Luxuries

[The Man]

How about luxuries in an Anarcho-Communist Society? Cars, Televisions, Computers. How would those be achieved without currency?

What about electricity in your home, how would that happen?

And vacations, what if someone would want to take a vacation? What would have to happen with them, in order to do that?

[BeerShaman]

The people will manage such things after a revolution by themselves. What are we? Prophets? Don't worry. All can happen.

[Tifosi]

And vacations, what if someone would want to take a vacation? What would have to happen with them, in order to do that?

Probable the best way to work this out would be that the workers would come to an agreement about how many days you would be able to take off work for a year or whatever. Then you would still have the traditional holiday period's in the giving region to go on holiday in.

Unlike today where people are giving a set number of days that they can take off, you would almost certainly get more flexible working hours in an anarchist society seeing that your soul purpose wouldn't be about make the boss(S) money.

[PoliticalNightmare]

What is this talk of luxuries?

Everyone will live/sleep in community halls with everyone else: their beds shall be haystacks and they will be fed only with equal rations gruel. All buildings will be exactly equal in size, painted grey and the only monuments shall be public statues of the virtuous Stalin. You will not have cars, candy, computers or television: these are all bourgeois privileges. Everyone will be expected to live equal life-styles and dress each day in the same uniform

[Misanthrope]

What is this talk of luxuries?

Everyone will live/sleep in community halls with everyone else: their beds shall be haystacks and they will be fed only with equal rations gruel. All buildings will be exactly equal in size, painted grey and the only monuments shall be public statues of the virtuous Stalin. You will not have cars, candy, computers or television: these are all bourgeois privileges. Everyone will be expected to live equal life-styles and dress each day in the same uniform

Please stop, the OP might take you seriously.

[PoliticalNightmare]

What is this talk of luxuries?

Everyone will live/sleep in community halls with everyone else: their beds shall be haystacks and they will be fed only with equal rations gruel. All buildings will be exactly equal in size, painted grey and the only monuments shall be public statues of the virtuous Stalin. You will not have cars, candy, computers or television: these are all bourgeois privileges. Everyone will be expected to live equal life-styles and dress each day in the same uniform

What was the point of neg repping that? Any one with an ounce of humour knows I was kidding...bleeding authoritarian Stalinists trying to make us all conform to their rules, regulation and government bureacracy. OP himself is an anarchist and would get that jeeze :rolleyes: ... DaComm thought it was funny...

[Widerstand]

What's your definition of "luxury?"


What is this talk of luxuries?

Everyone will live/sleep in community halls with everyone else: their beds shall be haystacks and they will be fed only with equal rations gruel. All buildings will be exactly equal in size, painted grey and the only monuments shall be public statues of the virtuous Stalin. You will not have cars, candy, computers or television: these are all bourgeois privileges. Everyone will be expected to live equal life-styles and dress each day in the same uniform

"Political Nightmare" is quite fitting :laugh:

[ComradeOm]

How about luxuries in an Anarcho-Communist Society?BeerShaman gives good advice. Anyone who answers your questions here is simply hypothesising. We have, or at least the various tendencies have, a very rough idea as to the contours of any post-revolution society but the specifics or details are completely unknown. When talking about things like vacation time we're indulging in pure guesswork


What was the point of neg repping that?As I said, this is Learning. If you want to advocate barracks communism - yes, a real tendency - in response to the OP's question then that's fine. If not, don't joke about it and never assume that people will automatically get the joke. This ain't Chit-Chat

You can call this "authoritarian Stalinism" if you want, personally I prefer the label 'Not being a dickhead'

[Comrade1]

Well im in favour of using labour vouchers to rashion such luxuries.

[La Comédie Noire]

I think the concept of luxuries will also be rethought. Does everyone really need to posses a copy of War and peace? No, a few copies in local libraries throughout the world should suffice.

I think any flourishing communist society would look into turning their public libraries into centers of community activity, not to say people won't be able to walk off and listen to their Ipod every once and awhile.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think the concept of luxuries will also be rethought. Does everyone really need to posses a copy of War and peace? No, a few copies in local libraries throughout the world should suffice.

I think we can do better than that. Why chop down trees to make loads of books when we can manufacture electronic readers that can load up any book imagineable from a central database?

[La Comédie Noire]

I think we can do better than that. Why chop down trees to make loads of books when we can manufacture electronic readers that can load up any book imagineable from a central database?

Wow I didn't even figure in the implications of information technology. :blushing:

All the better for the argument.

[syndicat]

one peron's "luxury" is another person's "necessity." each person has their own priorities for their personal consumption. to try to decide this collectively rather than individually would be a form of tryanny over the individual. this is another of the confusions in "anarcho-communism."

[Janichkokov]

Vacations wouldn't be too difficult to work out. I you are working collectively then you would talk amongst your comrades about when appropriate vacations should be. Even now this isn't a problem in some industries. I work in the restaurant industry (no vacation days or sick days for us) and whenever a server needs time off the others cover shifts for them.

Electricity can be achieved at least partly through small scale off-the-grid things. Perhaps each family or person can be allotted their share of common electricity, and then supplement it with solar, wind, or whatever. A lot of people more and more are tinkering with these alternative energy sources.

Community libraries are great for books, movies and media in general. The other stuff is admittedly much more tricky. I like Kropotkin's idea of a sort of guild system for luxuries. I think it needs some fleshing out though, and I could only get an impression of it from The Conquest of Bread. He gives the example of a piano, and a person who wants a piano would basically attach themselves to a piano-making guild for awhile and help them out until they earn one. In the meantime, community workshops would be available to allow people access to things like these.

Further, once society gets beyond the ridiculous attachment to unnecessary consumer goods, many of the things that we regard as "necessities" today (like two cars, the latest cell phone, brand name clothes) would be considered vulgar and useless in an anarchist society. Herbert Marcuse describes this beautifully in An Essay on Liberation or One-Dimensional Man.

[blake 3:17]

Pleasures of the senses and the soul are acceptable.

[revolution inaction]

one peron's "luxury" is another person's "necessity." each person has their own priorities for their personal consumption. to try to decide this collectively rather than individually would be a form of tryanny over the individual. this is another of the confusions in "anarcho-communism."

wtf?

[StalinFanboy]

And vacations, what if someone would want to take a vacation? What would have to happen with them, in order to do that?
Everyday will be vacation, son

[PassTheBeer]

What is this talk of luxuries?

Everyone will live/sleep in community halls with everyone else: their beds shall be haystacks and they will be fed only with equal rations gruel. All buildings will be exactly equal in size, painted grey and the only monuments shall be public statues of the virtuous Stalin. You will not have cars, candy, computers or television: these are all bourgeois privileges. Everyone will be expected to live equal life-styles and dress each day in the same uniform

can't wait :mellow:

[syndicat]

I think the concept of luxuries will also be rethought. Does everyone really need to posses a copy of War and peace? No, a few copies in local libraries throughout the world should suffice.



why do you think it's your business to decide what books people will possess?


How about luxuries in an Anarcho-Communist Society? Cars, Televisions, Computers. How would those be achieved without currency?

What about electricity in your home, how would that happen?

And vacations, what if someone would want to take a vacation? What would have to happen with them, in order to do that?

You may think that having a computer is a "luxury" but someone else may not agree with you on that. The idea of "luxury" should simply be dropped.

Social accounting, and measurement of costs and benefits from production of X, require the ability to put things on a scale in terms of their social opportunity costs. This requires prices, that is, a social accounting unit.

[F9]

How about luxuries in an Anarcho-Communist Society? Cars, Televisions, Computers. How would those be achieved without currency?

What about electricity in your home, how would that happen?

And vacations, what if someone would want to take a vacation? What would have to happen with them, in order to do that?

I can assure you right here right now, that electricity can come to your home and anywhere else and it will never ask for money to do the ride:lol:;) Money has nothing to do with electricity and how its provided.
For anything else, same things apply, why would cars, pcs and tv's be a problem?There is technology to make more than enough, and once again money does not play any role in the creation of them, only to transaction.

As for vacation.... You just... go!

Fuserg9:star:

[syndicat]

As for vacation.... You just... go!



without arranging this with your workmates? sounds like individualism to me, not communism.

and if electricity is free, this means there is no limit on how much anyone can consume. even it requires burning lots of coal and destroying the planet, eh?

[F9]

oh god, do i need a permission to go anywhere?Yeah thats communism:rolleyes::lol:

As for the planet i honestly dont give a fuck about it, and im really tired with leftists obsession with earth, sky, trees and shit.FFS, earth had -1000 degrees, had stars crashing had all kind of shit and we worry if the fumes from our cars will destroy the planet:rolleyes:
If in your communism there is a limit on how much electricity(!!!!) people can use, and they need a kind of permission or anything to take a vacation then honestly thats not a communism for me.

[Cane Nero]

If in your communism there is a limit on how much electricity(!!!!) people can use, and they need a kind of permission or anything to take a vacation then honestly thats not a communism for me.

I don´t know if you know but electricity is not created by magic. The limit of electricity has to do with the resources available.
With respect to vacation, it is something that depends on the area where you works. For example if you work in food production you need at least find a substitute to work during the time you're out, since it is related to a essential supply.

[F9]

I don´t know if you know but electricity is not created by magic. The limit of electricity has to do with the resources available.

Electricity dont grows from the ground?:scared::ohmy::rolleyes:
I am talking about the case that there is the ability to feed houses etc, but some people choose to put a limit to it for some weird reason.

[Quail]

oh god, do i need a permission to go anywhere?Yeah thats communism:rolleyes::lol:

If people went off without telling anyone then production of basic everyday things would be unreliable. In a society based on mutual cooperation, is letting your workmates know really such a stretch?


As for the planet i honestly dont give a fuck about it, and im really tired with leftists obsession with earth, sky, trees and shit.FFS, earth had -1000 degrees, had stars crashing had all kind of shit and we worry if the fumes from our cars will destroy the planet:rolleyes:
If in your communism there is a limit on how much electricity(!!!!) people can use, and they need a kind of permission or anything to take a vacation then honestly thats not a communism for me.
It's worth caring about the state of the planet simply because we live on it. Ideally a communist society should work towards a more sustainable society without cutting anyone's quality of life through more efficient technology.

[F9]

If people went off without telling anyone then production of basic everyday things would be unreliable. In a society based on mutual cooperation, is letting your workmates know really such a stretch?

There is difference of letting them know, from asking permission, or depend your need for vacations on someone else.


As for the planet, i might was a bit more absolutely negative about it, but really i am just "angry" on how many leftists tend to focus on things like that, and they forget the important things the workers exploitation.

[revolution inaction]

without arranging this with your workmates? sounds like individualism to me, not communism.


since when did you need money before you where able to tell your workmates that you where going to take time off work?



and if electricity is free, this means there is no limit on how much anyone can consume. even it requires burning lots of coal and destroying the planet, eh?

why would we need money to limit how much electricity some one can have?

[Quail]

There is difference of letting them know, from asking permission, or depend your need for vacations on someone else.

As long as the necessities are still being produced, going away is fine, but it would be pretty inconsiderate to go away and leave the rest of the community without enough food or something. You shouldn't need "permission" but you should definitely be sure that someone is available to cover for you.

[PoliticalNightmare]

oh god, do i need a permission to go anywhere?Yeah thats communism:rolleyes::lol:

As for the planet i honestly dont give a fuck about it, and im really tired with leftists obsession with earth, sky, trees and shit.FFS, earth had -1000 degrees, had stars crashing had all kind of shit and we worry if the fumes from our cars will destroy the planet:rolleyes:
If in your communism there is a limit on how much electricity(!!!!) people can use, and they need a kind of permission or anything to take a vacation then honestly thats not a communism for me.

I agree in some ways but creating renewable sources of energy will make everyone's life a hell of a lot easier by diminishing the amount of labour required to harness energy. There will be no need for digging up/working at oil rigs, burning up oil, transporting oil and so forth if we can harness the power of solar or wind energy plus it will "help save the environment".

[F9]

As long as the necessities are still being produced, going away is fine, but it would be pretty inconsiderate to go away and leave the rest of the community without enough food or something. You shouldn't need "permission" but you should definitely be sure that someone is available to cover for you.

Im pretty sure that with technological advantages right now the working power needed to fulfill the needs are close to minimal!Most worker power is needed in taking care of the machines rather than the actual production of something.And im pretty optimistic of the future where we will be able to focus on other more fun things without worry of running out of food or something;)

[Quail]

Im pretty sure that with technological advantages right now the working power needed to fulfill the needs are close to minimal!Most worker power is needed in taking care of the machines rather than the actual production of something.And im pretty optimistic of the future where we will be able to focus on other more fun things without worry of running out of food or something;)
I completely agree; I was just using that as an example, but my point still stands. As long as there's someone to cover for you, then there's nothing wrong with going on holiday. There shouldn't really be much of a problem getting cover either, because the amount of time people actually need to work will go way down.

[syndicat]

oh god, do i need a permission to go anywhere?Yeah thats communism:rolleyes::lol:

As for the planet i honestly dont give a fuck about it, and im really tired with leftists obsession with earth, sky, trees and shit.FFS, earth had -1000 degrees, had stars crashing had all kind of shit and we worry if the fumes from our cars will destroy the planet:rolleyes:
If in your communism there is a limit on how much electricity(!!!!) people can use, and they need a kind of permission or anything to take a vacation then honestly thats not a communism for me.


so you really are an individualist. as I said, you're not a communist.

capitalism works on the basis of market relations. the only costs to people that are reflected in market prices are things the capitaliists have to pay for. since they don't have to pay for the consequences of global warming and air pollution, they have no incentive not to do it. so tens of thousands of people in the USA die every year due to air pollution. but you say you don't give a shit about this.

and global warming is going to result in destruction and famine for low lying places like Bangladesh. and eventually most of the USA could become a scorched desert.

an authentic socialized economy is one where all the social costs of production are taken into account, so that costs can be minimized, including pollution of all kinds...and toxic pollution hits workers first and foremost, such as the poisoning of farm workers from pesticides.

but in order for costs to be taken into account, including how much work effort we do to make things, there needs to be a way to measure it and compare costs of alternatives. so there needs to be a common scale of costs. we mark these in terms of a numeric scale, and this is a form of price.

and if you think you can just drop your work at the production organization where you're working without arranging with your coworkers, then, again, you're proposing that irresponsible behavior is okay. and that makes you an extreme individualist.

[Sixiang]

The people will manage such things after a revolution by themselves. What are we? Prophets? Don't worry. All can happen.

I agree with this. There are other matters at hand that we need to get over first. I'm sure that the community can work it out so that everyone can have a fair amount of vacation time. Also, as communism comes about, I imagine the amount of hours of work in the day will shrink with it because workers don't have to work 12 hours a day to make the boss a profit. There will probably be more time for relaxation eventually. But I can only guess at this point.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

without arranging this with your workmates? sounds like individualism to me, not communism.

Beyond giving your colleagues sufficient notice so that they can make arrangements for your absence, I fail to see what it has to do with them.


and if electricity is free, this means there is no limit on how much anyone can consume. even it requires burning lots of coal and destroying the planet, eh?

Firstly, what makes you think we will be burning coal for electricity?

Secondly, there is a limit that isn't imposed from on high - the the number of hours in a day, and the fact that people can only do so many things at once.

[syndicat]

Secondly, there is a limit that isn't imposed from on high - the the number of hours in a day, and the fact that people can only do so many things at once.


your sentence here is meaningless. electricity production requires human labor and resources. if electricity is free, there is nothing to prevent people from wasting it....installing lots of electricity-hogging equipment, lights, etc. and that means they are wasting resources that could be used to make something else...and those other things thus won't be available.

[La Comédie Noire]

why do you think it's your business to decide what books people will possess?

I'm saying it's much easier to produce a few copies for a few libraries than a bunch of copies for individual households. I said nothing of restricting content.

[syndicat]

I'm saying it's much easier to produce a few copies for a few libraries than a bunch of copies for individual households. I said nothing of restricting content.

but that misses the point. the question is, why is it for you to decide people shouldn't possess their own books? this sounds to me like a pretty tyrannical regime.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

your sentence here is meaningless. electricity production requires human labor and resources. if electricity is free, there is nothing to prevent people from wasting it... installing lots of electricity-hogging equipment, lights, etc. and that means they are wasting resources that could be used to make something else...and those other things thus won't be available.

What you describe is an engineering problem. Equipment can be manufactured thus that it automatically shuts down after completing a task or goes into a sleep mode during idle periods (barring manufactories which, for maximum efficency, should be operating full time except for repairs and maintenance), and lighting can be set on timers or to only operate when a human is present.


but that misses the point. the question is, why is it for you to decide people shouldn't possess their own books? this sounds to me like a pretty tyrannical regime.

I don't think access to books matters so much as access to the data they contain. As long as that is guaranteed, I don't see the problem.

[syndicat]

What you describe is an engineering problem. Equipment can be manufactured thus that it automatically shuts down after completing a task or goes into a sleep mode during idle periods (barring manufactories which, for maximum efficency, should be operating full time except for repairs and maintenance), and lighting can be set on timers or to only operate when a human is present.

no it's NOT an "engineering problem." the question is, why would people be motivated to bother with your shutoff devices if electricity is free?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

no it's NOT an "engineering problem." the question is, why would people be motivated to bother with your shutoff devices if electricity is free?

Because they would be a requirement of all devices manufactured that are not rated for continuous use. It would be a relatively simple matter to change the design of hardware to incorporate such features, versus establishing and maintaining a coercive social system to do the job.

[synthesis]

Everything we use and consume on a daily basis requires labor. Even if it's produced by machines, someone has to commit a few years of their lives to learn the engineering skills required to make sure those machines stay in operation. Simply saying "it's a problem of engineering" misses the point, or, rather, considers the point and then tosses it aside.

[syndicat]

Because they would be a requirement of all devices manufactured that are not rated for continuous use. It would be a relatively simple matter to change the design of hardware to incorporate such features, versus establishing and maintaining a coercive social system to do the job.

again, you haven't explained WHY people would be motivated to include or use such devices. and calculating the actual social costs and benefits of the produces of social labor does not require a class system or a system of oppression.

why should people not all build big pools in their back yards? with electric lights, pumps, huge use of water. if water and electricity is free, why would they be motivated not to do this? making these things free simply invites...guarantees...waste.

as to "coercion", any feasible social order will have some amount of coercion. if people are forcibly prevented from subordinating others as their wage-slaves, this is coercion....just as elimination of capitalism cannot happen without coercion...but it is necessary to protect freedom. a society where everything is done "voluntarily" isn't a possibility. it isn't possible because conflicts are inevitable and people will at times have to be coerced....not to rape, steal others' possesions, dominate others.

we can reduce the level of coercion by eliminating the state, the class system and other systems of oppression. but some level of coercion will remain. some "anarchists" in my experience have some very naive ideas. like "abolition of money" and "a society completely free of coercion".

[La Comédie Noire]

but that misses the point. the question is, why is it for you to decide people shouldn't possess their own books? this sounds to me like a pretty tyrannical regime.

How is it tyrannical? You can still read the book, it will just be at a library where others can use it when you aren't. I have a bunch of books on my shelf I don't read, so do a lot of people. Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to pass them along to people who could use them?

I just don't think we need to waste resources and time to produce books for individual households when most of them will just sit on shelves unused.

It's like a private beach, not everyone can have a private beach,it's just not possible. Does that make it tyrannical?

[syndicat]

How is it tyrannical? You can still read the book, it will just be at a library where others can use it when you aren't. I have a bunch of books on my shelf I don't read, so do a lot of people. Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to pass them along to people who could use them?

I just don't think we need to waste resources and time to produce books for individual households when most of them will just sit on shelves unused.

It's like a private beach, not everyone can have a private beach,it's just not possible. Does that make it tyrannical?

beaches and books are totally different. your line of reasoning here is like saying because it makes sense to share sidewalks everyone should share my living room. you're failing to consider that there are things where it makes sense to regard them as things people enjoy individually versus things that are common or public goods.

it's not for you to decide whether individuals have books of their own. to propose that this is a matter that the community can collectively decide is to propose a form of social tyranny, it is to deny that individuals can have their own sphere of private consumption where they are entitled to make the decisions.

whether it is a "waste" of resources can't be decided unless we have a way for individuals to express what they want and have this be effective in determining what is produced. if people decide they don't want their own books, that is one thing. but in a free society it is up to them to decide that. this is a very basic truth that you are failing to see.

and in my experience this error is very common among people who call themselves "anarcho-communists."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Everything we use and consume on a daily basis requires labor. Even if it's produced by machines, someone has to commit a few years of their lives to learn the engineering skills required to make sure those machines stay in operation. Simply saying "it's a problem of engineering" misses the point, or, rather, considers the point and then tosses it aside.

But most the work has already been done; we know of multiple methods of obtaining electricity, most of them indefinately sustainable. The construction of any new plant can be accounted for by examining usage levels - if they are rising, and are likely to continue doing so past current levels of generation, then arrangements should be made for new construction.

Engineers and technicians will be needed by society for all sorts of things, not just luxuries, so there you have the motivation for getting jobs done in the first place, not taking into account the fact that some will do those jobs anyway because that's what they enjoy doing.


again, you haven't explained WHY people would be motivated to include or use such devices. and calculating the actual social costs and benefits of the produces of social labor does not require a class system or a system of oppression.

Human laziness is a good motivator; by making a small change in current designs one avoids having to do a shitload of work later.


why should people not all build big pools in their back yards? with electric lights, pumps, huge use of water. if water and electricity is free, why would they be motivated not to do this? making these things free simply invites...guarantees...waste.

I don't concur. Firstly, there are wider considerations; who is going to be installing these pools? Unless one can take the time and effort needed to learn how to install and operate such things, you're going to have to get somebody else to do it for you. Why should they? A pool in your garden isn't essential, so anyone you approach has the right to refuse you utterly if they so wish.

Then there is the question of materials. Without money, there has to be a system for prioritising what materials go to which purpose, and stuff like road repair (or perhaps in this case, construction, maintenance and repair of communal swimming facilities) is going to be of a much higher priority than installing a pool in someone's back garden.


as to "coercion", any feasible social order will have some amount of coercion. if people are forcibly prevented from subordinating others as their wage-slaves, this is coercion....just as elimination of capitalism cannot happen without coercion...but it is necessary to protect freedom. a society where everything is done "voluntarily" isn't a possibility. it isn't possible because conflicts are inevitable and people will at times have to be coerced....not to rape, steal others' possesions, dominate others.

Most coercion is systemic, and once the system changes then the coercion goes away, or at the very least changes in nature and prevalence. I reckon we will still need coercive systems, but the need for them will be considerably reduced. You don't need a massive prison-industrial complex if people are no longer getting sent down for property crimes or "crimes against morality" such as drug possession and prostitution.


we can reduce the level of coercion by eliminating the state, the class system and other systems of oppression. but some level of coercion will remain.

Like what? "Energy police" who watch people like hawks and swoop down on them the moment they consume a watt more electricity than they should (and who decides that, by the way?)


some "anarchists" in my experience have some very naive ideas. like "abolition of money" and "a society completely free of coercion".

"Abolition of money" is a damn fine idea. As for a society completely free from coercion, that may be unattainable for the forseeable future, but I don't see why we shouldn't be aiming for it.

[La Comédie Noire]

you're failing to consider that there are things where it makes sense to regard them as things people enjoy individually versus things that are common or public goods.

Of course there are things that should be consumed individually or enjoyed privately I just don't happen to think books are one of them. I mean you can enjoy it individually when you rent it and if you like it that much you can rent it out multiple times.

I mean I'm not suggesting blankets or pillows should be shared out amongst people or anything.

I think electronic forms of media are going to make this question moot anyways.


it's not for you to decide whether individuals have books of their own. to propose that this is a matter that the community can collectively decide is to propose a form of social tyranny, it is to deny that individuals can have their own sphere of private consumption where they are entitled to make the decisions.

I often request books through my library's transfer program. It doesn't seem that tyrannical to me. I don't lose any control what so ever.


whether it is a "waste" of resources can't be decided unless we have a way for individuals to express what they want and have this be effective in determining what is produced. if people decide they don't want their own books, that is one thing. but in a free society it is up to them to decide that. this is a very basic truth that you are failing to see.

Nowhere have I said people won't get to decide what is produced, but they will have to defer to the environment, time, and the labor required to produce it. You are making the same argument in regards to electricity, I really don't see what the problem is.

[synthesis]

But most the work has already been done; we know of multiple methods of obtaining electricity, most of them indefinately sustainable. The construction of any new plant can be accounted for by examining usage levels - if they are rising, and are likely to continue doing so past current levels of generation, then arrangements should be made for new construction.

Engineers and technicians will be needed by society for all sorts of things, not just luxuries, so there you have the motivation for getting jobs done in the first place, not taking into account the fact that some will do those jobs anyway because that's what they enjoy doing.

Sure, but I was responding to the claim that "electricity is free." It isn't, as indicated by the passages in bold.

"Examining usage levels," "arranging construction," and the construction itself - not to mention maintenance - are all forms of labor that require an incredible level of specialization, which is itself a form of intensive labor, and of course the teachers who work long hours to ensure any level of competency.

Point is, this is definitely not something that we can rely in any way on "people doing it because they enjoy it."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sure, but I was responding to the claim that "electricity is free." It isn't, as indicated by the passages in bold.

I don't believe I ever posited that there were no (material) costs ever associated with energy production - my point was that energy can and should be effectively free at the point of use.


"Examining usage levels," "arranging construction," and the construction itself - not to mention maintenance - are all forms of labor that require an incredible level of specialization, which is itself a form of intensive labor, and of course the teachers who work long hours to ensure any level of competency.

Your point being? I've already pointed out that society will require specialised labour anyway.


Point is, this is definitely not something that we can rely in any way on "people doing it because they enjoy it."

This just means that if we want to live in a technologically advanced society, we have to cultivate a general attitude whereby people who do such work enjoy some kind of enhanced social status. I am of the opinion that money is not necessary for this.

[9]

some "anarchists" in my experience have some very naive ideas. like "abolition of money"

LOL "abolition of money" - how childish. next thing you know, they'll be calling for working class revolution and the establishment of a communist society! silly "anarchists".

seriously, though, the view that communism and money are incompatible is certainly not limited to anarchists (or "anarchists", for that matter).

[syndicat]

I don't believe I ever posited that there were no (material) costs ever associated with energy production - my point was that energy can and should be effectively free at the point of use.


something is a "cost" insofar as it is something people don't want or will cause us to not have something we might want. if we burn coal to get electricity, pollution in the air we breathe is a cost (in damaged health). it's a cost because of the resources to obtaining and transporting the coal. and there are the costs for all the parts to make the power plant and the distribution system, and the work to maintain and operate it. these are costs because the time people spend doing these things could have been spent doing something else. so there will be something we have to give up...whatever they could have done with their work time...to have the electricity.

you can't even know whether it is worth producing anything unless you know that the benefits make the costs worthwhile. this presupposes a way of measuring costs and benefits. for that you need to know how much people prefer one option over another. this is true for collective goods as much as it is for individual goods.

work is a cost because people would rather not do it. that's what differentiates work from play. in order for us to have things we want....food, clothes, furniture, housing, running water, electricity, vehicles of some kind to move about....people will have to do work.

we know how to eliminate class subordination and exploitation of the workers doing the work. that's what the revolution is about. one of the first things as part of that process is workers taking over the direct management of the places where they work.

but there then needs to be a system for ensuring that what they do is socially accountable, that is, that resources go into producing what people most prefer.

but there is no way to find out what people prefer unless they have budgets. that is, they have a finite entitlement to consume. and then when they make decisions about how to commit this entitlement to request various things to be produced for them, by doing that the economy then registers information about their preferences. but if people don't have to give up anything to obtain things, then we have no way whatever of knowing how important that is to them.

but this system of people and communities having budgets...a share of social production...and of measuring relative preferences, and thus potential benefits to people (if it is something that satisfies a want of someone, it has a benefit. how much of a benefit depends on how much they wanted it, how important it was to them) presupposes being able to put things on a numeric scale....a numeric sum of consumption entitlement, a numeric sum in a budget, putting benefits and costs on a numeric scale. thus all these things presuppose prices. we can't measure costs if we can't say that X costs more than Y. and this presupposes a numeric scale on which all the various possible factors of production can be measured. and that means prices.


Of course there are things that should be consumed individually or enjoyed privately I just don't happen to think books are one of them. I mean you can enjoy it individually when you rent it and if you like it that much you can rent it out multiple times.


but you fail to understand that this is none of your fucking business. it's none of your business to tell people they shouldn't have their own books, their own furniture, their own place to live in, their own clothes.

the community can decide to provide certain things thru systems of social provision, such as health care. in this case the costs then consume part of the community's budget for collectively shared goods & services.

but there are going to be many things where people are not going to want to have things provided by some system of collective provision. this is especially so in those cases where there are different tastes and wants among individuals. types of food. clothes. furnishings. and the books people read or the music they listen to. if you say books are to be only available in the library, then that means only a committee of some sort, such as the people who run the library, decide what is available for everyone to read. and why give anyone that power?


Human laziness is a good motivator; by making a small change in current designs one avoids having to do a shitload of work later.


And human laziness is why the work needs to be re-org'd to ensure that people are not allowed to do just the pleasant or empowering tasks or whatever they want. we have to redesign jobs to ensure that the necessary physical labor...especially the less desireable tasks...are shared out among all jobs. if one were to allow the "anything goes" that some "anarchists" advocate you'd have a lot of volunteers to be actors and singers and writers and physicians, and not so many volunteers to change bed pans in hospitals, weed a field, repair a sewer break, work in a factory making tables, doing cleanup in the local distribution center.

this is also why it is ill-advised not to have an incentive to work by providing consumption entitlement (at an equal per hour rate) to each able-bodied person for the work they do. as people will have a finite amount of consumption entitlement...their share of the social product that is distributed individually (as opposed to that portion of the social product that is delivered via systems of free social provision) then forms a finite budget and how they use this....how they self-manage their own consumption....then provides info the production system on what the population want to have produced. and this tells us also the potential benefit from producing any possible product and this can then justify resources to the production group making those things.


Then there is the question of materials. Without money, there has to be a system for prioritising what materials go to which purpose, and stuff like road repair (or perhaps in this case, construction, maintenance and repair of communal swimming facilities) is going to be of a much higher priority than installing a pool in someone's back garden.


but different people have different priorities. you're talking here as if there is only one list of priorities. and what does this mean anyway? if A is a highere priority than B does this mean we don't produce any B?

having his own boat to go fishing may be a very high priority for Jack. he may be willing to consume fewer other things to have the boat. there may be a minority who feel the way Jack does about having their own boat. this may be sufficient to provide the resources to some boat yard that makes these smaller boats for individual use. if jack is to actually have his own share of the social product and can self-manage how he wants to take this...the particulara package of goods and services...then why not allow him to commit a part of his share to the boat?

some people here would want to force him to do his fishing only on some collective fishing boat. but it may be he uses the boat because it's relaxing and he likes investigating the intricate areas of his shore line. the only way to actually decide this is to know how much people would want this, how many there are, how much total benefit would come from this, and how much the costs would be for the resources to the boat yard to make the boats.

a person having his own things is part of self-managing his own life. it's part of his individual freedom. to say people can't have their own private possessions is to try to impose a collectivist tyranny on them.

what communities can reasonably decide is how large and generous they want the system of collective provision of free goods & services to be. i think it is highly likely this would vary from region to region after a revolutionary transformation, based on political and cultural differences. insofar as a community wants a larger part of the total product to be in the form of collectively provided free goods and services, they are saying that the share of the social product committed to private consumption goods is reduced. but it's unlikely that any working class revolutionary population is going to want to deny to themselves private consumption decisions and private consumption goods.

we can understand the idea of "higher priority" as a willingness to commit a larger part of your budget to obtain item X. thus a community has a finite budget. if it decides this year to increase the share of the budget to build new schools and reduces spending on parks, then schools, at that point, are a higher priority than parks for this community. but this will be reflected in a decision about what proportion of their finite budget to allocate to X rather than Y. and this assumes they have a finite budget. this will be an amount, a numeric quantity, and some portion of this quantity will be allocated to the various items they want produced. so, again, it presupposes prices.

[mattb62]

While not every question about the future can be answered, there will be more "luxuries" available to more people than ever before, you just won't have a few hoarding all the luxury items to themselves. Enjoying lobster, or decent wine or good books does not a reactionary make.

On the other hand, we don't need "leaders" of the people living it up while everyone else just gets by when times are tough.

[Amphictyonis]

There is difference of letting them know, from asking permission, or depend your need for vacations on someone else.


As for the planet, i might was a bit more absolutely negative about it, but really i am just "angry" on how many leftists tend to focus on things like that, and they forget the important things the workers exploitation.

Malthusian socialism for the win!


"Must it not then be acknowledged by an attentive examiner of the histories of mankind, that in every age and in every State in which man has existed, or does now exist That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence,
That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase, and,
That the superior power of population is repressed, and the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery, poverty and vice."
-Malthus-



What a bastard.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

something is a "cost" insofar as it is something people don't want or will cause us to not have something we might want. if we burn coal to get electricity, pollution in the air we breathe is a cost (in damaged health).

Costs like that can be reduced by using alternative sources. Nuclear power stations doesn't produce toxic fumes, and costs are also reduced on the mining side because uranium has a higher energy density than coal, hence you don't have to mine so much to get the same amount of energy.


it's a cost because of the resources to obtaining and transporting the coal. and there are the costs for all the parts to make the power plant and the distribution system, and the work to maintain and operate it. these are costs because the time people spend doing these things could have been spent doing something else. so there will be something we have to give up...whatever they could have done with their work time...to have the electricity.

Those are costs of time and energy, not money.


you can't even know whether it is worth producing anything unless you know that the benefits make the costs worthwhile. this presupposes a way of measuring costs and benefits. for that you need to know how much people prefer one option over another. this is true for collective goods as much as it is for individual goods.

Sounds like a capitalist argument against any and all planned economy, including socialist ones. Are you sure you want to go there?


work is a cost because people would rather not do it. that's what differentiates work from play. in order for us to have things we want....food, clothes, furniture, housing, running water, electricity, vehicles of some kind to move about....people will have to do work.

Sure, but that's no reason to say that motivations for doing work, and the reasons why people do it, cannot be different. It's a typical cappie argument that without the cattle prod of the market, people would just sit around and look at the pretty clouds.


we know how to eliminate class subordination and exploitation of the workers doing the work. that's what the revolution is about. one of the first things as part of that process is workers taking over the direct management of the places where they work.

But if people are as naturally selfishly lazy and shiftless as you seem to think they are, what's to stop them simply voting themselves more benefits and less work until the whole system collapses?


but there then needs to be a system for ensuring that what they do is socially accountable, that is, that resources go into producing what people most prefer.

Indeed, but I don't think that in this case we are limited to markets or oligarchical planning committees in order to achieve that. What's your solution?


but there is no way to find out what people prefer unless they have budgets. that is, they have a finite entitlement to consume. and then when they make decisions about how to commit this entitlement to request various things to be produced for them, by doing that the economy then registers information about their preferences. but if people don't have to give up anything to obtain things, then we have no way whatever of knowing how important that is to them.

OK, but why does the budget have to use the manifestly flawed system of money as a way of keeping track? Wouldn't it make more sense to directly measure the energy used in production and consumption, and calculate accordingly? We can already see how worthless money really is - it is simply wished into existence on a daily basis by banks and governments the world over. It is not a true measure of what people are doing, and is easily distorted by profit-motivated ploys.


but this system of people and communities having budgets...a share of social production...and of measuring relative preferences, and thus potential benefits to people (if it is something that satisfies a want of someone, it has a benefit. how much of a benefit depends on how much they wanted it, how important it was to them) presupposes being able to put things on a numeric scale....a numeric sum of consumption entitlement, a numeric sum in a budget, putting benefits and costs on a numeric scale. thus all these things presuppose prices. we can't measure costs if we can't say that X costs more than Y. and this presupposes a numeric scale on which all the various possible factors of production can be measured. and that means prices.

Not necessarily (http://technocracy.wikia.com/wiki/Energy_Accounting).


And human laziness is why the work needs to be re-org'd to ensure that people are not allowed to do just the pleasant or empowering tasks or whatever they want. we have to redesign jobs to ensure that the necessary physical labor...especially the less desireable tasks...are shared out among all jobs. if one were to allow the "anything goes" that some "anarchists" advocate you'd have a lot of volunteers to be actors and singers and writers and physicians, and not so many volunteers to change bed pans in hospitals, weed a field, repair a sewer break, work in a factory making tables, doing cleanup in the local distribution center.

I've proposed elsewhere that "unpleasant" jobs be distributed on a lottery system, with every able person entered. With that, there is a direct incentive for people to invent labour-saving measures in such fields of work, since practically anybody can be called up for such tasks. Thus human laziness, plus human inventiveness, is engaged in making life better for everyone.


this is also why it is ill-advised not to have an incentive to work by providing consumption entitlement (at an equal per hour rate) to each able-bodied person for the work they do. as people will have a finite amount of consumption entitlement...their share of the social product that is distributed individually (as opposed to that portion of the social product that is delivered via systems of free social provision) then forms a finite budget and how they use this....how they self-manage their own consumption....then provides info the production system on what the population want to have produced. and this tells us also the potential benefit from producing any possible product and this can then justify resources to the production group making those things.

The problem is that the presence of money, since it is universally exchangeable, encourages corruption in any system you care to propose. Energy credits, on the other hand, are non-transferable, have an expiry date (so they cannot be hoarded), and everyone will regularly get equal injections of fresh credits upon the expiration of their old ones. Energy credits are also not subject to inflation as they are a measure of the total energy production of the society that uses them. Everyone has a direct interest in increasing the energy production of society, and combined with the lottery distribution of socially essential jobs, this is a powerful incentive.


but different people have different priorities. you're talking here as if there is only one list of priorities. and what does this mean anyway? if A is a highere priority than B does this mean we don't produce any B?

Priority is measured by usage. Practically everyone would use public transport, for example, and it would be easy to measure how many people are using them and at what times, thus it would be easy to calculate the energy costs and timetables that suit the greatest amount of people.


having his own boat to go fishing may be a very high priority for Jack. he may be willing to consume fewer other things to have the boat. there may be a minority who feel the way Jack does about having their own boat. this may be sufficient to provide the resources to some boat yard that makes these smaller boats for individual use. if jack is to actually have his own share of the social product and can self-manage how he wants to take this...the particulara package of goods and services...then why not allow him to commit a part of his share to the boat?

some people here would want to force him to do his fishing only on some collective fishing boat. but it may be he uses the boat because it's relaxing and he likes investigating the intricate areas of his shore line. the only way to actually decide this is to know how much people would want this, how many there are, how much total benefit would come from this, and how much the costs would be for the resources to the boat yard to make the boats.

In an energy-accounting system, Jack would be able to do just that. There is nothing to prevent him and others spending their energy credits towards a common cause.


a person having his own things is part of self-managing his own life. it's part of his individual freedom. to say people can't have their own private possessions is to try to impose a collectivist tyranny on them.

Where did I say that people could not have private possessions? Once something is in someone's possession, the energy used in creating it has long been spent.


what communities can reasonably decide is how large and generous they want the system of collective provision of free goods & services to be. i think it is highly likely this would vary from region to region after a revolutionary transformation, based on political and cultural differences. insofar as a community wants a larger part of the total product to be in the form of collectively provided free goods and services, they are saying that the share of the social product committed to private consumption goods is reduced. but it's unlikely that any working class revolutionary population is going to want to deny to themselves private consumption decisions and private consumption goods.

An energy accounting system should be as large as possible, since the larger the system, the greater the margins and thus the more discretion everyone subject to the system has regarding any energy left over once the essentials have been seen to.


we can understand the idea of "higher priority" as a willingness to commit a larger part of your budget to obtain item X. thus a community has a finite budget. if it decides this year to increase the share of the budget to build new schools and reduces spending on parks, then schools, at that point, are a higher priority than parks for this community. but this will be reflected in a decision about what proportion of their finite budget to allocate to X rather than Y. and this assumes they have a finite budget. this will be an amount, a numeric quantity, and some portion of this quantity will be allocated to the various items they want produced. so, again, it presupposes prices.

Nope. In fact, the price system has proven itself to be utterly shit at providing what society truly needs, hence the inflation of industries of crap.

[syndicat]

Costs like that can be reduced by using alternative sources. Nuclear power stations doesn't produce toxic fumes, and costs are also reduced on the mining side because uranium has a higher energy density than coal, hence you don't have to mine so much to get the same amount of energy.


before any argument like this can make sense, we need a system for measuring costs and benefits. when they are measured, they are put on a numeric scale. hence prices.

the only way to determine appropriate prices for environmental effects is for the environment to no longer be a dumping ground as it is under capitalism. this means the residents in areas need to be empowered to decide on the use of the environmental commons. this means they must have the power to ban pollutants, or demand compensation for them....that is, a price. once pollutants have a price, as determined by negotiation with residents, then and only then do we have an effective way to determine enviro costs.

this is because costs are about harm, pain, disadvantage, undesireability for people. so the people who are affected first and foremost have to control whether costs are imposed on them. thus workers thru their collective management power over industry, are empowered to prevent costs being imposed on them. and the same needs to be true for humans living in areas having the power to prevent enviro costs, which are costs first and foremost to the people living there.

nuclear power has huge costs in terms of the damage to workers who work in uranium mines and processing plants. about half the Navajo miners who have worked in New Mexico uranium mines died of cancers caused by the mining. they were only willing to accept work in these mines due to (1) ignorance, promoted by the corporations, and (2) lack of job opportunities in their poor communities, due to the plunder of native communities and lack of control over economic resources by working people.

as Chernobyl reminds us, nuclear power also has tremendous potential dangers to nearby residents.

me:


it's a cost because of the resources to obtaining and transporting the coal. and there are the costs for all the parts to make the power plant and the distribution system, and the work to maintain and operate it. these are costs because the time people spend doing these things could have been spent doing something else. so there will be something we have to give up...whatever they could have done with their work time...to have the electricity.
you:

Those are costs of time and energy, not money.


Costs are costs only in virtue of what humans want or don't want. They are costs to humans. anyway, you miss the point. the point is that if we commit human labor time to make X rather than Y, then we've given up Y in order to have X. this is a cost to the extent we wanted Y. how do you know Y is less important than X? you only know this if there is a socially interactive system for people to request goods and services and where they have only a finite amount of consumption entitlement and must use up some of it to make the request, that is, to obtain that good or service.

me:

you can't even know whether it is worth producing anything unless you know that the benefits make the costs worthwhile. this presupposes a way of measuring costs and benefits. for that you need to know how much people prefer one option over another. this is true for collective goods as much as it is for individual goods.

you:
Sounds like a capitalist argument against any and all planned economy, including socialist ones. Are you sure you want to go there?


wrong. I'm making an argument as to why prices are necessary in order to have a functional planned economy that will actually work for people. I'm not arguing for market prices or a market system.


but that's no reason to say that motivations for doing work, and the reasons why people do it, cannot be different.

this sentence is self-contradictory. to point to the reasons someone has for doing work is to point out their motivations.


But if people are as naturally selfishly lazy and shiftless as you seem to think they are, what's to stop them simply voting themselves more benefits and less work until the whole system collapses?


how about not putting words in my mouth? i never said people are "naturally selfish and lazy". what i said is that people would prefer activities that are more fun and would prefer not to have to do drudgery or boring work. it's simply a fact that many of the activities that have to be done in order to have the things we want are not tasks people like doing for their own sake. hence they need a motivation for doing them.

now, having the things they want to have....the things that are made through these not-desireable-in-themselves activiities...are the ultimate reason or motivation for them to do work. that's because we can't have these things without work.

and your bit about supposing that workers management would lead to collapse..collapse presumably unless your proposed technocratic elite is not in charge...only reveals your own elitism.

me:

but there then needs to be a system for ensuring that what they do is socially accountable, that is, that resources go into producing what people most prefer.
you:
Indeed, but I don't think that in this case we are limited to markets or oligarchical planning committees in order to achieve that. What's your solution?


thanks for asking. i support participatory planning. this is a decentralized form of social planning. it involves households, communities, and workplaces developing their own plans. that is, the power rests with the rank and file, the ordinary members of society. workers develop their proposals for what they propose to produce, what resources they want etc. Households make various requests for the kinds of consumption goods they want. Communities decide on priorities for collective consumption through their assemblies...analogous to current participatory budgeting assemblies in some cities.

The federation of the revolutonary territory has a worker association that has the following responsibility. it collects all the proposals from worker groups and requiests from communities and adds up the numbers. this will give data on aggregate projected demand and aggregate projected supply. it will also indicate changes in demand or supply. the pricing rules that a society has, if it adopts this system, will require adjustments to the projected prices based on shifts in supply and demand.

because we require that production organizations internalize all costs...enviro costs (via compensation paid for pollution for example) and costs to workers....we end up with a more accurate system of prices than exists in the capitalist market framework. that is, a more accurate measure of social costs and benefits.

the projected benefits and costs also enable us to determine if a production organization is providing sufficient benefit to justify its costs. if its costs are too high relative to benefit, the production organization may be disbanded and its means of production or other resources given back to the worker federations for transfer to another worker organization.


OK, but why does the budget have to use the manifestly flawed system of money as a way of keeping track? Wouldn't it make more sense to directly measure the energy used in production and consumption, and calculate accordingly?

no because we need to know what that energy cost, and we also need to know about the benefits provided. this is because we could produce too much energy relative to cost (or too little). how do we avoid that problem? we can't if we don't know what the energy cost and what benefits it provides.


I've proposed elsewhere that "unpleasant" jobs be distributed on a lottery system, with every able person entered. With that, there is a direct incentive for people to invent labour-saving measures in such fields of work, since practically anybody can be called up for such tasks. Thus human laziness, plus human inventiveness, is engaged in making life better for everyone.


yeah, that's because you want to preserve the bureaucratic class (via your proposed technocracy) and its privileges and power over workers.

I say we have to get rid of the jobs of the bureaucratic class...the managers, industrial engineers, system architects, finance officers and other privileged elements. as long as this class exists they'd use their power to prevent your lottery from existing....so your proposal is naive and utopian in the bad sense.

what's required is to re-organize the jobs so that every job includes doing some of the physical work, the less desireable tasks, and also includes some skill and expertise. there is no reason to preserve a relative monopolization of expertise and decision-making into the hands of a bureaucratic class.


In fact, the price system has proven itself to be utterly shit at providing what society truly needs

you're talking about prices within the capitalist market, where prices are a transmission belt of oppression. but it doesn't follow that a socialized economy can do without prices. it's just that it would be a different kind of price system.

your claim here assumes there can be no price system other than the price system that exists within capitalism. that's a false assumption.