In an anarchist society, how could the goods be distributed on a large scale?

[EdgyandOriginal]

How is need measured in such a society?

[$lim_$weezy]

First of all I'd like to say great avatar!

"Need" is something that changes based on societal norms (at least the way it's used in economics). For example, I would say that nowadays, people "need" a computer with internet access or a television. Such objects are not necessary for survival, but they are important enough that I think everyone should have them (well, the internet at least).

So, I think that whatever minimum guarantee the community sets on goods for each individual could be considered "needs" in that sense. This would most likely include what is more commonly meant by needs, such as food and shelter. Everyone has nearly-equal needs in this way. Thus, in most cases, you wouldn't need to measure the needs of a person. More specialized needs, like medication, would obviously need to be handled a different way, probably democratically. The community would try to set production based on whatever perception of the needs of people they had.

I try to explain how I think obtaining luxuries would work in just about every thread I post in, but if you want me to explain, I can!

On a large scale, I'm not entirely sure. Kropotkin's works focus mainly on small-scale stuff, and I think he advocated extreme economic decentralization. If anyone could enlighten me as to large-scale economic mechanisms, I would be thankful.

[Zav]

I don't think that in an Anarchist society there would be much large-scale distribution of goods as most things would be produced locally or within a relatively close proximity as they are needed.
Small-scale distribution works like this: Hospital A needs type O blood for transfusions. It contacts the local (say within 300 km) medical supply houses who then send it out using its own vehicles or by using the local Truckers' Union. At the same time Hospital B receives a patient in dire need of a liver. Livers are not particularly common so if the local stores don't have one, the hospital contacts the regional supply center (say 600 km), which flies it out and the patient receives a liver transplant within a couple hours.
In a Capitalist system, goods are produced en mass in a production for exchange system. For instance, many garments are made in Pakistan because it is cheaper to do so there. It requires large-scale distribution methods to sell those garments in Europe and the Americas. In an Anarchist system, which can really only work locally and bottom-up, hence Anarchist-Communism is the only way Communism has been achieved (but that's a topic for another time), such distribution methods are inefficient and unnecessary.
I have heard Capitalists use computers as an example why Anarchy/Communism cannot work and why large-scale distribution is necessary (quite the opposite!). They claim that for compatibility reasons, computers must all be made by the same few businesses. This is untrue. Suppose I work in a factory that makes motherboards. The Internet has made communication between people very easy. I can be in Canada and speak instantly with someone in Australia. In this manner, I could discuss my brand new ideas and innovations with other computer engineers all over the world. As there can be federations and horizontal organisation between car factories, so can there be with electronics. Thus, one can see that the only thing required for a successful industry is communication.

[Astarte]

How is need measured in such a society?

I think Redification is right about how need would be measured, but let me toss in my thoughts on how distribution and planning might work.

Essentially on a large scale I think it probably could only work on an anarcho-syndicalist basis, meaning several decentralized anarcho-communist communities/communes would have to be engaged in a high level of trade between each other - say the Detroit Commune has a knack for producing public transportation, well, they need to acquire raw materials from a mining commune in say Colorado... thus they would engage in trade, and so forth until you would have a network of trade between many different decentralized communes with their own local representative structures.

As far as the means of distribution, and the means of administration, well, this is always the most difficult problem since bureaucratic power would be bound to spring up in even a decentralized anarchist society - just imagine Big Joe, the strong man and "elected leader" of the Tuscon solar panel factory committee who has managed to come to a position of power as a kind of "strong man" thanks to himself and his clique of Anarcho-Authoritarian thugs - by now the "Tuscon Solar Panel Factory Committee" essentially completely controls all administration and distribution of goods for the city and has politically rendered the official direct-democratic organ of society, the "Tuscon commune", a powerless kind of puppet-parliament - Big Joe is also a complete racist, sexist, and homophobe - he rules on the basis of power and power alone and will have Mo and Curly beat you to death with solar paneling and lead pipes if you cross him.

As you can see in even this syndicalist anarchist society problems between groups would still arise, be they on an ethnic basis, class basis, gender basis, or between other decentralized commune groups. The problems of capitalism which are only one of the most recent editions to a collection of histories known as "the problems of the state" has been being written for thousands of years and has deep rooted physical and psychological problems - the state will not disappear all at once, and cannot simply be "abolished".

[Zav]

As far as the means of distribution, and the means of administration, well, this is always the most difficult problem since bureaucratic power would be bound to spring up in even a decentralized anarchist society - just imagine Big Joe, the strong man and "elected leader" of the Tuscon solar panel factory committee who has managed to come to a position of power as a kind of "strong man" thanks to himself and his clique of Anarcho-Authoritarian thugs - by now the "Tuscon Solar Panel Factory Committee" essentially complete controls all administration and distribution of goods and has politically rendered the official direct-democratic organ of society the "Tuscon commune" a powerless kind of puppet-parliament - Big Joe is also a complete racist, sexist, and homophobe he rules on the basis of power and power alone and will have Mo and Curly beat you to death with solar paneling and lead pipes if you cross him.

Big Joe could obtain any kind of power of anyone else as in doing so by force, as the example states, he would be ostracised by the community as he is no longer making a positive contribution to it, never mind run a solar panel factory (which don't need leaders in the first place).

[Astarte]

Big Joe could obtain any kind of power of anyone else as in doing so by force, as the example states, he would be ostracised by the community as he is no longer making a positive contribution to it, never mind run a solar panel factory (which don't need leaders in the first place).

Right.

Anyway, the point is the official rules and legalese of any society are usually meaningless, distortable, and subject to selective enforcement in the face of any clique or strong man - and cliques and classes emerge also from their relationship to the means of administration and distribution - to think the same thing would not inevitably happen on a quantitatively lower scale on a communal level is a bit naive.

[Zav]

Right.

Anyway, the point is the official rules and legalese of any society are usually meaningless, distortable, and subject to selective enforcement in the face of any clique or strong man - and cliques and classes emerge also from their relationship to the means of administration and distribution - to think the same thing would not inevitably happen on a quantitatively lower scale on a communal level is a bit naive.
The point of Communism is to destroy classes. The rules of such a society are clear and cannot be distorted. No private property. No coercion. No murder. That's pretty much it. You assume that bureaucracy is inevitable, but this is only true of Statist, and other top-down, societies. Administration and distribution are done democratically (consensus, not direct). There is no room for such corruption.
Communism is an ideal, and call me a naïve idealist for believing in it, but the goal of an ideal is not to reach it, but to get as close as possible to it and then to keep pushing for it. This is the attitude of a Communist, and the mindset of a Communist society, and is precisely what prevents such a regression into Statism which you so pessimistically describe as inevitable.

[$lim_$weezy]

I think what Astarte is saying is that it really is up to the community to follow the rules because there is no coercion. Official laws are mostly meaningless because people would follow most of them anyway- the ones they felt were beneficial.

And maybe for a while things won't be perfect. And then we will strive as you say. I don't see too much contradiction here. Although, the use of "inevitably" is a bit too strong, I think.

[CommunityBeliever]

They claim that for compatibility reasons, computers must all be made by the same few businesses.That is what standardization is for. Even an anarchist society will have to some standards.

Additionally, I would like to mention that businesses have developed terrible computers. The well designed computers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machine) were developed by a research university (MIT) and died out because they weren't made profitable by businesses.


In an anarchist society, how could the goods be distributed on a large scale?

Here is how I see it:


Abundant items, such as digital objects, will be completely free of charge.
Food, water, shelter, health care, and Internet access will be declared to be human rights and given out to all people.
Special items will be addressed on a case by case basis.

[EdgyandOriginal]

Thanks very much for the replies and I have another question.

If goods are produced by syndicates, how would inefficiency in production be managed? If there are no markets and no competition, there doesn’t seem to be clear cut way of removing inefficiencies. Could this lead to a drop in valuable production and thus living standards?


I missing something here or is this problem minute in comparison to capitalism and markets?


Thanks again.

[Zav]

Thanks very much for the replies and I have another question.

If goods are produced by syndicates, how would inefficiency in production be managed? If there are no markets and no competition, there doesn’t seem to be clear cut way of removing inefficiencies. Could this lead to a drop in valuable production and thus living standards?


I missing something here or is this problem minute in comparison to capitalism and markets?


Thanks again.
There would be no inefficiencies because goods would be produced as they are needed by the people by the people who will use the products. In a Capitalist system, how much of what good is needed is not known, only guessed, and the producers will only produce what will yield profit, not necessarily what is actually needed. Besides, worker-owned operations tend to remove inefficiencies by themselves (such as bosses). They usually find ways to make production more efficient because there is no bureaucracy in the way. Yes, the problem of inefficiency is a minute one. The biggest problem is getting the workers to rise against the system to start producing this way. Often-times they are afraid, or feel that they won't be able to feed their families if they dissent.

[Astarte]

The point of Communism is to destroy classes. The rules of such a society are clear and cannot be distorted. No private property. No coercion. No murder. That's pretty much it. You assume that bureaucracy is inevitable, but this is only true of Statist, and other top-down, societies. Administration and distribution are done democratically (consensus, not direct). There is no room for such corruption.
Communism is an ideal, and call me a naïve idealist for believing in it, but the goal of an ideal is not to reach it, but to get as close as possible to it and then to keep pushing for it. This is the attitude of a Communist, and the mindset of a Communist society, and is precisely what prevents such a regression into Statism which you so pessimistically describe as inevitable.

No ideology, no matter what it says in its doctrines can "destroy classes" without the actual material, social, and psychological conditions for a classless society to bloom.

When societies go from capitalism and try to implement socialism or communism "overnight" - that is attempt to "abolish" capitalism and the state in one fell swoop there will always be a group of people who do the "official abolishing" and "official seizing" of the means of production, they are usually referred to as the vanguard, and yes, anarchism also develops an echelon of "vanguardists" in its strategic, tactical, and coordinating personnel. In the process of "smashing" the old state's relations in terms of administration, and distribution a vacuum is created that needs to be filled for these vitally necessary activities of society to continue - the vacuum is usually filled by the vanguard of the revolution. Even if it is the case that the movement is not organized on hardline vanguardist Leninist lines, once the leading members of the anarchist movement step into the roles of even representative administrators of society and distributors of goods, they are leaving the world of everyday work - that is they no long live as a member of the working class, but have to spend most of their times as bureaucrats which quickly realize and develop their own self-interests.

You say I simply assume that bureaucracy is inevitable, and that its formation is only the case with statist movements. I dare say, every successful revolutionary movement virtually in all of history was a "statist" one. The problem is that if you expect a completely coercion free movement to succeed, the chances are it will not - there is no historical precedence for such a thing lasting more than a short while - in revolutions problems appear rapidly, and things are not usually so smooth, problems could range from food and water shortages to any myriad of difficulties - wars, shortages, any kind of crisis will cause a bureaucracy which will manifest as the "germ" of a new statist bureaucracy beginning to form.

Also, even if an anarcho-communism movement was to take power in a directly democratic and decentralized way, it would quickly find some kind of state or quasi-state apparatus to be necessary - not just in the case of "defending the revolution against counter revolutionaries" but also in the case of quickly having to deal with such above mentioned crisis.

Hardline Iron discipline does not bar bureaucracy from forming. If anything, history has shown with the rise of bureaucratic centralism in the USSR and all "Communist" states that this iron ideological discipline can be twisted, and used to verbally ensnare and actually coerce those who voice dissent against the privileges of the newly formed bureaucratic class which began tamely enough as mere functionaries, administrators and distributors of the necessities of life.

[$lim_$weezy]

Astarte, you are indeed correct about the material, social, and psychological conditions needing to be there for a truly classless society. These are of course difficult to achieve, but you are too pessimistic, I think. If using a state to defend the revolution doesn't work, and not using a state to defend the revolution doesn't work, then what is there to do? Though classlessness is a difficult thing to achieve, to be sure, striving for it is important. And I don't think it is impossible. Just difficult.

I agree that a bureaucracy could arise whether the revolution is statist or not. I just think it is far more likely if it is statist. Thus I am partial to the anarchist-communist conception of revolution.

As for the need for a bureaucracy, I think you are mistaken. At the very least, democratically-elected and immediately-recallable community representatives could fill these so-called bureaucratic functions, and would not themselves become a crystallized bureaucracy (community willing). Obviously, I do not think an immediate overnight revolution in our conditions now is likely to succeed.

[Astarte]

As for the need for a bureaucracy, I think you are mistaken. At the very least, democratically-elected and immediately-recallable community representatives could fill these so-called bureaucratic functions, and would not themselves become a crystallized bureaucracy (community willing). Obviously, I do not think an immediate overnight revolution in our conditions now is likely to succeed.

You might be right. Perhaps the solution is to be found in the opposite of what the Bolsheviks and vanguardists did - that is to have an ideologically and politically decentralized movement of the broad left without any hardline ideological fetishisms that could be used by a bureaucracy as a new kind of "Catholicism" where heretics are burnt at the stake...

[ckaihatsu]

You might be right. Perhaps the solution is to be found in the opposite of what the Bolsheviks and vanguardists did - that is to have an ideologically and politically decentralized movement of the broad left without any hardline ideological fetishisms that could be used by a bureaucracy as a new kind of "Catholicism" where heretics are burnt at the stake...


There's an inherent material (political) trade-off, though, between [1] ideological principle and [2] political elasticity.

In your avoidance of "political hardline-edness" you unavoidably open the door to a loss of coherence -- just *how broad* should a 'broad left' be? (If it's *too broad* then the goal of proletarian revolution is already off the table.)

Here are some thoughts on the topic, from a similar, past thread:








If every factory / productive center had its own Wikipedia-style page then people could simply discuss ideas about how it could be collectively run, and what it could produce. Such discussions could be generalized from several factories in an area to better coordinate production across the larger area, and each factory / productive center could have a *separate* set of discussions by the respective groups of *workers only* to set actual work schedules, based on the 'demand' discussions.




Our present-day databases can easily do a mechanical sort of incoming demands and requests from a local area. A formal administrative or oversight body is *not needed* whatsoever anymore when the Internet is available to socially network the bottom-up human-needs 'demand' with the existing top-down productive infrastructure, or 'supply'. As long as everything remains posted out in the open for public scrutiny then workers could do the rest, enabling direct distribution from factory production to consumers without any further subservience to a capital-controlling elite.




To extend this meandering direction of thought, I've always pictured the *logistics* -- beyond the information flow, which could be thought of as ubiquitous -- of a collectivized cooperative economy to be akin to several concurrent expanding ripples in a pond. The ripples represent "pulses" of productive output from each locus out into the larger society. The edges of two expanding ripples touching could be thought of as points of *transfer* from one productive center to another -- linkages in a supply chain. (Since all production would be pre-planned there would not have to be any significant waste, pictured as parts of the ripple's perimeter that radiated out to infinity.)




Realistically the pond might be better thought of as having the viscosity of *broth*, meaning that "waves" of supplies are physically / materially limited in their geographical radii of outreach, due to logistical *costs* (of transportation, etc.). In practice perhaps this highly stochastic web of logistical interconnections might simply use a communications overlay that mirrors their radii of *physical* outreach -- limited-range wi-fi "clouds" that extend out to communicate current inventories and capacities with their productive-capacity neighbors, and no further.




[T]here should be a generally obvious *base* of mass political support for the particular planned economy in the first place. This mass support would *equate* to a centralized apparatus anyway....

I don't mean to say that this crucial step could be sidestepped.




I think at *some* point past the regularization of a post-capitalist openly administrated liberated society there could be a more *diffuse* *technical* system of supply chain requisitioning, but it would have to be a logistical *improvement* over the relatively more-hands-on logistical operations planning that you're describing.

I've heard that the file sharing networks that run on the Internet's infrastructure use a more-diffuse model for data interchange -- maybe this kind of automation is along the lines of what I had in mind (but for non-electronic physical materials).

tinyurl.com/3ef2qgq