries etc. to survive the onslaught. You will need to maintain the conscription, hierarchy and discipline if you want it or not. The alternative is the so called "white terror". There will be no trials - just bullets (like in Finnish, Hungarian, Bavarian Soviet Republics and many others)

[eyedrop]

This question is relevant since the revolutionary society will face the state of war not accidentally but - inevitably. The historic experience tells us that the revolutionary workers republics (starting from Paris Commune) were in the constant state of war. Look at the history of the Soviet Union. Civil War, the constant threat of another invasion in late 1920, second world war, cold war etc. Bourgeoisie will not give away its privileges easily. Revolution is not a picnic. You will need to maintain not only a "War Council" but thousands of other institutions, ministries etc. to survive the onslaught. You will need to maintain the conscription, hierarchy and discipline if you want it or not. The alternative is the so called "white terror". There will be no trials - just bullets (like in Finnish, Hungarian, Bavarian Soviet Republics and many others)

I can't really determine beforehand how they will organise their resistance. It doesn't have to be your scenario of the few revolutionaries fighting of the gigantic hordes of evil capitalist soldiers.

Wars today are more of a fight of war industrial capacity and not numbers of troops so I don't see why conscription would be necessary. Especially as people would have something tangible to fight for.

The 100% efficient super armies are probably not needed, not that they ever exist outside the planning board.

As long as "we" manage to train troops, transform a decent part of the industry to war needs (our industry should be more efficient than capitalist driven industry as well) and have a decently coordinated war effort things should go well.

[Psy]

I don't really have a crystal ball to plan exactly how things will go down for the generalised hypothetical situation.

Let's say the industrial federation and/or the residents federation calls out for a unified war effort. Then the local cooperatives sends in information on what they can help with.

Then a bunch of propositions for how those available resources should most efficiently be used are voted on. Or a war council are elected (or chosen according to demarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy)) and organises the unified war effort, while one still keeps a localised veto right.

All of this is off-course dependant on that most of the local municipalities want and are willing to sacrifice to repel the invaders.

War games masturbating isn't particularly fun :(
Again this becomes a problem with centralized industries for example how do you deal with small towns cut in half by railways when freight trains rumble through them as the town when countless railways run through the town, at least with a single national railway the town only has to deal with one body regarding the train running through its community and a national railway can afford to have people dedicated to just dealing with communities so the trains keep moving even while there are public debates, it also means resources are centralized thus easier to deal with emergencies meaning a national railway could keep trains running in emergeny much easier then a bunch of local railway, making it easier to evacuate communities in disasters and to mobilize heavy equipment to disasters. For example trains from all over North and South American could have been called to address hurricane Katrina in a centrialized communist society and a national railway would be better at dealing with all those trains bottlenecking at New Orleans then a countless local railways through out North and South America all trying to operate in New Orleans.

[eyedrop]

Again this becomes a problem with centralized industries for example how do you deal with small towns cut in half by railways when freight trains rumble through them as the town when countless railways run through the town, at least with a single national railway the town only has to deal with one body regarding the train running through its community and a national railway can afford to have people dedicated to just dealing with communities so the trains keep moving even while there are public debates, it also means resources are centralized thus easier to deal with emergencies meaning a national railway could keep trains running in emergeny much easier then a bunch of local railway, making it easier to evacuate communities in disasters and to mobilize heavy equipment to disasters. For example trains from all over North and South American could have been called to address hurricane Katrina in a centrialized communist society and a national railway would be better at dealing with all those trains bottlenecking at New Orleans then a countless local railways through out North and South America all trying to operate in New Orleans.

That was a long sentence.

I don't see the problem with having a centralised coordinating board for the entire rail-road system dealing with day-to-day issues, with half of it changed decently often (preferably the members should be randomly selected from capable workers, which it should be plenty of, so it doesn't become a position of entrenched privilege). If their proposed plans are too unbearable for some of the towns, or local railroad-workers collectives, arrange for a new train coordinating board to be made.

Some solidarity should exist between central-american collectives and the Orleans collectives for them to send help after it is clear how much and what kind of help New Orleans needs. It shouldn't be to hard to be better than the system in place today, but we would need some experience dealing with such matters to improve problems which come up.

[Psy]

That was a long sentence.

I don't see the problem with having a centralised coordinating board for the entire rail-road system dealing with day-to-day issues, with half of it changed decently often (preferably the members should be randomly selected from capable workers, which it should be plenty of, so it doesn't become a position of entrenched privilege). If their proposed plans are too unbearable for some of the towns, or local railroad-workers collectives, arrange for a new train coordinating board to be made.

Right and this would be centralized production & planning where the needs of a individual community has to be weight over the needs of the whole operational area. For example a community might be very pissed of a long fright train parking in their town cutting the town in half due to blocking all level crossings but the railway would have knowledge that community does not for example the train passing a track side heat sensor detecting a bad boggie (does happen today even with the lack safety standards of capitalist railways) and the train having to stop and wait for mechanics to inspect the train before it safe to move again that could be sped up with a centralized railway that would have more resources it can call on in short notice. Of course the railway could plan ahead for such communities by making over/under passes so when trains have to stop in the town they are not blocking road traffic yet this benefits from centralization.



Some solidarity should exist between central-american collectives and the Orleans collectives for them to send help after it is clear how much and what kind of help New Orleans needs. It shouldn't be to hard to be better than the system in place today, but we would need some experience dealing with such matters to improve problems which come up.
True

[eyedrop]

Right and this would be centralized production & planning where the needs of a individual community has to be weight over the needs of the whole operational area. For example a community might be very pissed of a long fright train parking in their town cutting the town in half due to blocking all level crossings but the railway would have knowledge that community does not for example the train passing a track side heat sensor detecting a bad boggie (does happen today even with the lack safety standards of capitalist railways) and the train having to stop and wait for mechanics to inspect the train before it safe to move again that could be sped up with a centralized railway that would have more resources it can call on in short notice. Of course the railway could plan ahead for such communities by making over/under passes so when trains have to stop in the town they are not blocking road traffic yet this benefits from centralization.
What is a bad boogie?

Aren't most problems with trains blocking half of town already solved most places? The most I've ever had to wait for a train to pass has been a couple of minutes, if the worst come to pass wouldn't people just have to take a short detour around to the next rail-road crossing. Maybe I'm spoiled with my country already having a centrally planned rail road system.

[Psy]

What is a bad boogie?

Bogies are the wheel assemblies on trains, a bad bogies that trips a heat sensor is caused by excess friction on the bogies.



Aren't most problems with trains blocking half of town already solved most places? The most I've ever had to wait for a train to pass has been a couple of minutes, if the worst come to pass wouldn't people just have to take a short detour around to the next rail-road crossing. Maybe I'm spoiled with my country already having a centrally planned rail road system.
Freight trains can be up to 7 kilometers long (and they are getting longer) and there are towns with only level crossings, hell even Chicago has a huge problem with freight trains cutting parts of the city off due to the shear volume of fright trains and the amount of level crossings.

[eyedrop]

Freight trains can be up to 7 kilometers long (and they are getting longer) and there are towns with only level crossings, hell even Chicago has a huge problem with freight trains cutting parts of the city off due to the shear volume of fright trains and the amount of level crossings.
:blushing: See how my small scale country viewpoints shines trough.

[Psy]

:blushing: See how my small scale country viewpoints shines trough.
True but RZhD (USSR's railway) saw a level of organization that surpassed most railways of the world with its largest weak point being the average age of its rolling stock that resulted in lower reliability for those that were not over built like tanks, also for some stupid reason the Warsaw pact nations stuck with buffer and chain couplers instead of adopting the RZhD SA-3 couplers so standard gauge trains of the RZhD could not couple with standard gauge trains of the Warsaw pact.

[Robocommie]

Pretty much, yeah. I remember an anarchist saying it would be like a decentralised federation of workers councils.

Well, I find that very inspiring, though one problem does occur to me. Firstly, without some kind of higher authority to which parties could appeal for redress of wrongs, isn't there the potential for unchecked local oppression? Like for example, segregation may never have ended if it hadn't been for the intervention of the federal government.

And likewise, there'd need to be some way to arbitrate between communes, or else grievances could turn into a conflict that, to extend the Greek city-state analogy, could be like the Peleponnesian War.

[syndicat]

Well, I find that very inspiring, though one problem does occur to me. Firstly, without some kind of higher authority to which parties could appeal for redress of wrongs, isn't there the potential for unchecked local oppression? Like for example, segregation may never have ended if it hadn't been for the intervention of the federal government.



yeah, the anarchist idea of more or less self-sufficient communes doesn't really fit well with the realities of social production today, which is integrated over large areas.

what's required is both areas of autonomy in decision-making pertaining to matters that mainly affect people in a particular workplace or community, but federative integration that allows congresses of delegates over larger regions to deal with issues that pertain to the revolutionary region as a whole. developing plans for the whole society and making decisions that do have a more general affect on the whole society can also be done in a horizontal manner without requiring a hierarchist bureaucracy, but it means extending the reach of direct democracy through delegated conferences and democratic planning systems over the larger areas. this need not violate libertarian socialist norms if important decisions can be referred back to the base assemblies for discussion and vote. for example, there could be a rule allowing petitions from a small percentage to force the decision to go back to the base assemblies, and then all the assemblies throughout the revolutionary region discuss it and vote on it, and that determines the result. But this is a decision to applies to the whole region.

[Bombay]

In an anarchist society, would you be able to sell something you have personally made for example? If I made ten couples of shoes would I be able to sell them in a small store?

It might sound like a stupid question but I have so much to learn about anarchism. And if could sell stuff in anarchism, could I do it in a communist society?

[Psy]

In an anarchist society, would you be able to sell something you have personally made for example? If I made ten couples of shoes would I be able to sell them in a small store?

It might sound like a stupid question but I have so much to learn about anarchism. And if could sell stuff in anarchism, could I do it in a communist society?

In a communist society that would fall under petit-production, meaning all that would be stopping you is how much resources are allocated to small producers since logically in times of scarcity petite-producers would be first to feel the squeeze since planner would simply follow the logic that the massive factories would put the scare resources to much better use then some hobbyist in their garage and it is also easier to get resources to factories since you can put a railway spur right into the the factory's loading dock plus easier to ship finished products since finished pallets of shoes can be loaded onto boxcars by pump trucks or forklifts.

[syndicat]

We should think of resources being allocated the same way for small workshops as for larger operations. A rational system of social planning will require that the products generate sufficient benefit to justify the social costs, including all the various inputs. A smaller operation might be able to meet the social standard of efficiency, but it would depend on the particular sort of product or service. just as larger operations would have to develop plans for what they propose to produce and what inputs they need, so too for smaller operations. size in itself shouldn't be an issue.

[Psy]

We should think of resources being allocated the same way for small workshops as for larger operations. A rational system of social planning will require that the products generate sufficient benefit to justify the social costs, including all the various inputs. A smaller operation might be able to meet the social standard of efficiency, but it would depend on the particular sort of product or service. just as larger operations would have to develop plans for what they propose to produce and what inputs they need, so too for smaller operations. size in itself shouldn't be an issue.

There is a scale problem when you are talking about large centralized plants that daily consume resources by the tonne it is hard to then compare it to a dinky operation that would consume insignificant amount resources in comparison. Then you have the output scale problem where the large factory will produce enough products to fill many trailers/rail cars before lunch while most small producers are lucky to fill a small trailer in a day.

[syndicat]

There is a scale problem, when you are talking about large centralized plants that daily consume resources by the tonne it is hard to then compare it to a dinky operation that be lucky insignificant amount resources in comparison. Then you have the output scale problem where the large factory will produce enough products to fill many trailers/rail cars before lunch while most small producers are lucky to fill a small trailer in a day.

if there are economies of scale these would show up in the ratio of unit cost to unit benefit. this is the same principle that should be used for any production organization, irrespective of size. if we're talking about a haircutting operation or a workshop making violins, or custom building fixtures, or a neighborhood health clinic, economies of scale will be different.

[Psy]

if there are economies of scale these would show up in the ratio of unit cost to unit benefit. this is the same principle that should be used for any production organization, irrespective of size. if we're talking about a haircutting operation or a workshop making violins, or custom building fixtures, or a neighborhood health clinic, economies of scale will be different.
But you have different labor values due to the amount of labor invested per unit. For example a violin plant producing 1 metric tonne of violins a day they would be creating violins at a much lower labor value per violin then a workshop making 1 violin a day.

[this is an invasion]

Again this becomes a problem with centralized industries for example how do you deal with small towns cut in half by railways when freight trains rumble through them as the town when countless railways run through the town, at least with a single national railway the town only has to deal with one body regarding the train running through its community and a national railway can afford to have people dedicated to just dealing with communities so the trains keep moving even while there are public debates, it also means resources are centralized thus easier to deal with emergencies meaning a national railway could keep trains running in emergeny much easier then a bunch of local railway, making it easier to evacuate communities in disasters and to mobilize heavy equipment to disasters. For example trains from all over North and South American could have been called to address hurricane Katrina in a centrialized communist society and a national railway would be better at dealing with all those trains bottlenecking at New Orleans then a countless local railways through out North and South America all trying to operate in New Orleans.

They should just build a bridge over the tracks.

[syndicat]

But you have different labor values due to the amount of labor invested per unit. For example a violin plant producing 1 metric tonne of violins a day they would be creating violins at a much lower labor value per violin then a workshop making 1 violin a day.

By "labor value" if you're using Marx's labor theory of value, you're assuming that the only relevant cost is worker hours per unit of output. But this is not the only cost. There are training costs, energy costs, environmental costs. And it's not just costs you have to look at but also the benefit provided, as in the example i give below of haircutting.

Moreover, in the case of making violins, if this is a handcraft type of operation, you make more violins by simply adding more craft workers. Where is the economy of scale?

The issue with efficiency is only the ratio of benefit to cost. Hence any rational allocation of resources requires a way to measure social opportunity costs, and a way to measure the benefit provided. The benefit can only be measured in terms of the preferences and priorities of the people who use or consume the product.

We cannot know apriori how the size of an operation will affect this ratio.

In the case of a steel mill, there is a certain amount of resources just to establish the site, equipment such as an electric arc furnace, a continuous caster, a rolling mill. But a mini-mill can produce as efficiently as a mega-mill. This is why mini-mills have become so important. So, if we have a mini-mill of a certain size, such as a typical Nucor mini-mill, just making it larger will not necessarily lower per unit social costs.

The same is true for, say, a haircutting operation. If there are 20 hole in the wall haircutting shops in a neighborhood, each will consume a certain amount of electricity just to keep the shop open. It might be that energy efficiency would be greater if there were 4 arger haircutting operations, but at a certain size there is no longer going to be any economies of scale. And this is not something that you can say as a formula apriori for all industries. In this case, also, there is the benefit from local access to your neighborhood haircutting place. So replacing them all with one gigantic haircutting service downtown will lower the benefit provided.

[Psy]

By "labor value" if you're using Marx's labor theory of value, you're assuming that the only relevant cost is worker hours per unit of output. But this is not the only cost. There are training costs, energy costs, environmental costs.

Energy costs are labor costs just labor taking place elsewhere and training is the same just at a different time.



Moreover, in the case of making violins, if this is a handcraft type of operation, you make more violins by simply adding more craft workers. Where is the economy of scale?

I was talking about making violins on a assembly line verses by hand especially with computer automation.



The issue with efficiency is only the ratio of benefit to cost. Hence any rational allocation of resources requires a way to measure social opportunity costs, and a way to measure the benefit provided. The benefit can only be measured in terms of the preferences and priorities of the people who use or consume the product.

We cannot know apriori how the size of an operation will affect this ratio.

In the case of a steel mill, there is a certain amount of resources just to establish the site, equipment such as an electric arc furnace, a continuous caster, a rolling mill. But a mini-mill can produce as efficiently as a mega-mill. This is why mini-mills have become so important. So, if we have a mini-mill of a certain size, such as a typical Nucor mini-mill, just making it larger will not necessarily lower per unit social costs.

The same is true for, say, a haircutting operation. If there are 20 hole in the wall haircutting shops in a neighborhood, each will consume a certain amount of electricity just to keep the shop open. It might be that energy efficiency would be greater if there were 4 arger haircutting operations, but at a certain size there is no longer going to be any economies of scale. And this is not something that you can say as a formula apriori for all industries. In this case, also, there is the benefit from local access to your neighborhood haircutting place. So replacing them all with one gigantic haircutting service downtown will lower the benefit provided.
Okay but when you are talking about large scale operations to small scale for the same product you will get a huge scale problem where the large scale operations spread labor very thinly over their output.

[syndicat]

I was talking about making violins on a assembly line verses by hand especially with computer automation.


you seem to be assuming capitalism is a model of efficiency. it isn't. assembly lines would assume a taylorist division of labor. these were set up as a means of control over workers and to increase pace of work. these are costs to workers. this whole approach is inconsistent with worker power, which requires that all workers have the skills and knowledge to be able to participate effectively in decision-making. but under the taylorist scheme, which inherently assumes a class system, workers would not develop through their work the knowledge and skills to participate effectively. you'd end up with some sort of bureaucratic ruling class.

so it seems that you've left out costs to workers. it's not just how long someone works, but how intense the pace is, how damaging to their health the work is, whether they are exposed to dangerous chemicals, whether the methods of organization are consistent with worker mastery and power over production, etc.

and training costs can't be reduced to hours of a teacher training someone in the past. that's because we also have to consider the current skills the worker has, which is a product of learning by doing, and the current value of the skills. a skill that was economically valuable to the society in the past may decline in value. just tallying up hours of training someone doesn't tell you this.

and you've not dealt with enviro costs at all.

[Psy]

you seem to be assuming capitalism is a model of efficiency. it isn't. assembly lines would assume a taylorist division of labor. these were set up as a means of control over workers and to increase pace of work. these are costs to workers. this whole approach is inconsistent with worker power, which requires that all workers have the skills and knowledge to be able to participate effectively in decision-making. but under the taylorist scheme, which inherently assumes a class system, workers would not develop through their work the knowledge and skills to participate effectively. you'd end up with some sort of bureaucratic ruling class.

You seem to forget industrialization also allows for lower necessary labor time due to replacing humans with machinery since once you reduce the production process to its basic processes through Taylorists you can teach computers how to mimic workers on assembly line thus computer controlled machinery can replace the proletariat as you can't exploit means of production for example even intelligent robots will work till they malfunction if they programed to with no objection.

For example if you have a violin factory with only 5 workers with automation they could produce tonnes of violens every hour as automated lines mamufacture violins even faster then a human can obserive, compared to a small factory with also 5 workers yet the 5 workers don't have the luxery of have machines of burden so have to exert more labor to make less violins.




so it seems that you've left out costs to workers. it's not just how long someone works, but how intense the pace is, how damaging to their health the work is, whether they are exposed to dangerous chemicals, whether the methods of organization are consistent with worker mastery and power over production, etc.

Yes but machines don't complain about being exposed to dangerous chemicals or the pace, they simply fail if they are beyond its toleriances.



and training costs can't be reduced to hours of a teacher training someone in the past. that's because we also have to consider the current skills the worker has, which is a product of learning by doing, and the current value of the skills. a skill that was economically valuable to the society in the past may decline in value. just tallying up hours of training someone doesn't tell you this.

You simply look at the hours on average it would take to train a replacement to their level of compentence to value their skill.



and you've not dealt with enviro costs at all.
Machines don't care about envior costs, they can operated on the surface of Mars. So enivorment costs would be based on community tolerences not factory tolerences since we don't need living organizisms in factories thus factories don't need a environment.

[syndicat]

total automation is a long time fantasy of engineers & bosses. it's basically a bourgeois fantasy. it's so costly or unworkable it's just not going to happen. you're never going to automate manufacture of violins or giving haircuts.

it's actual practice tends to be driven by class struggle. automation is a weapon in the class war. consider Rio Tinto's recent automation of its iron mines in Australia. this was done to destroy the unions. but it will mean higher metal prices.

and chemicals that pollute workers in factories inevitably also pollute neighborhoods nearby. cancer rates are higher in areas near oil refineries.


You simply look at the hours on average it would take to train a replacement to their level of compentence to value their skill.

bullshit. you're not paying attention. skills that were of value in the past are sometimes of no value now because of changes in technology or changes in demand for products. so the current value of a skill cannot be measured by looking at average time to train someone. also, you ignore the point i made about learning from doing. skills aren't simply imparted by training. people develop and learn through doing, through practice. how good a piano player is can't be measured by how many hours her teacher put in.


Machines don't care about envior costs, they can operated on the surface of Mars. So enivorment costs would be based on community tolerences not factory tolerences since we don't need living organizisms in factories thus factories don't need a environment.

Your fantasy of totally automated production is completely irrelevant to us here in the real world. i suggest you come down to earth and look at production as it actually is. whether there will be automation, and to what degree, is something to be investigated by workers and evaluated in terms of cost and benefit.

And you still haven't answered the point about how the desires and priorities of community are needed to be measured to figure out costs and benefits. If we're looking at pollution, then it's a cost in terms of the priorities of the community in avoiding the health dangers.

[Psy]

total automation is a long time fantasy of engineers & bosses. it's basically a bourgeois fantasy. it's so costly or unworkable it's just not going to happen. you're never going to automate manufacture of violins or giving haircuts.

Due to the law of value, total automation would not hurt a communist economy and there would be no resistance from workers.



it's actual practice tends to be driven by class struggle. automation is a weapon in the class war. consider Rio Tinto's recent automation of its iron mines in Australia. this was done to destroy the unions. but it will mean higher metal prices.

In a communist society the necessarily labor value goes down while the ability for workers to consume products of society goes what so what would be the problem?



and chemicals that pollute workers in factories inevitably also pollute neighborhoods nearby. cancer rates are higher in areas near oil refineries.

True but automation means factories don't have to be near humans, they can be in the middle of a desert miles from any settlement and when human work crews are needed they can be protected for the realitivly short time they would be there just like how astronauts can do space walk even though space is a very hostile enviorment for humans. Would such protective gear be cumbersom hell yes but with the labor automation could free up there would be a huge pool of repair crews thus crew rotation would be easy, also I doubt any would care if we pollute space and pollute uninhabited plants for example we mine Mars and build huge smelters and steel mills and rocket launches to feed automated ship factory in orbit around Mars all automated who would care if Mars' atmosphere becomes even more deadly if there are no life form on Mars as everything is controlled by massive computers that will keep building ships from scratch thousands years after humanity dies as the computers can repair themselves running nuclear reators (as who would care if nuclear reactors leak of melt down on Mars?).





bullshit. you're not paying attention. skills that were of value in the past are sometimes of no value now because of changes in technology or changes in demand for products. so the current value of a skill cannot be measured by looking at average time to train someone. also, you ignore the point i made about learning from doing. skills aren't simply imparted by training. people develop and learn through doing, through practice. how good a piano player is can't be measured by how many hours her teacher put in.

We are talking about a communist society where technology newer technology can be atoped into existed technologies much easily due to the lack of compeition and due to no need for planned obsolence.



Your fantasy of totally automated production is completely irrelevant to us here in the real world. i suggest you come down to earth and look at production as it actually is. whether there will be automation, and to what degree, is something to be investigated by workers and evaluated in terms of cost and benefit.

It is a no brainer, machines can be our machines of burden freeing humanity from having to labor. The problem is capitalist don't want 100% automation as it would make profit impossible as you get no surplus value from machines.



And you still haven't answered the point about how the desires and priorities of community are needed to be measured to figure out costs and benefits. If we're looking at pollution, then it's a cost in terms of the priorities of the community in avoiding the health dangers.
True but if the production is away from humans or better yet any lifeforms then we don't have to care, we can have countless meltdowns on Mars and it would not effect the human race one bit.

[syndicat]

In a communist society the necessarily labor value goes down while the ability for workers to consume products of society goes what so what would be the problem?


forget about "labor value." you sound like a member of some cult.

we have at this point in time no idea whatever how much automation would make sense. libertarian socialism is about a change in social relations. it is not about automation.

to build the equipment to automate is a cost. generating the energy to run it is a cost. the effects of pollution such as power plant exhaust is a cost. global warming is a delayed external cost of capitalist industrialism. we need to think about how we can create a social arrangement that will actually measure and reduce these external costs, such as CO2 or methane production or toxic pollutants.

building any form of production capacity, both training of people and creation of equipment, is a form of investment. increases in investment mean that fewer resources (including labor time) are available to satisfy consumption right now. so people would be asked to sacrifice their immediate comfort and needs for some engineering project of automation. to do that would require people being given a convincing case as to what the real benefits down the road would be.

also an automated plant still needs to be run and maintained and repaired. it requires a workforce.

and you talk about locating them some ways away to avoid effects on us of pollution. why do that? why not instead create nonpolluting technologies? and if you locate production far from people, you have pollution and energy costs from the transport, which lowers efficiency.

capitalism's current global production chains are in fact not efficient, when you factor in the real human and enviro costs of shipping, of locating to places where workers can be superexploited at lower wages and polluted.

in any event, to reiterate my earlier point, libertarian socialism is about worker and social liberation, it is about creating a different kind of social arrangement. it is not some engineering project in constructing some engineer's fantasy of a clockwork industry.

[Psy]

forget about "labor value." you sound like a member of some cult.

Because to me the goal of communism is to have leisure society with abundant products of society.



we have at this point in time no idea whatever how much automation would make sense. libertarian socialism is about a change in social relations. it is not about automation.

As much automation that is possible, if we can built an artilect like in sci-fi that can take over all production responsibility including planning I say go with it as long as the artilect bases its planning on human needs.




to build the equipment to automate is a cost. generating the energy to run it is a cost. the effects of pollution such as power plant exhaust is a cost. global warming is a delayed external cost of capitalist industrialism. we need to think about how we can create a social arrangement that will actually measure and reduce these external costs, such as CO2 or methane production or toxic pollutants.

True but part of the problem is capitalism is very wasteful when it comes to producing what people want because capitalism has to manufacture want in order to increase demand in order to counterbalance the falling rate of profit.



building any form of production capacity, both training of people and creation of equipment, is a form of investment. increases in investment mean that fewer resources (including labor time) are available to satisfy consumption right now. so people would be asked to sacrifice their immediate comfort and needs for some engineering project of automation. to do that would require people being given a convincing case as to what the real benefits down the road would be.

true



also an automated plant still needs to be run and maintained and repaired. it requires a workforce.

Not if you automate maintenance and repairs.



and you talk about locating them some ways away to avoid effects on us of pollution. why do that? why not instead create nonpolluting technologies? and if you locate production far from people, you have pollution and energy costs from the transport, which lowers efficiency.

Not really since you need land to store and distribute stockpiles of goods meaning you can't really have it near community centers as you need land that is of lower importance to communities.




capitalism's current global production chains are in fact not efficient, when you factor in the real human and enviro costs of shipping, of locating to places where workers can be superexploited at lower wages and polluted.

Transportation networks can be improved



in any event, to reiterate my earlier point, libertarian socialism is about worker and social liberation, it is about creating a different kind of social arrangement. it is not some engineering project in constructing some engineer's fantasy of a clockwork industry.
But taking labor out of society is creating a different kind of social arrangement.

[Ocean Seal]

I would say that Catalonia is a good example. In any case the general picture is that it would be communist but a lot more personal freedom and a more organic government than other communist countries.

[syndicat]

since you don't respond to the arguments I present, and are on some kind of monomania about automation, i'll just let you go off and say what you want. but it has really nothing to do with what this thread is about. "abundance" is not really feasible because the planet has obvious limits...and the ecological crises of the present make this ever more clear. scarcity itself is a part of the human condition, and so it is a question of ensuring that we use our limited time and resources to best advantage. this can only occur if we've created a social arrangement in which the population have direct control, control both over consumption and over production. scarcity shouldn't be confused with deprivation. we can ensure that people have enough, that their needs are met.

human liberation requires that workers take over production. it also requires that they change the technologies used in production, to make them less polluting, to gear production to direct benefit as defined by the community not accrual of profits, change the restructure of jobs so as to eliminate the distinction between conceptualization, skill and control, on the one hand, and the doing of the physical work, on the other, and changing the educational system to facilitate full development of potential and to support an egalitarian control of the production system by workers.

greater worker free time can come about without automation simply by eliminating the inefficiencies of capitalism, such as duplicative bureaucracies and all the work in the "sales effort", and training and putting to work all the unemployed, and spreading the work out.

it is these changes in social relationships and governance of social production that libertarian socialism is about. automation is only a subordinate value in so far as it is feasible and consistent with these aims. it is crazy to convert automation into some kind of monomania.

[Psy]

since you don't respond to the arguments I present, and are on some kind of monomania about automation, i'll just let you go off and say what you want. but it has really nothing to do with what this thread is about. "abundance" is not really feasible because the planet has obvious limits...and the ecological crises of the present make this ever more clear. scarcity itself is a part of the human condition, and so it is a question of ensuring that we use our limited time and resources to best advantage. this can only occur if we've created a social arrangement in which the population have direct control, control both over consumption and over production. scarcity shouldn't be confused with deprivation. we can ensure that people have enough, that their needs are met.

You assume human wants are infinite yet if they were capitalist would no need to manufacture demand as demand for commodities would be infinite that would result in infinite exchange value due supply not being infinite, meaning every price would be $http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/2/4/d245777abca64ece2d5d7ca0d19fddb6.png.

Yet since human needs are not infinite it is possible for supply to outpace demand even within the finite limits of Earth.



human liberation requires that workers take over production. it also requires that they change the technologies used in production, to make them less polluting, to gear production to direct benefit as defined by the community not accrual of profits, change the restructure of jobs so as to eliminate the distinction between

True but what would that require moving away from mass production?



conceptualization, skill and control, on the one hand, and the doing of the physical work, on the other, and changing the educational system to facilitate full development of potential and to support an egalitarian control of the production system by workers.

greater worker free time can come about without automation simply by eliminating the inefficiencies of capitalism, such as duplicative bureaucracies and all the work in the "sales effort", and training and putting to work all the unemployed, and spreading the work out.

it is these changes in social relationships and governance of social production that libertarian socialism is about. automation is only a subordinate value in so far as it is feasible and consistent with these aims. it is crazy to convert automation into some kind of monomania.
How would we spread Marxism to throughout the universe without strong automation? We would need automation to prepare planets for seeds ships to spread humanity beyond our solar system (yes this is far in the future but the first step is automating producing here on Earth).

[Wolf Larson]

Read Orwells homage to Catalonia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehzC937Q9Dc

[syndicat]

You assume human wants are infinite

what each person wants is finite but they are ever changing. and the finite limits of each person's wants doesn't get around the need to have a way to measure their preferences. that's because whenever A spends his time making, he could have spent that time making something else. And thus we inevitably must give up things we might want and could have had, if only we didn't commit to making something else.


How would we spread Marxism to throughout the universe without strong automation?

this thread isn't about Marxism but about anarchism. and your talk of other planets makes it clear you're out of touch with reality.

your biggest mistake is in thinking that it is thru machines that is the best way to increase productivity. this is an essentially bourgeois outlook. in reality participatory self-management by workers is much more likely to increase productivity.

[Psy]

what each person wants is finite but they are ever changing. and the finite limits of each person's wants doesn't get around the need to have a way to measure their preferences. that's because whenever A spends his time making, he could have spent that time making something else. And thus we inevitably must give up things we might want and could have had, if only we didn't commit to making something else.

That is a individual not a production on a planetary scale where mass production allows machines of burden allow humans to have utility while spending less time producing that utility.

Yes the same is true on a planetary scale but not in the same sense, we don't choose between free time and products of society but what products of society we produce for everyone and gets what priorities.



this thread isn't about Marxism but about anarchism. and your talk of other planets makes it clear you're out of touch with reality.

What do anarchist have against a massive space program? You do know NASA do have future plans to colonize Mars given enough funding using existing technology, meaning if communism happened today we could start colonizing Mars right now if given enough priority to funnel enough productive capacity towards building automated construction robots and space ships to ferry them and construction materials to Mars.



your biggest mistake is in thinking that it is thru machines that is the best way to increase productivity. this is an essentially bourgeois outlook. in reality participatory self-management by workers is much more likely to increase productivity.

Marx basically said labor productivity can be best improved with industrialization, in the Communist Manifesto it basically says communist don't have to take means of production away from the petite-bourgeoisie as the bourgeoisie is centralizing the means of production for us.

[syndicat]

Marx basically said labor productivity can be best improved with industrialization, in the Communist Manifesto it basically says communist don't have to take means of production away from the petite-bourgeoisie as the bourgeoisie is centralizing the means of production for us.

in that document Marx also said ownership of means of production should be concentrated in the hands of the state. this is an anti-anarchist position. so what are you here on this thread for?

[Psy]

in that document Marx also said ownership of means of production should be concentrated in the hands of the state. this is an anti-anarchist position.

That is in communist early form, eventually the state will decay as class society decays and we move to a classless society.



so what are you here on this thread for?

As in a mature communist society the only sticking point would be a globally planned economy as the workers state would have served its function and have disbanded.

When comparing mature communism to mature anarchism the only difference would be mass production and how it planned. Do we have massive super computers tracking production and distribution making on the fly adjustments to the plan that includes production on a massive scale (mature communism) or do we have production on a more human scale decentralized with more bureaucratic overhead required to organize far more means of production. I know anarchists are against bureaucracy but decentralization would actually increase bureaucracy creating a very conservative plan where nobody wants to change a plan once it works due to the momentum of the bureaucracy required to get all the communities to agree on the current working plan.

[Gecko]

anarchists are confused people
who do not understand Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
:confused:

[syndicat]

That is in communist early form, eventually the state will decay as class society decays and we move to a classless society.

this nonsense about the state "withering away" is an anti-anarchist position. in reality what you are proposing is a scheme in which a bureaucratic class will dominate society, a class of army officers, politicians, elite planners, engineers, etc. And the working class will be completely subordinate and exploited by them. And no dominating, exploiting class in history has ever given up its power voluntarily and none ever will.

this is how Marxism ends up being the ideology of the bureaucratic class.

[Psy]

this nonsense about the state "withering away" is an anti-anarchist position. in reality what you are proposing is a scheme in which a bureaucratic class will dominate society, a class of army officers, politicians, elite planners, engineers, etc. And the working class will be completely subordinate and exploited by them. And no dominating, exploiting class in history has ever given up its power voluntarily and none ever will.

this is how Marxism ends up being the ideology of the bureaucratic class.

The proletarian state will wither away as the proletarian class withers away due to no bourgeoisie to exploit them (thus they can no longer be wage slaves as their capitalists masters would no longer exist), as for the vanguard they will also wither away as the proletariat become class conscious causing the vanguard to stop being a vanguard due to the rest of humanity catching up to them.

Basically all the revolutionaries would be dinosaurs when it comes to a mature communist society as all they revolutionary knowledge would be based on a dead social arrangement.

As for the fact engineers would be a ruling class is laughable in a society where anyone with the skills can get the education to become a engineer and join their ranks thus it is not that impossible to have 6 billion engineers in a mature communist society as most humans get engineering degrees.

[syndicat]

widespread democratization of expertise through education is unlikely to happen in such a society....just as it did not happen in USSR...because it would be against the interest of the technocratic ruling class. no ruling class gives up its power voluntarily. to suppose that it will is inconsistent with marxism. it's an idealist position which supposes that because the top political rulers & ideologies talk about "socialism" that their ideas must commit them to worker emancipation. there were no moves towards worker emancipation in the USSR.

[Psy]

widespread democratization of expertise through education is unlikely to happen in such a society

Why? The primary function of the vanguard is to educate the proletariat and doing so cements the revolution preventing counter-revolution that would result in the vanguard getting violently purged by capitalists.



....just as it did not happen in USSR...because it would be against the interest of the technocratic ruling class.

USSR was never Marxist since by the time Russia became the USSR Stalin's counter-revolution had purged all the vanguard from Russia, yet the same vanguard Stalin purged never held education from the Russian people in fact the Russian vanguard brought mass literacy to Russia.



no ruling class gives up its power voluntarily. to suppose that it will is inconsistent with marxism.

That assumes the vanguards power will be stable rather then the power of a revolutionary vanguard withering away as global revolution is achieved since their knowledge of revolution and capitalism would become obsolete as the revolution winds down and capitalism disappears from the Earth.



it's an idealist position which supposes that because the top political rulers & ideologies talk about "socialism" that their ideas must commit them to worker emancipation.

A revolutionary vanguard can not exist perpetually eventually the capitalists or workers will win causing vanguards to be no longer have a function.



there were no moves towards worker emancipation in the USSR.
Because the revolutionary vanguards were rubbed out in the USSR by Stalin.

[syndicat]

Why? The primary function of the vanguard is to educate the proletariat and doing so cements the revolution preventing counter-revolution that would result in the vanguard getting violently purged by capitalists.


Mr Monomania isn't paying attention. this is what I said:

because it would be against the interest of the technocratic ruling class.

The basis of the power and prestige and higher incomes of a bureaucratic class is its relative monopolization over expertise & decision-making authority. a bureaucratic class would be the engineers, plant managers, elite planners, party apparatchiks, army generals etc. their interest is in retaining that relative monopoly of expertise in their hands. that's why democratization of expertise won't happen, just as it did not happen in the USSR.

you assume that it is the "socialist" ideas in the heads of the "vanguard" that ensures that this will change. that is a hopelessly idealist position. what will happen, as any marxist should know, is that they will gradually change their interpretation of "socialism" to justify their power...as has always happened in every Marxist-Leninist regime.


Because the revolutionary vanguards were rubbed out in the USSR by Stalin.

the politics and practice of Lenin and Trotsky from the very beginning wass tending to consolidate a bureaucratic ruling class. in Nov 1917 they created topdown a central planning committee, Supreme Council of National Economy, which became Gosplan in mid '20s. this was staffed with experts, trade union bureaucrats, party stalwarts, all appointed from above. and by 1918 Trotsky & Lenin were beating the drum for Taylorism and one-man management...measures for control and domination and exploitation of workers. a bureaucratic ruling class was already being consolidated years before stalin came to power. It's inherent in Leninist politics and practice.

since you're a Leninist you really have no business posting in this thread.

[Psy]

Mr Monomania isn't paying attention. this is what I said:


The basis of the power and prestige and higher incomes of a bureaucratic class is its relative monopolization over expertise & decision-making authority. a bureaucratic class would be the engineers, plant managers, elite planners, party apparatchiks, army generals etc. their interest is in retaining that relative monopoly of expertise in their hands. that's why democratization of expertise won't happen, just as it did not happen in the USSR.

Again in the USSR the vanguard was purged by counter-revolutionaries proving that it is in the interest of the vanguard to advance the rest of the working class simply to prevent them being violently killed by counter-revolutionaries.

As for engineers there is nothing stopping giving the masses the means to become engineers.



you assume that it is the "socialist" ideas in the heads of the "vanguard" that ensures that this will change.

By definition that would be the case, if the vanguard is not advance of the rest of the working class they would not be a vanguard to the working class. It is saying you can't assume military vanguard units would be advanced of their main forces when if that was not the case they would not be a vanguard as all the word vanguard means is a forward element so you argument falls apart even in a linguistic sense as that also meant the vanguard is a element of the rest of the working class else they would not be a vanguard.



that is a hopelessly idealist position. what will happen, as any marxist should know, is that they will gradually change their interpretation of "socialism" to justify their power...as has always happened in every Marxist-Leninist regime.

And who would listen to them after capitalist disappears? For that matter who would care about Marxism after capitalism has ended?




the politics and practice of Lenin and Trotsky from the very beginning wass tending to consolidate a bureaucratic ruling class.

Wrong Lenin and Trotsky tried from the beginning to get rid of the bureaucracy but was faced with much bigger problems, it was Stalin that was consolidating the bureaucracy.



in Nov 1917 they created topdown a central planning committee, Supreme Council of National Economy, which became Gosplan in mid '20s. this was staffed with experts, trade union bureaucrats, party stalwarts, all appointed from above.

Since when was the Bolsheviks just Lenin and Trotsky? Even without Stalin it was made up of many fractions that Lenin could barely control and we are talking about a war time state that was barely able to prevent the capitalists from military overthrowing them.



and by 1918 Trotsky & Lenin were beating the drum for Taylorism and one-man management...measures for control and domination and exploitation of workers. a bureaucratic ruling class was already being consolidated years before stalin came to power. It's inherent in Leninist politics and practice.

They did not like Taylorism for one-man management but for reducing productive labor into basic movements to bring mass production through a scientific understanding of productive labor to Russia

Look at it from their point of view, they had to rebuild a devastated Russia that was backwards before the wars and they lost most skilled workers in the civil-war and had replaced them with peasants in which Taylorism allowed peasants to quickly be turning into industrial workers.

[syndicat]

They did not like Taylorism for one-man management but for reducing productive labor into basic movements to bring mass production through a scientific understanding of productive labor to Russia

Look at it from their point of view, they had to rebuild a devastated Russia that was backwards before the wars and they lost most skilled workers in the civil-war and had replaced them with peasants in which Taylorism allowed peasants to quickly be turning into industrial workers.

again, this is a bourgeois outlook, which you've displayed continuously. taylorism is not class neutral. it is a management strategy in the class war, a method for intensifying the pace of work and controlling workers, deskilling workers to empower a techno-managrerial class.

you have been assuming all along the class outlook of the dominating classes, that taylorism and control of workers increases productivity blah blah. that is not what it is about. every study of worker participation and self-management shows that it increases productivity.

moreover, the factory committee movement proposed an alternative in fall of 1917. they proposed a national congress of factory committees to coordinate and plan production. this wasn't adopted because it was not consistent with the top-down control by the vanguard...which inevitably leads to a bureuacratic class regime. this bureaucratic class was already in place before stalin. between 1918 and 1920 all of the collective worker control of production was done away with. all political tendencies defending worker management were repressed by 1921.


Again in the USSR the vanguard was purged by counter-revolutionaries proving that it is in the interest of the vanguard to advance the rest of the working class simply to prevent them being violently killed by counter-revolutionaries.


the "vanguard party" itself created the bureaucratic class regime. they were not opponents of it.

in regard to the civil war they did not "lose" the skilled workers. war production was closed down in Petrograd due to Russia pulling out of WW1. this led to severe downsizing of St Petersburg, from 2 million to 500,000. but before WW1 there were only 1 million in St. Petersburg. in other cities there was not this degree of loss of population. during the civil war for example the population of Kharkov, an industrial city, actually increased.

again, you're just giving apologetics for the creation of a bureaucratic class regime. once this exists, that class will never give up power voluntarily. and over time the "socialist" content of the ruling ideas will evaporate...exactly what happened in USSR.

the bolsheviks adopted the policies they did because of their ideology of state centralism. this was shown in their destructive hostility to the peasantry which contributed to famine, in their unwillingness to let the local population in the cities organize their own fire wood and food access programs.

again, it is completely inappropriate for you, an authoritarian Leninist, to be intervening and posting here and taking over this thread.

[Psy]

again, this is a bourgeois outlook, which you've displayed continuously. taylorism is not class neutral. it is a management strategy in the class war, a method for intensifying the pace of work and controlling workers, deskilling workers to empower a techno-managrerial class.

It is also the only way to scientifically obsessive the productive process to compare different production techniques. Without scientifically observing production processes you can't mechanize the production process thus you also can't automate the process.

It is not by coincidence that automated machines mimic human movement as engineers just dived into the data complied from Taylorism to see how humans produce efficiently and use the same techniques to maximize the efficiency of machine movements.



you have been assuming all along the class outlook of the dominating classes, that taylorism and control of workers increases productivity blah blah. that is not what it is about. every study of worker participation and self-management shows that it increases productivity.

You are comparing apples to oranges, worker controlled factories did not create more productive methods they simply changed the pace to improve working conditions. when you are talking about automation you don't look at self-managed plants as model for the machines but look to the bourgeoisie plants and simply increase the pace to the tolerances of the machines since machines don't have feelings they don't get tired or any ambition so there is no point in making factories humane for machines.



moreover, the factory committee movement proposed an alternative in fall of 1917. they proposed a national congress of factory committees to coordinate and plan production. this wasn't adopted because it was not consistent with the top-down control by the vanguard...which inevitably leads to a bureuacratic class regime.

Again the Bolshivks was not a unified fraction, second the reason it was shot down was there was already friction bettwen cities and farming communities and the Bolshivks wanted to pasicify the peasents while feeding the cities that the peasents did not want to do.



this bureaucratic class was already in place before stalin. between 1918 and 1920 all of the collective worker control of production was done away with. all political tendencies defending worker management were repressed by 1921.

In which Trotsky and Lenin spoke out against, Tortsky even suggested bringing military dicipline to the soviets so they could actually use them instead of relying on bureaucrats without endless bickering of the soviets that was a bureacucracy onto itself.




the "vanguard party" itself created the bureaucratic class regime. they were not opponents of it.

Wrong, the Bolshivks simply allow the bureaucrats of the Russian fedual empire to continue doing what they did in the past as they had nothing to replace with at the time.




in regard to the civil war they did not "lose" the skilled workers. war production was closed down in Petrograd due to Russia pulling out of WW1. this led to severe downsizing of St Petersburg, from 2 million to 500,000. but before WW1 there were only 1 million in St. Petersburg. in other cities there was not this degree of loss of population. during the civil war for example the population of Kharkov, an industrial city, actually increased.

Again we are talking skilled industrial workers not peasents that moved from the country side into places like Kharkov.




again, you're just giving apologetics for the creation of a bureaucratic class regime. once this exists, that class will never give up power voluntarily. and over time the "socialist" content of the ruling ideas will evaporate...exactly what happened in USSR.

That is not what happened inthe USSR, the vanguard has to be violently purged as the vanguard plan was to wait for Germans revolutionaries meaning the Bolshivks grand plan was to voluntarily giving up their power to the German vanguard in the idea they would be advanced of them.



the bolsheviks adopted the policies they did because of their ideology of state centralism. this was shown in their destructive hostility to the peasantry which contributed to famine, in their unwillingness to let the local population in the cities organize their own fire wood and food access programs.

No the Bolsheviks adopted the police because they were at war, after the war the Bolsheviks relaxed their control. The Bolsheviks policies were no different the policies of the Paris commune just the Bolsheviks put more emphases on not losing the war.

[syndicat]

In which Trotsky and Lenin spoke out against, Tortsky even suggested bringing military dicipline to the soviets so they could actually use them instead of relying on bureaucrats without endless bickering of the soviets that was a bureacucracy onto itself.


wrong. as I pointed out before, Trotsky and Lenin were AGAINST worker management of production, always. read "The Bolsheviks & Workers Control." Trotsky advocated military discipline over workers...that is, by a managerial elite with authoritarian power. this is in fact what he did with the railway industry in 1920. the result was a huge uprising of Bolshevik party worker rank and file, called the "Workers Opposition"...who were vehemently opposed by Lenin and Trotsky in 1921....after the civil war was over. so much for Lenin and Trotsky being against bureaucracy.

most of the workers in the plants in St Petersburg were also from peasant families. The working class in Russia was relatively new.


worker controlled factories did not create more productive methods they simply changed the pace to improve working conditions.

wrong. every single study of worker self-management or worker pariticipation that has ever been done...and there are quire a few...show improved productivity.

taylorism is purely for the empowerment of the managers and engineers, to force out more profit from the labor of workers. it is a managerial scheme for higher exploitation. it is completely inconsistent with authentic socialism. but, then, you don't advocate an authentic socialism. you advocate a bureaucratic class regime.

this is supposed to be a thread about anarchism. why don't you just get lost?

[Psy]

wrong. as I pointed out before, Trotsky and Lenin were AGAINST worker management of production, always. read "The Bolsheviks & Workers Control." Trotsky advocated military discipline over workers...that is, by a managerial elite with authoritarian power.

Wrong Trotsky advocated military discipline of workers, he did not want a managerial elite instead he wanted workers to be like soldiers that in his view would eliminate the need for bureaucrats.




this is in fact what he did with the railway industry in 1920. the result was a huge uprising of Bolshevik party worker rank and file, called the "Workers Opposition"...who were vehemently opposed by Lenin and Trotsky in 1921....after the civil war was over. so much for Lenin and Trotsky being against bureaucracy.

Workers Opposition was not simply a anti-Trotsky fraction, if you bothered to read their writings their beef was with the Party Congress dragging its feet with empowering the trade unions and in their writings they do hold Trotsky above Lenin for at least being more honest and coming right out and saying he does not believe that the workers were ready to create Communism, and through pain, suffering and blunder still seek to create new forms of production.




most of the workers in the plants in St Petersburg were also from peasant families. The working class in Russia was relatively new.

Right but most of the skilled workers were killed off in the wars.




wrong. every single study of worker self-management or worker pariticipation that has ever been done...and there are quire a few...show improved productivity.

Not really, if you break down their movements again there is no improvement in the production process what has improved is the moral of workers and less energy in class struggle within process of production.



taylorism is purely for the empowerment of the managers and engineers, to force out more profit from the labor of workers. it is a managerial scheme for higher exploitation. it is completely inconsistent with authentic socialism. but, then, you don't advocate an authentic socialism. you advocate a bureaucratic class regime.

At its core taylorism is the scientific study of the production process, even worker run factories befit from it in the sense it allows one to figure out how many labor is required to produce at a certain production method and pace, it also allows you to calcuate joules of energy is required for production.

[syndicat]

all you do is repeat the same authoritarian Leninist falsehoods and apologetics, but without evidence or citation of anything to back up what you say. And you simply repeat yourself over and over. Repetition and assertion are not arguments. you are simply defending an authoritarian bureaucratic class ideology.

[syndicat]

now i will give my own shot at the question. how should we envision a libertarian socialist society? First of all, there has to be direct worker self-management of the various workplaces and industries where people work. This means that decisions that affect everyone in a large facility would be made thru, or controlled by, a general assembly of everyone and there would be delegates elected to a coordinating council. For decisions that affect mainly people in one department, there would be assemblies there.

The idea is that there are spheres of decision-making that affect mainly or most importantly a particular group, and there will be an assembly there as the basis for them to control these decisions through direct democracy.

To ensure that workers have the skills and knowledge to be effective participants in planning and decision-making, there would have to be a vast change in the educational system, providing a lifetime access to training so as to develop people's skills and potential, and to break down and eliminate the current relative concentration of expertise into the hands of a few, which is the basis of the power of the bureaucratic class.

But self-management has to be general throughout society. An anarchist social arrangment can be described as generalized self-management. Thus where people live there will be decisions that affect first and foremost the people who reside there, and thus there will be neighborhood assemblies, and they will also elect an administrative council to ensure that decisions are carried out.

But there are decisions that affect people over larger regions, such as the transportation system or the health care system for a region, the educational system for that region, and so on.

So there would also need to be congresses of delegates elected from the base assemblies. And these congresses would work up plans for what the population want in the way of public goods and services. It is the society's obligation to ensure meaningful and self-managing work for everyone, and plans to ensure this need to be made. There will be forms of infrastructure that affect users over a region such as the electricity grid or transit system.

At the same time, workers from various workplaces in the same industry would need to have a way to coordinate production, and there would be congresses of delegates there too.

To ensure that the base of society, the people, are in the driver's seat, the base need to have the right to force decisions at congresses to be sent back to the base assemblies to be discussed and voted on.

Another responsibility of the regional organization would be environmental defense and thus acting as a control on the uses being made of the environmental commons by production organizations. They would need to either ban pollutants deemed too destructive, or if this is deemed impractical, at least requiring that production organizations internalize their enviro costs on their budgets.

Plans for society can be developed through interaction between the various groups in workplaces and neighborhoods, to adjust their plans to each other.

For social self-defense there is a people's militia. A society might decide to make it an obligation of able-bodied adults to be trained for self-defense.

To summarize, then, the features would be:

1. land and means of production would be owned in common by everyone. They would not be owned by production groups, but sub-contracted or allocated to production groups to produce things which they have proposed to produce and which the society has agreed to them producing.

2. Production would be based on or motivated by direct benefit or direct use, not pursuit of profit.

3. Thorough job reorganization, integrating the decision-making and conceputalization and planning work with the physical doing of the work, so that these are not separated into separate classes.

4. There would be some sphere of collectively provided social goods, such as health care, education, housing, local transportation, child care, etc. The extent of this "free sector" would probably vary from region to region depending on the politics or culture of that region. The purpose of this is to ensure that various needs are met, where this makes sense as a form of collective provision.

5. There would be no class hierarchy and no state. There would be no state because the governance power would lie with in the various congresses, councils and assemblies, with power working up from the direct democracy of the assemblies.

6. In the period when this libertarian communist society first emerges from capitalism, it will necessary, as Marx said, to require able bodied adults to work and to pay people in proportion to their work effort. If jobs are re-org'd so that the grundge work and more interesting work are balanced in each person's jobs, we can say that each job would require roughly the same sacrifices and thus we can pay each person at the same pay rate per hour.

Libertarian communism might evolve and develop over time, and might acquire other features. But I think what I've described is sort of a minimum.

[Psy]

all you do is repeat the same authoritarian Leninist falsehoods and apologetics, but without evidence or citation of anything to back up what you say. And you simply repeat yourself over and over. Repetition and assertion are not arguments. you are simply defending an authoritarian bureaucratic class ideology.
Let me put it this way, if you take workers from a factory and replace them with machines keeping the same pace the workers would not be able to be more productive without increasing their pace (working harder) or reducing their wage (either way increasing their exploitation), worker run production does not increase output beyond what capitalists can in ideal conditions if that was the case we could simply compete with capitalists in the capitalist market place and simply buy all the means of production on the marketplace.

Yes there are cases of worker run factories getting amazing productivity but you also see capitalists able to do the same when workers are both docile and motivated, the personal computer industry in the 1970's and 1980 is a good example of this.

Basically as much as Frederick Taylor help the bourgeoisie exploit labor more effectively he also created the tools to produce more efficiently even Frederick Taylor believed his science would emancipate the working class by bringing higher wages due to workers being more productive and thus making their employer more successful which would reward them so it is not like Taylorism is even science of the dark side and could be used to serve workers instead by making them work smarter instead of harder through movement studies which was at the heart of Taylorism of course machines are much better subjects for Taylorism then humans as machines can exactly replicate movements which is why automation and robotics is the key to any worker society.

[syndicat]

Basically as much as Frederick Taylor help the bourgeoisie exploit labor more effectively he also created the tools to produce more efficiently even Frederick Taylor believed his science would emancipate the working class by bringing higher wages due to workers being more productive and thus making their employer more successful which would reward them so it is not like Taylorism is even science of the dark side and could be used to serve workers instead by making them work smarter instead of harder through movement studies which was at the heart of Taylorism of course machines are much better subjects for Taylorism then humans as machines can exactly replicate movements which is why automation and robotics is the key to any worker society.

this is just bourgeois ideology. taylorism has nothing to do with science. workers are capable of designing their own jobs, and in fact they will need to to do this to be free and self-managing. what you are proposing is a technocratic system of class oppression.

as to the true nature of taylorism, I suggest reading "Labor and Monopoly Capital" by Harry Braverman

[The Ben G]

Somalia.

[Broletariat]

Somalia.
>_>

Here we go

[syndicat]

Somalia.

well that would be the sort of stereotype one would expect from the capitalist media. it's in their interests of confusing libertarian socialism with chaos. of course, somalia has classes, warlords, oppression of women, inequality all over the place. war of all against all is more consistent with capitalist ethics.

[eyedrop]

4. There would be some sphere of collectively provided social goods, such as health care, education, housing, local transportation, child care, etc. The extent of this "free sector" would probably vary from region to region depending on the politics or culture of that region. The purpose of this is to ensure that various needs are met, where this makes sense as a form of collective provision....

...6. In the period when this libertarian communist society first emerges from capitalism, it will necessary, as Marx said, to require able bodied adults to work and to pay people in proportion to their work effort. If jobs are re-org'd so that the grundge work and more interesting work are balanced in each person's jobs, we can say that each job would require roughly the same sacrifices and thus we can pay each person at the same pay rate per hour.

Would you propose some kind of citizen wage given to all, with some extra compensation given to working individuals? (Raising children and such would probably be classified as working, to the extent communal child care isn't used.)

And the "money" individuals have available for acquiring the products not encompassed by the free sector, would those "money" be savable? Or would they have an expiration date?

[MarxSchmarx]

Somalia. of course, somalia has classes, warlords, oppression of women, inequality all over the place. war of all against all is more consistent with capitalist ethics.

This is something of a glass is half empty question. As instructive as civil war Spain is, Somalia is something of a laboratory of how a society functions in late stage capitalism without a central government - or more seriously, how alternative institutions to the centralized, hiearchical, modern nation-state can function on a large scale for a prolonged period of time.

Yes, Somalia has serious elements of social chaos and feudal oppression. However, we should give credit where credit is due. Many Somalis saw their central government for what it was - a legacy of imperialism - and have resisted efforts both internally and externally to reimpose such an entity for the better part of the last two decades. The warlords about which we hear so much about are largely former bureaucrats of the central government who want to reestablish a central state authority under their guise, and Somalis realize this. They had their own "dual power" that survived, in contrast to much of the rest of Africa, European colonialism, and which provided a sufficiently practical alternative to the nation state.

To be sure, the recent rise of the Islamist courts union does challenge the above narrative. There are many causes for the power and success of the courts union, including funding from Saudi Arabia and varying degrees of support from expatriate somalis,
The experience of the Taliban in Afghanistan, however, shows the limits of even well-funded, reasonaly well organized and fanatical reactionaries to assert their dominion over a large region of independent tribes with their own well established secular institutions. My guess is that at most it will establish some sort of token authority and will probably not survive due to its basic incompatibility with Somali society.

And of course a lot of what you mention about the oppression of women and the persistence of classes is basically true - although the latter does tend to be mitigated somewhat by the communalism of the tribe. These are serious problems, but we have to understand that they are historically contingent byproducts of relying on indigenous alternative institutions to the modern nation state that developed in a pre-capitalist, nomadic society. Moreover, the inequities and gender oppression are no worse than virtually all of Africa, and its not clear that Somalia needs to go through a stage of development whereby a centralized state that establishes these rights before disintegrating again. There is, indeed, little material reason to believe that the oppression of woman is a necessary outcome of Somali social organization.

Now, although much of the west has abandoned Somalia to its fate, if it were, say, the United States that experienced an end to its central government I doubt we'd see such benign neglect. Still, the example of Somalia should be taken seriously as a way to establish alternative institutions and "dual power" that can serve as a plausible alternative that a large segment of the population feels sufficiently comfortable without the centralized nation state.

[Psy]

this is just bourgeois ideology. taylorism has nothing to do with science.

Taylorism is a science, if it was not robotics would not be more efficient then skilled workers as robotics works on the principles of Taylorism in that efficiency lies in finding the most efficent motions in the production process and getting machines to follow those movements exactly, thus why workers can't compete with a automated plant even running at pace of a human without increasing their pace.



workers are capable of designing their own jobs, and in fact they will need to to do this to be free and self-managing. what you are proposing is a technocratic system of class oppression.

What I proposing is replacing workers with machines, capitalists won't completely do it because machines are fixed capital and produce no surplus value and workers would lose jobs meaning less purchasing power in the market (which is not a problem in communism).



as to the true nature of taylorism, I suggest reading "Labor and Monopoly Capital" by Harry Braverman
Again we are talking about taylorism as it applies to the movement of workers and machines.

[syndicat]

Would you propose some kind of citizen wage given to all, with some extra compensation given to working individuals? (Raising children and such would probably be classified as working, to the extent communal child care isn't used.)


I'm not a fan of the unconditional basic income. Parents should be provided funds to cover the needs of their children. Children should not be regarded as the private property of parents or their exclusive responsibility. They are raising the next generation of the society. There needs to be social supports for care of dependents if this is no longer to be forced onto women, as it now is. Also there should be universal pre-school beginning at age 2, which should be as long as the work day is. And there should be free child care for infants below the age of 2.



And the "money" individuals have available for acquiring the products not encompassed by the free sector, would those "money" be savable? Or would they have an expiration date?


why should they have an expiration date? A person might be saving for some expensive personal item, such as a round the world trip, or a vacation longer than the standard vacation, or buying a fishing boat.

both borrowing and saving should be allowed, free of interest. In other words, a person earns no interest on savings and is not charged interest on borrowing.

[eyedrop]

I'm not a fan of the unconditional basic income. Parents should be provided funds to cover the needs of their children. Children should not be regarded as the private property of parents or their exclusive responsibility. They are raising the next generation of the society. There needs to be social supports for care of dependents if this is no longer to be forced onto women, as it now is. Also there should be universal pre-school beginning at age 2, which should be as long as the work day is. And there should be free child care for infants below the age of 2. The welfare we have now is can be seen as a basic unconditional income, I don't see why we should do worse than todays society. But having necessary goods in the free sector, as you proposed, would achieve the same.

It's quite common to send children from to kindergartens as well, which aren't that different from schools. But it's still many that chooses to raise their children on their own, but I would certainly support compulsory early schooling. While it would be different in a society where we wouldn't have planned unemployment, I don't imagine a post-revolution society would let people starve if they don't work.




why should they have an expiration date? A person might be saving for some expensive personal item, such as a round the world trip, or a vacation longer than the standard vacation, or buying a fishing boat.

both borrowing and saving should be allowed, free of interest. In other words, a person earns no interest on savings and is not charged interest on borrowing.I've seen expiration dates proposed to prevent wealth hoarding, but I don't think it's necessary as long as means of production are communally "owned".

[syndicat]

The welfare we have now is can be seen as a basic unconditional income

in norway everyone automatically receives "welfare" from the state? if not, it's not an unconditional basic income. what i suggested is socially average consumption entitlement for anyone out of work, disabled, retired, and for children. that is better than we receive today in any country.

[eyedrop]

in norway everyone automatically receives "welfare" from the state?
If you aren't entitled to some other kind of support, the social office has to cover your rent, electricity and a basic living wage. It's not much but enough to cover the bare necessities.

I see it as unconditional in that no matter what you are entitled to it, except if you are already entitled to some other kind of support instead. The numbers vary some from municipally to municipally, but they should be around 3000-4000kr (450-620$, in addition to rent and electricity.)


what i suggested is socially average consumption entitlement for anyone out of work, disabled, retired, and for children. that is better than we receive today in any country. That sounds fine:)

[Psy]

why should they have an expiration date? A person might be saving for some expensive personal item, such as a round the world trip, or a vacation longer than the standard vacation, or buying a fishing boat.

Because it messes up long range analyst of demand, for example computers tracking your consumption would have assumed your are satisfied with your current levels of consumption as they see no shortages for what you are consuming, then one day you start consuming heavy causing ripples through countless industries yet computers would not understand what happened neither will planners till they call you on the phone and ask you what the hell is with the huge spike of consumption.

Yet the largest problem is as we move to a free access society as you then have all these people with saving that all of sudden are totally worthless as they can just walk into store and get everything they want for free as the communist markets drowned in products so dirt cheap we can give them away.

[syndicat]

me:
why should they have an expiration date? A person might be saving for some expensive personal item, such as a round the world trip, or a vacation longer than the standard vacation, or buying a fishing boat.


Because it messes up long range analyst of demand, for example computers tracking your consumption would have assumed your are satisfied with your current levels of consumption as they see no shortages for what you are consuming, then one day you start consuming heavy causing ripples through countless industries yet computers would not understand what happened neither will planners till they call you on the phone and ask you what the hell is with the huge spike of consumption.


again, you're assuming, as usual, a bureaucratic class regime where a class of privileged technocrats -- elite planners, engineers, managers -- are making decisions about production.

but under an authentic libertarian socialism where there is direct planning for consumption by the people affected...i.e. those who consume things...then people will be developing and inputting their requests, individually and through community organizations and regional organizations, and these requests will determine what is produced.

so if X wants a boat this will be part of her long-range personal consumption plan, and will thus enter into the projected demand for the boat building industry.


Yet the largest problem is as we move to a free access society as you then have all these people with saving that all of sudden are totally worthless as they can just walk into store and get everything they want for free as the communist markets drowned in products so dirt cheap we can give them away.

why should we move to free access? i think there is no way to prove this would work.

and your assumption about "communist products drowned in products so dirt cheap" is more of your unsubstantiated technomania bullshit. machines consume electricity. already power generation is a major source of greenhouse gases (about 30 percent in USA) and air pollution. there are many productive activities where automation will make no economic sense.

[Psy]

but under an authentic libertarian socialism where there is direct planning for consumption by the people affected...i.e. those who consume things...then people will be developing and inputting their requests, individually and through community organizations and regional organizations, and these requests will determine what is produced.

Not realistic for a global plan when he can use cybernetics like Kitov, Glushkov, et al suggested for the USSR. Humans just can't process data at large enough fast enough to plan on global scale and instead of kidding ourselves we should embrace technology as crutches for what humanity sucks at. For example as soon as you are born in hospital the computer can adjust for more baby products that it assumes your parents will demand before they even bring you back from the hospital.



so if X wants a boat this will be part of her long-range personal consumption plan, and will thus enter into the projected demand for the boat building industry.

Yet without a centrial computerized plan how would that plan follow the person as the move from community to community? For example if a person has asthma do they have to tell every community they go to? Would it not be better to tell a centrial planning authority that could tell you ahead of time if they need time before they can get products you consume into the community like stocking local drug store with their drugs without dipping into emergency reserves?




why should we move to free access? i think there is no way to prove this would work.

Free access is the goal of many Marxists including the World Socialist Movement that is a de-centrialized anti-state Marxist party that like most Marxists see enviormental issue caused by capitalism not industrialization.




and your assumption about "communist products drowned in products so dirt cheap" is more of your unsubstantiated technomania bullshit. machines consume electricity. already power generation is a major source of greenhouse gases (about 30 percent in USA) and air pollution. there are many productive activities where automation will make no economic sense.
Capitalists also waste most electricity produced in that have little utility and just profitable, for example planned obslences where products are replaced just so capitalists can go through the M-C-C1-M1 again hell even General Motors admits their busniess model is getting consumers to junk their perfectly good automobile so they can buy a new GM automobile that is just slightly different yet not nessarly any better.

[syndicat]

Not realistic for a global plan when he can use cybernetics like Kitov, Glushkov, et al suggested for the USSR. Humans just can't process data at large enough fast enough to plan on global scale and instead of kidding ourselves we should embrace technology as crutches for what humanity sucks at. For example as soon as you are born in hospital the computer can adjust for more baby products that it assumes your parents will demand before they even bring you back from the hospital.



this is idiotic. the existing global production chains of the capitalists are not efficient. they exist only because they can take advantage of weak groups of workers to drive down wages to abysmal levels and impose injuries and illnesses on workers. China has the world's highest level of injuries & illnesses in industry. and then there are the enviro costs of the shipping such as air pollution & global warming effects from ships and cargo jets. when firms can externalize costs, they have no incentive to avoid them. and the same for a statist central planning bureucracy of the sort you advocate.

thus just on efficiency grounds, a classless social arrangement might be less globalized than at present, especially given the very serious enviro problems associated with global transport.

authentic libertarian socialism means that decisions that mainly affect a group of people are made by that group. there are many decisions that affect people mainly who live in a particular town or region and many that affect workers mainly in a particular workplace. this is why it makes sense for the base of decision-making to be in the assemblies in workplaces and neighborhoods.

as you go to a larger geographic scope...region, nation, multinational region etc...the number of decisions that have a roughly equal effect throughout diminish to only a few. to concentrate decision-making at even the national level, much less global, is a violation of working class power, which presupposes real self-management, and would presuppose a despotic bureaucratic class regime...which of course is what psy wants.

decentralized participatory planning is quite possible, as described by the various books published by Michael Albert & Robin Hahnel. all that is required at the national or economy-wide level is a worker group to collect the proposed plans that emerge at local and regional levels, from workers and requests for products developed at local and regional levels, and then calculate projected total supply & demand, and from this the prices will fall out, and the varous local groups will then have to adjust their plans to stay in budget. in this way it is not necessary to have any central planning body to issue orders, even for a national economy.


Yet without a centrial computerized plan how would that plan follow the person as the move from community to community? For example if a person has asthma do they have to tell every community they go to? Would it not be better to tell a centrial planning authority that could tell you ahead of time if they need time before they can get products you consume into the community like stocking local drug store with their drugs without dipping into emergency reserves?


when a person moves, their request set or personal consumption plan would move with them. so it then fits into the plans of that local area. but if the plan for a boat was entered in locality A and is factored into the total calculation of demand for boats for the whole country, their move to locality B doesn't affect the total calculation of projected demand.

hence no need for any central planning authority.

environmental crises are indeed due to capitalism but what aspect of capitalism? it is being able to treat air, water and the other parts of the enviro commons as cost-free. there is nothing in your state centralist scheme that would overcome this. the USSR had horrific environmental practices.

what's required is authentic social control over access to enviro use by associations of residents, linked together over varying distances depending upon the potential destructive practices. thus by being able to ban these practices or force production orgs to internalize the costs, by forcing a price for their pollutants, this is how the problem can be managed. but your top down central planning regime and automation mania have no way to effectively deal with this.


Free access is the goal of many Marxists including the World Socialist Movement that is a de-centrialized anti-state Marxist party that like most Marxists see enviormental issue caused by capitalism not industrialization.



so what? the burden of proof is on them to show it would work. and then they'd have to convince a majority of the population to agree. not likely in early stages of communism, and maybe not even likely later. no way of knowing.

[Psy]

this is idiotic. the existing global production chains of the capitalists are not efficient.

That does not means globalism is inefficient or have you forgotten about economies of scale? For example the AK was more efficient to produce as it was produced in huge assembly lines while the M-16 was and still produced in dinky factories. You also have RZhD being the most efficient railway in the world during the USSR while being the largest that flies in the face of your laughable idea that decentrailization beats economies of scale as the inefficenies of RZhD are attrributed to it not including the Warsaw pact railways and RZhD also ran trains as far as East Germany they would be even more efficent as the stupid bummper chain couplers would have done away with and allowing for intermobile technologies so freight could quickly move through the different gauges and even to road and boats (if RZhD also included trucking and shipping like JR (Japaneze Railways) that also showed how economies scale are more efficent.



they exist only because they can take advantage of weak groups of workers to drive down wages to abysmal levels and impose injuries and illnesses on workers.

Wrong as they accrued before capitalism looked for more exploitable labor for example when Japan industrialized after WWII it was not because Japanese workers were highly exploitable, on the contrary Japanese workers were more militant then American workers during the cold war. The Japanese bourgeoisie industrialized because it brought them economies of scale and greater productively compared to American production that was stuck with obsolete fixed capital that the American bourgeoisie did not want to replace, the American bourgeoisie responded by building new means of production in regions with highly exploitable labor as it allowed for cheaper upfront costs.



China has the world's highest level of injuries & illnesses in industry. and then there are the enviro costs of the shipping such as air pollution & global warming effects from ships and cargo jets. when firms can externalize costs, they have no incentive to avoid them. and the same for a statist central planning bureucracy of the sort you advocate.

China is not Communist, Socialist or anti-captialists in any sense so your are just construction a strawman here




thus just on efficiency grounds, a classless social arrangement might be less globalized than at present, especially given the very serious enviro problems associated with global transport.

Yhea I can really see every dinky one horse town having their own environmental agency :rolleyes:

You want to help the enivorment you need globalisation as only through the efficeny of mass production will you be enivormentally sound without depriving humanity.




authentic libertarian socialism means that decisions that mainly affect a group of people are made by that group. there are many decisions that affect people mainly who live in a particular town or region and many that affect workers mainly in a particular workplace. this is why it makes sense for the base of decision-making to be in the assemblies in workplaces and neighborhoods.

Humans can't make the calculations fast enough to plan production in real time as in reality all 6 billion humans are effected by every production decision in every community on Earth, even something as simple as planning to build a street light effects everyone on the planet from pollution to build the street light and power it, industrial capacity to build and maintain it to the finite resources that are consumed for it.



as you go to a larger geographic scope...region, nation, multinational region etc...the number of decisions that have a roughly equal effect throughout diminish to only a few. to concentrate decision-making at even the national level, much less global, is a violation of working class power, which presupposes real self-management, and would presuppose a despotic bureaucratic class regime...which of course is what psy wants.

Decentrialize leads to despotic bureaucracy class as now every stratgic community has power over non stratgic communities for example a community that generates electricy would have extra weight then rural communitiy. You'd also have the risk of communities compeiting with each other for resources so their plan has a better chance of succeding over other communities since every community would have to justify how much resources are allocated to it since there is no global plan.



decentralized participatory planning is quite possible, as described by the various books published by Michael Albert & Robin Hahnel. all that is required at the national or economy-wide level is a worker group to collect the proposed plans that emerge at local and regional levels, from workers and requests for products developed at local and regional levels, and then calculate projected total supply & demand, and from this the prices will fall out, and the varous local groups will then have to adjust their plans to stay in budget. in this way it is not necessary to have any central planning body to issue orders, even for a national economy.

And how will adjust the plan in real time without a centrialized computer system monitoring all production and consumption around the world?



when a person moves, their request set or personal consumption plan would move with them.

Yet there is not centrial plan so how will the products redistrabute in a timely fashion?



so it then fits into the plans of that local area. but if the plan for a boat was entered in locality A and is factored into the total calculation of demand for boats for the whole country, their move to locality B doesn't affect the total calculation of projected demand

Yes it does since there would be no central pool of products since there would be no central plan. Each community would have their own pool, meaning community A would lose the resources for maintain that boat while community B will gain those resources against since there is no centralized pool of resources as there is no centralized plan.




environmental crises are indeed due to capitalism but what aspect of capitalism? it is being able to treat air, water and the other parts of the enviro commons as cost-free.

Yet how much industrial capacity currently actually goes to producing utility value?



there is nothing in your state centralist scheme that would overcome this. the USSR had horrific environmental practices.

Yes and the USSR was a bad example, they had no interest in pursing cybernetics for planning and the enviorment had a low priority.



what's required is authentic social control over access to enviro use by associations of residents, linked together over varying distances depending upon the potential destructive practices. thus by being able to ban these practices or force production orgs to internalize the costs, by forcing a price for their pollutants, this is how the problem can be managed. but your top down central planning regime and automation mania have no way to effectively deal with this.

Yes it can, scientists explain the costs for continuing to pollute and what levels they feel would be acceptable, planners then start drawing up plans, global debate, a global plan is decided on and a global plan is enacted thus by passing the game theory scenario where it is in the best interest for a community to continue to pollute in the idea other will pollute less thus they will get the benifits of less pollution without having to actually do anything about it.




so what? the burden of proof is on them to show it would work. and then they'd have to convince a majority of the population to agree. not likely in early stages of communism, and maybe not even likely later. no way of knowing.
Think about it how much less pollution would there be if most products lasted say 50 years meaning most production was dealing with population growth and new demands due to everything building engineered to last. Think of all that toxic waste from electronics if most of the electronics from the 1970's was still in use and newer electronics were just replacing those fail from age and dealing with population growth.

See how once you get rid of planned obsolesce the amount of products manufactured each year goes way down thus less pollution without sacrificing utility.

[syndicat]

Yes it does since there would be no central pool of products since there would be no central plan. Each community would have their own pool, meaning community A would lose the resources for maintain that boat while community B will gain those resources against since there is no centralized pool of resources as there is no centralized plan.



you're not paying attention. there is a worker organization with computers which tallies up all the proposals for production from the various worker groups, and all the requests for products from individuals, families, communities, regions. there is thus a total number of boats proposed for production, based on the requests of all those who want boats, including B. this total number of proposed boats to be produced in the nation doesn't change because B moves from Seattle to Houston.

What each community has is its proposals, year to year, on what people want, including that local community's requests for public goods and services. but this is a part of the national tallies. prices are determined by the national tallies. goods are produced by the various worker organizations throughout the country. People who receive these goods need not live in the community where that worker organization is. they can be living anywhere. It is a single national economy.

but it is still decentralized in that proposals for production arise within the local worker production orgs, and requests for product arise from individuals, families, neighborhood assemblies, citywide or regional congresses of delegates etc.

your problem is that you confuse national integration of the economy with centralized top down decision-making authority. the former does not require the latter.

the rest of your comments are just bullshit.

[Psy]

you're not paying attention. there is a worker organization with computers which tallies up all the proposals for production from the various worker groups, and all the requests for products from individuals, families, communities, regions. there is thus a total number of boats proposed for production, based on the requests of all those who want boats, including B. this total number of proposed boats to be produced in the nation doesn't change because B moves from Seattle to Houston.

And how would boat production get any economy of scale without mass production and standardization? Without a central plan how would there be standard parts not only for all boats but all boats share some standard parts for other vehicles like trains, trucks and buses everywhere on Earth?



What each community has is its proposals, year to year,

Year to year? You do know that Wal-Mart adjusts its distribution plans based on changes in consumption patterns each day thanks to cybernetics.



on what people want, including that local community's requests for public goods and services. but this is a part of the national tallies.

What nations? The USA would only be a region as nation-states no longer exist after a world communist revolution.




prices are determined by the national tallies. goods are produced by the various worker organizations throughout the country.

What country? Why would Germany, France, Spain or whatever still exist after a global communist revolution?



People who receive these goods need not live in the community where that worker organization is. they can be living anywhere. It is a single national economy.

How can that be if you have national boundaries? Are you suggesting that the USA nation state would still exist and Americans living the nation state of Japan would still get commodities from the USA all without a centralized plan?




but it is still decentralized in that proposals for production arise within the local worker production orgs, and requests for product arise from individuals, families, neighborhood assemblies, citywide or regional congresses of delegates etc.

That what it the point of nation state?



your problem is that you confuse national integration of the economy with centralized top down decision-making authority. the former does not require the latter.

I'm confused why think nations would exist after the fall of capitalism



the rest of your comments are just bullshit.
Bullshit? So you don't believe planned obsolesce exists?

[syndicat]

What country? Why would Germany, France, Spain or whatever still exist after a global communist revolution?


They become self-governing regions, with their own language and probably various cultural traditions differing. there are still going to be different nationalities even if there are no states. As I said, decisions will affect different groups of people differently. Some decisions will affect some most, and they should be able to control those decisions. Hence a sphere of autonomy for workers in a particular plant because there are decisions that affect them more, such as decisions about the running of their plant, the governance of their work, and similarly decisions about a particular city that affect people who live there, so there is a regional residents' organization, the regional governance for that city region. And of course for regions of larger scope there are fewer decisions that affect everyone equally throughout the region but there will be some, and some of these regions will correspond to a national group such as people who speak a given language, such as the French.


And how would boat production get any economy of scale without mass production and standardization? Without a central plan how would there be standard parts not only for all boats but all boats share some standard parts for other vehicles like trains, trucks and buses everywhere on Earth?



We can't possibly know apriori whether economies of scale will exist in any particular industry. Let's suppose, however, that there is a large boat-making plant in Stamford, CT and a smaller boat yard in Houston, TX. now, if these two facilities have exactly the same level of expertise and equipment and environmental costs, and the larger yard in Stamford does have economies of scale, this would mean that the per boat costs of the Stamford yard would be less.

now, in the decentralized social planning system, each production organization throughout the country is contracted by the whole society to manage the socially owned facilities it is using. That organization can continue to have its use-right to manage that facility as long as its cost/benefit ratio comes up to the accepted standard (such as social average) which the society has agreed to. So if a facility drops below that standard, it has to show why it shouldn't be dissolved and its resources passed over to some other worker group.

So, in this case, if there are economies of scale, and if we assume the boats are of the same value to users, then the cost/benefit ratio of the Houston TX yard will be too high. And this would be evidence that boat-making should be concentrated in larger yards like the Stamford yard. But this is not something that can be proven apriori. You seem to assume that it is some sort of apriori Truth that you've gained from your navel gazing.

Now, in regard to parts. If each yard had to manufacture from scratch its own parts, then this might mean that its costs would be higher than they would be if there is some particular supplier that they all use. for example, suppose the boats have electronic gear. And suppose that unit costs are lower if that gear is made by a single production org for all the yards. In that case the yards would be under pressure to not make their own electronic gear but put in requests from the same manufacturer of the electronic gear. If a yard didn't do that and had higher than average costs per unit of benefit, it would have to show why it shouldn't be disbanded.

So the decentralized planning system does in fact lead to efficient outcomes, without your autocratic state centralist hierarchy.

[Psy]

They become self-governing regions, with their own language and probably various cultural traditions differing. there are still going to be different nationalities even if there are no states. As I said, decisions will affect different groups of people differently. Some decisions will affect some most, and they should be able to control those decisions. Hence a sphere of autonomy for workers in a particular plant because there are decisions that affect them more, such as decisions about the running of their plant, the governance of their work, and similarly decisions about a particular city that affect people who live there, so there is a regional residents' organization, the regional governance for that city region. And of course for regions of larger scope there are fewer decisions that affect everyone equally throughout the region but there will be some, and some of these regions will correspond to a national group such as people who speak a given language, such as the French.

Without the bourgeoisie state holding all the local cultures within a nation-state together they will splinter away as there no such thing as a national identity as it is a construct of the ruling class. Marxists intent to replace this with a global identity for example our plan to solve the Palestine/Israel issue is that neither nation has a right to exist as no nation has a right to exist thus solving the conflict as there would no Israel or Palestine meaning Jews and Arabs would be part of the same global identity and have not national identity as there would be no Jewish or Arab state as there would be no nations as humanity would have evolved beyond needing such constructs.



We can't possibly know apriori whether economies of scale will exist in any particular industry. Let's suppose, however, that there is a large boat-making plant in Stamford, CT and a smaller boat yard in Houston, TX. now, if these two facilities have exactly the same level of expertise and equipment and environmental costs, and the larger yard in Stamford does have economies of scale, this would mean that the per boat costs of the Stamford yard would be less.

Yes



now, in the decentralized social planning system, each production organization throughout the country is contracted by the whole society to manage the socially owned facilities it is using. That organization can continue to have its use-right to manage that facility as long as its cost/benefit ratio comes up to the accepted standard (such as social average) which the society has agreed to. So if a facility drops below that standard, it has to show why it shouldn't be dissolved and its resources passed over to some other worker group.

But how do you agree on standards and prevent competing standards without centralized planning? How do you plan when to upgrade technology in use without a centralized plan?



So, in this case, if there are economies of scale, and if we assume the boats are of the same value to users, then the cost/benefit ratio of the Houston TX yard will be too high. And this would be evidence that boat-making should be concentrated in larger yards like the Stamford yard. But this is not something that can be proven apriori. You seem to assume that it is some sort of apriori Truth that you've gained from your navel gazing.

The falling rate of profit as means of production centralized is proof as it proved the devaluing of commodities that mean commodities are cheaper to produce due to capitalists centralizing their production.




Now, in regard to parts. If each yard had to manufacture from scratch its own parts, then this might mean that its costs would be higher than they would be if there is some particular supplier that they all use. for example, suppose the boats have electronic gear. And suppose that unit costs are lower if that gear is made by a single production org for all the yards. In that case the yards would be under pressure to not make their own electronic gear but put in requests from the same manufacturer of the electronic gear. If a yard didn't do that and had higher than average costs per unit of benefit, it would have to show why it shouldn't be disbanded.

Yet you are talking about two yards that are not really working together as one. If they were then the engineers from the two yards would eventually get together and start merging their ideas as neither has anything to lose since they are part of the same global production organization just different departments thus not competing with each other and also have an easier time bringing in electronic engineers from outside due to the centralized plan again since they are not competing (meaning the electronic producers would not care if the ship yards did their electronics in-house or contracted out and be more then happy to share their engineers with the shipyards within reason).

[syndicat]

Without the bourgeoisie state holding all the local cultures within a nation-state together they will splinter away as there no such thing as a national identity as it is a construct of the ruling class.

this is an idiotic statement that is plainly false. the bourgesoisie did not create language groups. the working classes of the various country have their various cultures and these are not the same.


But how do you agree on standards and prevent competing standards without centralized planning? How do you plan when to upgrade technology in use without a centralized plan?


research and development and organization of jobs is something that workers in the industries arrange. this is part of the workers being masters of their industries.

also, workers in an industry have a federation for that industry. this has various roles such as assisting in redesign of jobs to eliminate the old taylorist hierarchies. this could be involved in developing standards and technologies for that industry.

the variuos regional or national federations of residents also have their own research and development bodies and these can also make proposals as far as large scale infrastructure, but their only authorty lies in what people want in the way of product. it's up to workers to decide on the methods of delivering what people want.

whether to adopt a new technology is for workers to propose. they will propose their estimates of the advantages from it, in terms of reduced costs, added capacity or other advantages. whether the costs are warranted will depend on the projected demand for the product.


Yet you are talking about two yards that are not really working together as one. If they were then the engineers from the two yards would eventually get together and start merging their ideas as neither has anything to lose since they are part of the same global production organization just different departments thus not competing with each other and also have an easier time bringing in electronic engineers from outside due to the centralized plan again since they are not competing (meaning the electronic producers would not care if the ship yards did their electronics in-house or contracted out and be more then happy to share their engineers with the shipyards within reason).

you're assuming the continued existence of a class system in which workers are subordinate to a techno-managerial hierarchy. this is why you suppose there will be separate job titles called "engineer".

you're ignoring the fact that to be in to be free, to be in control, workers need to self-manage the places where they work. putting all decisiions into some central regime converts the working class into industrial slaves.

there is no reason to suppose there can't be separate ship yards at various places, all making boats, and each self-managed by its workers. if there are efficiencies to be gained by acquiring parts from a common source, that will show up in lower costs of doing so, as I described earlier.

similarly with standards. let's suppose some group were to propose building a railway but without building the track to the 4 ft 8.5 in standard. this would require transhipment of freight, not interchange of freight cars, which would greatly raise costs. hence a proposal of this sort would not get funding because it wouldn't satisfy the standard of average benefit per unit of cost. standards like this are likely to be adopted because it will be beneficial to the worker organizations. but there is no reason to have common standards just for the sake of having a common standard. for example, suppose there are two different kinds of dishwashing techniques that machines use. one is put into machines made by one group and the other goes into machines made by a different group. if the cost/benefit ratio is the same, there is no reason to impose a common "standard" just for the sake of uniformity.

[Psy]

this is an idiotic statement that is plainly false. the bourgesoisie did not create language groups. the working classes of the various country have their various cultures and these are not the same.

It is true national identities are made up of multiple cultures and just speaking the same language does not mean there is any kind of cohesion.




research and development and organization of jobs is something that workers in the industries arrange. this is part of the workers being masters of their industries.

also, workers in an industry have a federation for that industry. this has various roles such as assisting in redesign of jobs to eliminate the old taylorist hierarchies. this could be involved in developing standards and technologies for that industry.

the variuos regional or national federations of residents also have their own research and development bodies and these can also make proposals as far as large scale infrastructure, but their only authorty lies in what people want in the way of product. it's up to workers to decide on the methods of delivering what people want.

You saying that each nation would have its own R&D meaning Wales would have a different R&D primary concerned in that people in their nation wants that would result in competition between nations as engineering if folded into national identity thus causing engineer to out do other nations out of national pride.



whether to adopt a new technology is for workers to propose. they will propose their estimates of the advantages from it, in terms of reduced costs, added capacity or other advantages. whether the costs are warranted will depend on the projected demand for the product.

So workers that would not have access to the technology as it has yet to be mass produced would be part of the decision when to mass produce it and have as much say as workers with access to the technology?





you're assuming the continued existence of a class system in which workers are subordinate to a techno-managerial hierarchy. this is why you suppose there will be separate job titles called "engineer".

I suppose there will be a job title called engineer as it required training to be a engineer just like it requires training to be a scientist.



you're ignoring the fact that to be in to be free, to be in control, workers need to self-manage the places where they work. putting all decisiions into some central regime converts the working class into industrial slaves.

You are assuming that a central planning body would care about how workers fulfill the plan.



there is no reason to suppose there can't be separate ship yards at various places, all making boats, and each self-managed by its workers. if there are efficiencies to be gained by acquiring parts from a common source, that will show up in lower costs of doing so, as I described earlier.

similarly with standards. let's suppose some group were to propose building a railway but without building the track to the 4 ft 8.5 in standard. this would require transhipment of freight, not interchange of freight cars, which would greatly raise costs. hence a proposal of this sort would not get funding because it wouldn't satisfy the standard of average benefit per unit of cost. standards like this are likely to be adopted because it will be beneficial to the worker organizations. but there is no reason to have common standards just for the sake of having a common standard. for example, suppose there are two different kinds of dishwashing techniques that machines use. one is put into machines made by one group and the other goes into machines made by a different group. if the cost/benefit ratio is the same, there is no reason to impose a common "standard" just for the sake of uniformity.
But then you have standards not evolving for example the Warsaw pact nations not adopting SA-3 coupler of the RZhD as there were not part of RZhD and there was no central plan to change all of the Warsaw pact railways from buffer and chain couplers to the SA-3 coupler thus railways stuck with the standard that worked for them in the past. RZhD also had a much larger efficency then every other railways despite have the longest runs and largest network.

[syndicat]

You are assuming that a central planning body would care about how workers fulfill the plan.

they will want to appoint managers to rule over workers because they will want to make sure their orders are obeyed.

but what will happen is, as happened in USSR, local managers and workers will collude to lie to the central planning body about what their real capacity is, so as to get an easy quota. the central planning body will not be able to get accurate information about capacity and it will not be able to get accurate information about consumer preferences.

central planning inherently violates self-management. hence it is inconsistent with libertarian socialism.

and if you assume there will be engineers, you are assuming there will be a technocratic ruling class, with expertise concentrated into the hands of an elite, and not democratized. in order for workers to be in control there needs to be a system of education and upgrading of skills and knowledge so that workers in general are educated to engineering knowledge.


So workers that would not have access to the technology as it has yet to be mass produced would be part of the decision when to mass produce it and have as much say as workers with access to the technology?


if a certain technology is used by workers at factory A and not at factory B, the fact that different technologies are used is not relevant unless it makes a difference to the benefit per unit of cost, that is, efficiency. if factory A has a technology that is more efficient than factory B, and factory B has lower benefit per unit of cost, then factory B is under threat of being disbanded unless it gets its efficiency level up. This would be a basis for the workers at factory B to propose that they should be allocated the more efficient technology. they then develop a plan for this, with requests to the worker org that produces the relevant equipment, and this then gets factored into their proposal, with the cost of the new technology spread out over its projected life time.

as to the rest you're repeating yourself. i already explained the answers.

[Psy]

they will want to appoint managers to rule over workers because they will want to make sure their orders are obeyed.

Or simply deal directly with worker councils.



but what will happen is, as happened in USSR, local managers and workers will collude to lie to the central planning body about what their real capacity is, so as to get an easy quota.

Unless cybernetics prevents means of production to keep anything a secret from the central planning body (as the central production body can see what every machine on Earth is doing) and if the central planning body already gives easy quotas.



the central planning body will not be able to get accurate information about capacity and it will not be able to get accurate information about consumer preferences.

Cybernetics means every computer can blab to the Internet about what is (and not) happening.




central planning inherently violates self-management. hence it is inconsistent with libertarian socialism.

As if a centrial body would care about the day to day activity of a local body if it meeting or exceeding expetations.



and if you assume there will be engineers, you are assuming there will be a technocratic ruling class, with expertise concentrated into the hands of an elite, and not democratized. in order for workers to be in control there needs to be a system of education and upgrading of skills and knowledge so that workers in general are educated to engineering knowledge.

That would make said workers engineers.




if a certain technology is used by workers at factory A and not at factory B, the fact that different technologies are used is not relevant unless it makes a difference to the benefit per unit of cost, that is, efficiency. if factory A has a technology that is more efficient than factory B, and factory B has lower benefit per unit of cost, then factory B is under threat of being disbanded unless it gets its efficiency level up. This would be a basis for the workers at factory B to propose that they should be allocated the more efficient technology. they then develop a plan for this, with requests to the worker org that produces the relevant equipment, and this then gets factored into their proposal, with the cost of the new technology spread out over its projected life time.

Before that point you have engineers, technicans and their freinds with protypes of the technology thus you'd have a minority that have direct experince with the technology and a majority that doesn't

[syndicat]

As if a centrial body would care about the day to day activity of a local body if it meeting or exceeding expetations.

translation: "As long as they are obeying our orders we don't care." But how do they ensure people will obey their orders?


Unless cybernetics prevents means of production to keep anything a secret from the central planning body (as the central production body can see what every machine on Earth is doing) and if the central planning body already gives easy quotas.


in other words, Big Brother with a vengeance. no minute without surveillance by the people you are subordinate to.

me:
and if you assume there will be engineers, you are assuming there will be a technocratic ruling class, with expertise concentrated into the hands of an elite, and not democratized. in order for workers to be in control there needs to be a system of education and upgrading of skills and knowledge so that workers in general are educated to engineering knowledge.

you:
That would make said workers engineers.

then why did you say "engineer" rather than "worker"? and in a central planning regime there is no incentive for such training and democratization of expertise because decisions are centralized in the elite planning body.


Before that point you have engineers, technicans and their freinds with protypes of the technology thus you'd have a minority that have direct experince with the technology and a majority that doesn't

again you're assuming a technocratic minority to make decisions. as I say, your view has absolutely nothing whatever to do with proletarian self-emancipation.

[Psy]

translation: "As long as they are obeying our orders we don't care." But how do they ensure people will obey their orders?

More like as long as they are pulling their weight as how to ensure they will by simply giving the means of production over to those that will effectively use.



in other words, Big Brother with a vengeance. no minute without surveillance by the people you are subordinate to.

Yet how would the public be able to make a informed decision without having data how effective production is being run?



then why did you say "engineer" rather than "worker"? and in a central planning regime there is no incentive for such training and democratization of expertise because decisions are centralized in the elite planning body.

Because there might be workers without engineering credentials also there is incentive if the central body is beholden to the public.




again you're assuming a technocratic minority to make decisions. as I say, your view has absolutely nothing whatever to do with proletarian self-emancipation.
I'm not, I'm assuming qualified people briefing the masses on the situation and carrying out the wishes of the masses.

[syndicat]

I'm assuming qualified people briefing the masses on the situation and carrying out the wishes of the masses.

and how the hell are the "masses" supposed to know about the details or control the decisions? even under the most democratic model of central planning, you have elections of representatives to some regional, national or international body. you have no real control over what these people are doing, just as we have no real control over what the politicians do once elected now. secondly, these people will only be able to deal with a small number of policy questions. they can't possibly look into the details of the hundreds of thousands of products that are produced, and the complex interrelationships between production groups and production and consumption and different needs of different communities and so on.

what you will inevitably end up with is a bureuacratic class regime, and workers will be subordinate wage slaves as they are now and as they were in the USSR.

[Psy]

and how the hell are the "masses" supposed to know about the details or control the decisions? even under the most democratic model of central planning, you have elections of representatives to some regional, national or international body. you have no real control over what these people are doing, just as we have no real control over what the politicians do once elected now.

Cybernetics thus computers blab on the planners just as much as they blab on workers, thus planners would not be escape the constant gaze of the Internet.



secondly, these people will only be able to deal with a small number of policy questions. they can't possibly look into the details of the hundreds of thousands of products that are produced, and the complex interrelationships between production groups and production and consumption and different needs of different communities and so on.

Cybernetics, computers already used to simply complex interrelations and to track demands on a global scale.




what you will inevitably end up with is a bureuacratic class regime, and workers will be subordinate wage slaves as they are now and as they were in the USSR.
Or a society mostly run by computer algorithms, which computer engineer of the USSR saw as the solution to the problems of GOSPLAN arguing only through a open cybernetic network could one have a truly democratic economy required for a true communist society.

[syndicat]

This is technocratic nonsense. decisions must be made which reflect the real preferences and desires of the people. there is no substitute for this. either the people are in control or not.

the vast amount of information preclude the masses from having any kind of handle on what is really going on under central planning. the information needs to be broken down into local chunks based on direct familiarity of workers and consumers and then encapsulated in local planning.

thus what is necessary is to have real control situated locally in workplace organizations controlled by workers, and in neighborhood assemblies and councils where residents can make decisions, and then industrial federations and congresses where workers can control their industry, and regional and city-wide congresses where plans from below can have an immpact.

the advantage of decentralized planning is it provides realms of real power for the people and is also more efficient than central planning, precisely because it is responsive to what people and communities want.

there is no "technical fix" to the fundamental social question of domination and exploitation. the problems of the old Soviet regime were not merely technical.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Somalia.

[Psy]

This is technocratic nonsense. decisions must be made which reflect the real preferences and desires of the people. there is no substitute for this. either the people are in control or not.

And why would they not be in control simply because there is central planning via the Internet with knowledgeable people carrying out the decisions the people agreed on?



the vast amount of information preclude the masses from having any kind of handle on what is really going on under central planning. the information needs to be broken down into local chunks based on direct familiarity of workers and consumers and then encapsulated in local planning.

It is called filters, computer can already only give you the data you are interested in.



thus what is necessary is to have real control situated locally in workplace organizations controlled by workers, and in neighborhood assemblies and councils where residents can make decisions, and then industrial federations and congresses where workers can control their industry, and regional and city-wide congresses where plans from below can have an immpact.

And how are they going able to relate their local desires with global impacts better then through global cybernetics?



the advantage of decentralized planning is it provides realms of real power for the people and is also more efficient than central planning, precisely because it is responsive to what people and communities want.

You assume decisions made a local level does not effect those on the other side of the world.



there is no "technical fix" to the fundamental social question of domination and exploitation. the problems of the old Soviet regime were not merely technical.
If that is the case then how come we are talking about Marxism on a network built and engineered by the US imperial war machine? You think a communist society would be (or even want to) tame the Internet where DARPA failed?

[syndicat]

You assume decisions made a local level does not effect those on the other side of the world.

I make no such assumption. There are very few things that affect people the world over. Your concept of a world state is unnecessary and would be a world dictatorship of the bureaucratic class.

Decisions do have ripple effects throughout an economy. This is why those anarchists are mistaken who talk about local self-sufficiency. There is no reason we should cut ourselves off from things made elsewhere.

But, as I pointed out, the capitalist global production chains are inefficient so a rational self-managed socialism would be likely to have less global trade, not more.

within a national economy, moreover, I've already explained how the ripple effects across the national economy are accommodated. they are accommodated by having a single worker group who collect all the proposals for production and requests for product and then they calculate total projected supply and demand and inform people what the projected prices would be.

When I talk about the "national" economy you can take this as shorthand for the entire continental economy of north america. The European region might encompass various nationalities in a single economy.

Thus local decisions about what to request effect the total economy, because they are added to total demand, and this effects projected prices for products and thus all local groups and worker orgs must adjust their plans accordingly.

So decentralized social planning has no problem with accommodating ripple effects over as broad an area as a single economy is. I rather doubt that this is going to be a single global economy in any reasonable time frame.

[AK]

Somalia.
No dear, that's anarcho-capitalism.

[Psy]

I make no such assumption. There are very few things that affect people the world over. Your concept of a world state is unnecessary and would be a world dictatorship of the bureaucratic class.

What bureaucratic class? We are talking about people that are bound to what society as a whole wants and simply making it happen.



Decisions do have ripple effects throughout an economy. This is why those anarchists are mistaken who talk about local self-sufficiency. There is no reason we should cut ourselves off from things made elsewhere.

But, as I pointed out, the capitalist global production chains are inefficient so a rational self-managed socialism would be likely to have less global trade, not more.

Why are they inefficient? Wal-Mart is a global distribution chain using cybernetics to effectively manage distribution on a global scale, while they exploit workers horribly I fail to see how they are in any way inefficient.



within a national economy, moreover, I've already explained how the ripple effects across the national economy are accommodated. they are accommodated by having a single worker group who collect all the proposals for production and requests for product and then they calculate total projected supply and demand and inform people what the projected prices would be.

All of which are obsolete with cybernetics as computers are much better at this then humans.



When I talk about the "national" economy you can take this as shorthand for the entire continental economy of north america. The European region might encompass various nationalities in a single economy.

That would be a region.



Thus local decisions about what to request effect the total economy, because they are added to total demand, and this effects projected prices for products and thus all local groups and worker orgs must adjust their plans accordingly.

Or you use cybernetics to track demand, decisions and requests globally to allow planing on a global level and takes into account production, distribution and consumption at a global level.




So decentralized social planning has no problem with accommodating ripple effects over as broad an area as a single economy is. I rather doubt that this is going to be a single global economy in any reasonable time frame.
Again cybernetics would allow a single global economy, sure it would probably have regional zones but you'd still have global statistics, pools of resources and a global overarching plan for all the regional zones meaning Africa would not be shit out of luck simply because it has to be subsidized by the industrialized world as a central plan would easily allow them to be subsidized without them losing any influence on global decision making.

[syndicat]

i already explained why capitalist global production chains are inefficient. hint: you have to look at all costs.

you endlessly repeat yourself and don't respond to arguments. i think we're through here.

[Psy]

i already explained why capitalist global production chains are inefficient. hint: you have to look at all costs.

They are not when you ignore worker exploitation and the lack economies of scale for transportation (meaning Wal-Mart biggest problem is they can't get a RZhD,ANRC or JR to efficiently move their freight to even the most remote and dinky community where the train crews outnumber the local populations.

Basically looking at large state run railways the larger the railway authority the more efficent it becomes and more likely that trains will actually run on time.



you endlessly repeat yourself and don't respond to arguments. i think we're through here.
You don't respond to my arguments, how with decentralized planning would can it still be fair for remote communities that consume far more labor value then they totally produce? With a central plan this is not an issue as you simply plan to focus on utility that would including fulfilling the demand of even those communities that would be subsidized by global production. When it becomes decentralized the fact these communities have nothing to offer global production but dependent on it makes them at a political disadvantage.

For example if modernizing Afganistan was part of a central plan construction crews could descent on Afghanistan like an army and start industrializing Afganistan as the plan says they should yet if it decentralized then you have the problem of Afganistan's neighbors asking what is in it for them and workers having to get paid somehow (instead of getting paid by a centrial body)

[syndicat]

They are not when you ignore worker exploitation and the lack economies of scale for transportation (meaning Wal-Mart biggest problem is they can't get a RZhD,ANRC or JR to efficiently move their freight to even the most remote and dinky community where the train crews outnumber the local populations.

Basically looking at large state run railways the larger the railway authority the more efficent it becomes and more likely that trains will actually run on time.


Efficiency means least cost per unit of benefit. This means you need an accurate way to measure benefit and human cost. Central planning has no way to do this at all. that's because the cost can only be measured if those would suffer the cost have the power to exact a price...such as community being able to prevent being polluted on...a power it would not have under your oppressive global dictatorship.

Within capitalism, only market expenses and revenue count. But this does not tally all costs or benefits. From the fact that Wal-mart can get workers in China to work for only 1/20th of wages in USA, it does not follow human costs to the workers are less than to workers in the USA. Actually the human costs are greater because conditions of work are worse in China and China has the highest rate of occupational illnesses and injuries of any country. these are human costs, not measured by the market (and not measured by Soviet style central planning either).

the other form of human cost not measured by the market (or Soviet style central planning) are the enviro costs to people in areas near polluting factories, and the massive pollution caused by jumbo jets and freighters on the high seas. These are major contributors to air pollution and global warming.

if all these costs were factored in, the global production chain would not be efficient. it would be cheaper overall to produce the products in USA and eliminate the long distance transport costs. Wal-mart's global production chains exist solely to take advantage of more intense worker exploitation, not because they are more efficient.

in the USA railways have lost out to trucks over time. This is due to two factors: enviro costs and importance of time for capitalist competition. Railroads generate less pollution per ton mile than trucks but the transport companies don't have to pay for their pollution so the railroads get no benefit.

freight trains can be one or two miles long in USA. but when a train arrives at a marshalling yard on edge of a big city, the train is broken up, and the cars going to different receivers are switched out and separate switching crews take them to the various sidings. what happens is that this break up and break down of trains adds greatly to the total end to end time whereas trucks can go directly from source to the receiver. and trucks in the USA have free access to the freeways throughout the country. railroads are almost always slower. thus the move to just in time, which you say is so efficient, has worked to the detriment of the railroads because they can't compete in time sensitivity.

the only way around this would be a switch to a non-profit social economy which doesn't use JIT. that's because altho JIT enables Wal-mart to save money, this is just cost-shifting. it's not a real efficiency. wal-mart is using the independent truckers as moving warehouses and truckers often lose money when they have to wait to unload. but wal-mart doesn't have to pay them. so the gains from less warehousing space are illusory.

[Psy]

Efficiency means least cost per unit of benefit. This means you need an accurate way to measure benefit and human cost. Central planning has no way to do this at all. that's because the cost can only be measured if those would suffer the cost have the power to exact a price...such as community being able to prevent being polluted on...a power it would not have under your oppressive global dictatorship.

Yes central planning does by simply quantifying it for computers so you can break it down to mathematically antagonism to crunch the number then use visualizations of the numbers like graphs to make the data human readable.



Within capitalism, only market expenses and revenue count. But this does not tally all costs or benefits. From the fact that Wal-mart can get workers in China to work for only 1/20th of wages in USA, it does not follow human costs to the workers are less than to workers in the USA. Actually the human costs are greater because conditions of work are worse in China and China has the highest rate of occupational illnesses and injuries of any country. these are human costs, not measured by the market (and not measured by Soviet style central planning either).

the other form of human cost not measured by the market (or Soviet style central planning) are the enviro costs to people in areas near polluting factories, and the massive pollution caused by jumbo jets and freighters on the high seas. These are major contributors to air pollution and global warming.

True except as I said you can measure them in central planning in fact it already is in game like Simcity and Tropico it is just a very crude mathematical model that is for entertainment rather then assisting in planing.




if all these costs were factored in, the global production chain would not be efficient. it would be cheaper overall to produce the products in USA and eliminate the long distance transport costs.

You do know the USA does not have all the resources needed to be self-sufficent not even the USSR though it came pretty close.



Wal-mart's global production chains exist solely to take advantage of more intense worker exploitation, not because they are more efficient.

It is also highely efficient, it is not like Sears exploits workers less.




in the USA railways have lost out to trucks over time. This is due to two factors: enviro costs and importance of time for capitalist competition. Railroads generate less pollution per ton mile than trucks but the transport companies don't have to pay for their pollution so the railroads get no benefit.

freight trains can be one or two miles long in USA. but when a train arrives at a marshalling yard on edge of a big city, the train is broken up, and the cars going to different receivers are switched out and separate switching crews take them to the various sidings. what happens is that this break up and break down of trains adds greatly to the total end to end time whereas trucks can go directly from source to the receiver. and trucks in the USA have free access to the freeways throughout the country. railroads are almost always slower. thus the move to just in time, which you say is so efficient, has worked to the detriment of the railroads because they can't compete in time sensitivity.

You do know we now have intermodal technology for example containers can be lifted off rail cars and placed on trucks for the final leg, semi-trailers can even be converted to railcars (roadrailer). Also Japanese Railways did just in time deliveries before it was privitized as it could pretty much ensure the customers container would arrive at its destiontion on time as JR could throw commuter trains onto siding if freight trains with just in time cargo were running behind (and reguarly did for rush deliveries running late)




the only way around this would be a switch to a non-profit social economy which doesn't use JIT. that's because altho JIT enables Wal-mart to save money, this is just cost-shifting. it's not a real efficiency. wal-mart is using the independent truckers as moving warehouses and truckers often lose money when they have to wait to unload. but wal-mart doesn't have to pay them. so the gains from less warehousing space are illusory.
Or do what JR did and run your fast fright on as tight seduals as passenger trains meaning the freight train would arrive within a half-minute window and depart also within a half-minute window.

[syndicat]

Yes central planning does by simply quantifying it for computers so you can break it down to mathematically antagonism to crunch the number then use visualizations of the numbers like graphs to make the data human readable.



your constant reference to computers is a kind of religion. computers are also used in the decentralized planning system i described.

but this is not a solution because the problem is obtaining the right information about costs and benefits. it doesn't matter how powerful your computer is if you don't have the right information.

and I gave reasons as to why this is not available either to Wal-mart or to a central planning regime.

for example, the planning system needs accurate information about total social costs. among these costs, for example, are projected pollution damage to people in a particular area. to know what the cost is you need to be able to measure the intensity of their opposition, when they have accurate info about probable health effects. this could only come if they had the power to ban a pollutant or force a production org to pay a fee to them for polluting them. this is not allowed under your central planning regime, hence you have no way to get accurate estimates of social costs of pollution.

if the population does have the power to control access to the enviro commons, then in this case we can derive a price for the pollutant (thru negotiation between production org and community), and this can then enter onto the plan of the production organization and this then gets factored into total estimates of projected cost by the national group who gather all plans and publish the projected supply and demand data and the projected prices for all goods and services, which will need to include the enviro costs as a component.

seems your buying capitalist railroad industry propaganda about intermodal. in USA intermodal is the main growth area for railways, and they claim they can match JIT times with containers or vans on flats, as you suggest. in USA there are few passenger trains to compete with freight, so it should be even more feasible than in Japan. but actually the railroads have made little headway. this is because this intermodal strategy only works for very large customers. it still doesn't compete for smaller individual shipments (one or two carloads), only the very largest.

[Psy]

your constant reference to computers is a kind of religion. computers are also used in the decentralized planning system i described.

but this is not a solution because the problem is obtaining the right information about costs and benefits. it doesn't matter how powerful your computer is if you don't have the right information.

And why would decentralized authorities have better information then a centralized authority?



for example, the planning system needs accurate information about total social costs. among these costs, for example, are projected pollution damage to people in a particular area. to know what the cost is you need to be able to measure the intensity of their opposition, when they have accurate info about probable health effects. this could only come if they had the power to ban a pollutant or force a production org to pay a fee to them for polluting them. this is not allowed under your central planning regime, hence you have no way to get accurate estimates of social costs of pollution.

Wait why would a central authority be able to ban a pollutant? A central authority would get information on pollution from scientific studies and public option, basically they turn to scientists and say how many PPM of this pollution is safe then turn to the public and say how much of a inconvenience is pollution at these levels.



if the population does have the power to control access to the enviro commons, then in this case we can derive a price for the pollutant (thru negotiation between production org and community), and this can then enter onto the plan of the production organization and this then gets factored into total estimates of projected cost by the national group who gather all plans and publish the projected supply and demand data and the projected prices for all goods and services, which will need to include the enviro costs as a component.

See above



seems your buying capitalist railroad industry propaganda about intermodal. in USA intermodal is the main growth area for railways, and they claim they can match JIT times with containers or vans on flats, as you suggest. in USA there are few passenger trains to compete with freight, so it should be even more feasible than in Japan. but actually the railroads have made little headway. this is because this intermodal strategy only works for very large customers. it still doesn't compete for smaller individual shipments (one or two carloads), only the very largest.
Because the US has a worse railway network then the USSR had even in the 1960's due to a shrinking rail network and no real electrification, also you just proved the advantage of large scale production.

[syndicat]

Because the US has a worse railway network then the USSR had even in the 1960's due to a shrinking rail network and no real electrification, also you just proved the advantage of large scale production.

Nope. Due to massive centrally planned -- and completely anti-ecological -- investment in massive freeway system, which is an almost free subsidy to trucking.


And why would decentralized authorities have better information then a centralized authority?


I already explained this. The only way the real preferences of the mass of people in an area in regard to pollutants can be expressed as an evaluation is if there is a socially interactive process.

So, the local region says, we want 4N price per pound of pollutant. This is too expensive because it makes the production of X too expensive so no production group there can produce X, and the region is then threatened with loss of the advantages of producing X. so they then respond, given that information, by lowering the price to 2N per pound of pollutant, and this is within the range where a production group can produce X and stay within socially average cost per unit of benefit.

you don't know what people's real preferences are unless they must make hard choices where they are forced to choose between A and B and can't have both. If they then choose A we know what they prefer. In the case I described it also yields a price per pound of the pollutant. And thus the planning system has that as an input. But only because the system is decentralized, with the people who live in an area able to decide how much pollutant they are willing to accept and at what price.

[Psy]

Nope. Due to massive centrally planned -- and completely anti-ecological -- investment in massive freeway system, which is an almost free subsidy to trucking.

While the massive centrally planned RZhD and JR were building new lines and electrifying existing lines and engineers were developing high speed trains (that is right the USSR had prototype bullet train yet closer to UAC TubroTrain except instead of jet turnines RZhD simply slapped conventinal jet engines for large airliners on their protype passenger trains due to the advantage of being able to use reverse thrust to slow the train like airliners).



I already explained this. The only way the real preferences of the mass of people in an area in regard to pollutants can be expressed as an evaluation is if there is a socially interactive process.

Any why would there not be in a centrial plan?




So, the local region says, we want 4N price per pound of pollutant. This is too expensive because it makes the production of X too expensive so no production group there can produce X, and the region is then threatened with loss of the advantages of producing X. so they then respond, given that information, by lowering the price to 2N per pound of pollutant, and this is within the range where a production group can produce X and stay within socially average cost per unit of benefit.

Compared to a centrial plan where they just look elsewhere to produce X as a global transporation network means they can manufacture anywhere.



you don't know what people's real preferences are unless they must make hard choices where they are forced to choose between A and B and can't have both. If they then choose A we know what they prefer. In the case I described it also yields a price per pound of the pollutant. And thus the planning system has that as an input. But only because the system is decentralized, with the people who live in an area able to decide how much pollutant they are willing to accept and at what price.
In the real world we don't have A and B we have A to Z, also like I said with a centrialized system communities can consume global products without contributing to global system as global planner understand it is more efficent to just give them a free ride then except anything in excange from the community, you can't do this with a decentrialized system. For example a centrialized system can tell Afganistan "we will subisidize you and we advise not to export but to produce for your one consumption ontop of we are giving you." while a decentrialized system would have major problems subsizing communities around the globe from communities with massive surpluses.

[The Hong Se Sun]

Capitalists in an anarchist society? Anarchist revisionism? Where the hell are you getting this from?
I think you ought to learn more about anarchism, comrade...


Yes, meaning you are never going to get everyone to be anarchist and since there is no power structure to stop revisionist (return slowly to capitalism) there will naturally arise a capitalist society. Or without revolutionary defense councils to focefully stop capitalist you will lose your anarcho-society.


Can I just say that the main question was strange because it said anarchist country?

[The Hong Se Sun]

What? If there was a minority of Capitalists in an Anarchist society how would they ever gain power? How would they somehow gain private ownership? Who would give it to them? Why would they when they have nothing to gain? :confused: And why would you have to kill them? There are other ways of solving problems without FORCING people to do things.

An Anarchists guide to resisting Capitalism, Lesson 1:

Capitalist: I'll give you this spankin' new piece of paper if you give me private ownership of this factory.
Anarchist: No


For the lesson, the capitalist pays people to go boom and he owns the factory or you kill him.


They (capitalist) would gain power because no one would stop them because the second you did stop him you are practicing hierarchy and are thus no longer an anarchist society.

Like I said in my first post, it is a very beautiful idea, but it is Utopian and the world would need to reach a whole new level of morals and standards before it is possible.

[NGNM85]

For the lesson, the capitalist pays people to go boom and he owns the factory or you kill him.


They (capitalist) would gain power because no one would stop them because the second you did stop him you are practicing hierarchy and are thus no longer an anarchist society.

Like I said in my first post, it is a very beautiful idea, but it is Utopian and the world would need to reach a whole new level of morals and standards before it is possible.

You are using a flawed and oversimplified conception of Anarchism.

[ContrarianLemming]

You are using a flawed and oversimplified conception of Anarchism.

ditto, he's using the the stupid ghandian definition where self defence is considered unanarchist.
it's not "practicing hierarchy" to defend yourself.

If you think anarchy is impossible then you necessarily think stateless communism is impossible to, in which case you are not a revleftist and do not belong here.

[The Hong Se Sun]

Funny thing is what you are calling defending yourself is also called imposing your will on the capitalist. This means you are practicing authoritarianism.

I believe a stateless communism to be possible but socialism must be built and advanced to communism. I believe you can not just take a hop and a skip to anarchy.

If my view of anarchy is simplistic then why don't you just explain it to me? TBF there are a lot of differing anarcho ideology's so this is accurate I believe. If I am wrong then someone needs to change the name from anarchy because anarchy means anti-hierarchy so any councils/committees that hold power of any kind means it is not an anarchist society. There is a huge contradiction in the name I think that needs to be addressed.

[ContrarianLemming]

Funny thing is what you are calling defending yourself is also called imposing your will on the capitalist. This means you are practicing authoritarianism.

It's not authoritarian to defend yourself.


If I am wrong then someone needs to change the name from anarchy because anarchy means anti-hierarchy so any councils/committees that hold power of any kind means it is not an anarchist society.

to be blunt, you don't know enough about anarchism (stop calling it anarchy), the above doesn't apply
most arguments against anarchism don't apply to it at all.

It's also worth noting that it is quite conveniant to call it "anarchy" while ignoring that you also citcizing stateless communism, since there absolutely identicle to us. Any problem in "anarchy" is a problem in marxism.

Read the anarchist FAQ, everything is explained in detail there, every question and theory.
seriously, I point anyone with a question with a long answer to it, it's fantastic, go read some.

[AK]

Funny thing is what you are calling defending yourself is also called imposing your will on the capitalist. This means you are practicing authoritarianism.
Only during the revolution, where the working class must overthrow class-based society completely.


I believe a stateless communism to be possible but socialism must be built and advanced to communism. I believe you can not just take a hop and a skip to anarchy.
Why not? If the forms of self-government exist, I don't see why not. Besides, socialism is not some sort of government project to "be built". Socialism starts where common ownership of property and direct democracy start.


If my view of anarchy is simplistic then why don't you just explain it to me? TBF there are a lot of differing anarcho ideology's so this is accurate I believe. If I am wrong then someone needs to change the name from anarchy because anarchy means anti-hierarchy so any councils/committees that hold power of any kind means it is not an anarchist society. There is a huge contradiction in the name I think that needs to be addressed.
We are talking about social hierarchy. A commune is not a human being.

[Thirsty Crow]

Funny thing is what you are calling defending yourself is also called imposing your will on the capitalist. This means you are practicing authoritarianism.

No, you just called self defence "imposing our will on the capitalist".
Look, it's fairly simple.
The group of people who possess the means of production impose their will on those who do not. The ones who profit from the current social and economic condition (they profit economically AND in terms of social status, prestige and influence) have no interest whatsoever in any kind of social transformation which would eliminate this profit and its very source. Hence the imposition you talk about, hence hierarchy.
If I impose my will, whose content is that I will not be exploited and degraded withni the confines of a hierarchical social and economic formation, on hte capitalist, while granting him/her full rights that I myself enjoy - i.e. the right to directly participate in matters that concern my very existence as a social being, at the workplace and in the community - I think no one could conclude that I am thus perpetuating the practice of economic and social hierarchization, exploitation and subjugation.

Or in other words: authoritarianism, as a form of control which the anarchists oppose, relates to the establishment of FORMAL authority and hierarchy, in the sense it necessitates more or less closed institutions of power which are disconnected from the community in which they operate.

And as far as the problem of transition is concenred, it is perfectly legitimate to consider statelessness unatainable in the immediate future, following the revolutionary upheaval. In fact, I'm also struggling with this problem, and that's why I don't consider myself nor anarchist nor marxist-leninist.

[Comrade_Julian]

Somalia

[Widerstand]

Somalia

Somalia is not anarchist in any sense other than maybe the anarcho-capitalist, though I heard that even they abandoned calling it an anarcho-capitalist country. That aside, a-cs aren't anarchists in any way or shape, as anarchism is deeply connected to socialism/communism. The "anarcho" prefix in anarcho-capitalism is grossly misused/misinterpreted by many of both a-cs and others, as it should be taken in the literal sense of "without rulers/government", instead of as part of the philosophical school of Anarchism.

That aside, I know I'm being trolled.

[Garret]

It'd be identical to Communism really. Why do you think we are with Anarchists here?

[The Douche]

Whats up with all the poorly educated and presumptive PSLers? At least the PSL members we had on here used to be educated, now members of the party are describing anarchism as "somalia"?:rolleyes:

[Adil3tr]

Spain during the civil war. I'm a socialist, not a anarchist, but from what I've seen and heard, it was great. Anarchists are good guys.

[Delenda Carthago]

if anarchism is a beautiful,peaceful place where everyone is in harmony with each other,we will organise major battles in Colloseums,or gun fights in the street of metropolis...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u05Qot_yh9c

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

The title says it all. What does it look like?



*Sorry about the misspelling i mean an anarchist not and.
Im new here
It'll be round and borderless

and fluffy and pretty!

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

An Anarchists guide to resisting Capitalism, Lesson 1:

Capitalist: I'll give you this spankin' new piece of paper if you give me private ownership of this factory.
Anarchist: No
Cute...

:thumbup1:

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Funny thing is what you are calling defending yourself is also called imposing your will on the capitalist. This means you are practicing authoritarianism.
What have you been huffing? No, it would not be imposing your will on the capitalist to not let him have private ownership of a factory. Thats like calling it forcing your will on a guy because he told you to put out your hand so he can mutalate it and you refuse to put out your hand.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Somalia.

[Os Cangaceiros]

"Greetings, comrade!" will be replaced with "Argh, matey! Shiver me timbers!" in an "anarchist country".

[bcbm]

http://www.btvision.bt.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/life_after_people2_450.jpg

[Tablo]

http://www.btvision.bt.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/life_after_people2_450.jpg
Indeed. After we destroy the means of production we can finally live freely in the forests while dying from easily preventable diseases and absolutely no toilet paper. xD

[The Feral Underclass]

This thread is highly amusing.

It's 8 pages long, so somebody might have already said it. But the premise of the question is flawed.

[bcbm]

Indeed. After we destroy the means of production we can finally live freely in the forests while dying from easily preventable diseases and absolutely no toilet paper. xD

we can only hope

[scarletghoul]

An Anarchist country ? Well, if it has any hope of surviving, it would need a large military force, planned economy, and so on, so would look something like this -
qLcc19mt4eA

[Tablo]

An Anarchist country ? Well, if it has any hope of surviving, it would need a large military force, planned economy, and so on, so would look something like this -
qLcc19mt4eA
Yeah, except minus the purges and gulags.

[bcbm]

Yeah, except minus the purges and gulags.

don't spoil the fun (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/27/spain.arts) for the rest of us eh?

[Tablo]

don't spoil the fun (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/27/spain.arts) for the rest of us eh?
Lol, nice.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

don't spoil the fun (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/27/spain.arts) for the rest of us eh?
lol

Really?:blink:

[bcbm]

yep

[nuisance]

It would be in the shape of a massive Forklift to celebrate the tool that enabled the proletariats destruction of their national bourgeosie.

[bcbm]

but seriously


http://www.pixplant.com/textures/generated-scaled/bosch-garden-of-earthly-delights.jpg

[CommunityBeliever]

Anarchist Society:
People will do things because they want to do them, because they are motivated and not because they are forced.

People won't work at threat of starvation, incarceration, or other forms of retaliation. People will work because they want to.

There won't really be managers, CEO's, or bosses as you know of them, but instead there will be motivational speakers, people who work to convince other people of the necessity of action.

The foundations of coercion and oppression will be eliminated and people will be free and motivated individuals operating for the good of themselves and the community.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Somalia.

No way. Somalia still has some money.

[bcbm]

but other than that...

[9]

but seriously


http://www.pixplant.com/textures/generated-scaled/bosch-garden-of-earthly-delights.jpg
underwater handstands and some sort of....weird shit...going on

plus william howard taft:

http://www.karmicrelief.com/images/william_howard_taft.jpg

[The Feral Underclass]

Scarletghoul and bcbm, consider this a verbal warning. If you don't know the rules by now, then you need to get your act together.

Posting irrelevant pictures or youtube videos outside of Chit-Chat is against the rules.

[The Feral Underclass]

The same goes for you Comrade Marxist Bro. Learning is not the place to post these kinds of pictures.

Thread closed.