Libertarian Communism/Anarcho-Communism

[KevlarPants]

I was just wondering if what I figure is called "Libertarian Communism" is, like, a thing.

Because there are alot of anarcho-communists, and I agree with some of their ideals, but I think that there should still be some sort of state or government for managing things such as taxes, education and the law. I also think that there should be money, and it will simply be distributed in a truly fair way. I think that, at least from what I've read, Anarcho-Communism can only really work in a practical way in small organizations or communities.

In contrast to this, the people are allowed to live extremely free lives, with all groups being allowed marriage (this includes incestuous relationships), legal drugs, legal gambling, etc. The police force would simply focus on the main crimes, actually damaging to other human beings, such theft, rape, murder and corruption.

So, what is this "system" called?

[The Idler]

Doesn't sound like Libertarian Communism to me. Sounds like liberal keynesianism perhaps?

[syndicat]

there is of course a governance system in libertarian communism, tho it isn't a state. It's a horizontal federation of worker assemblies, neighborhood assemblies, federations of workers in industries, regional federations. It does have the ability to scale up to larger areas.

The issue of money is not a defining feature of libertarian communism. Libertarian communists have historically differed in their opinions on this.

the critical pieces are:

1. ownership of the land & means of production by the whole society
2. some generous system of free provision of social goods such as health care, education and other things the community decides on
3. direct self-management of industry by the people who work in it
4. control of neighborhoods by neighborhood assemblies & elected committees
5. non-profit production for use, not profit-seeking by production organizations
6. federations of workplaces together by industries and by regions
7. federations of neighborhood assemblies over larger areas such as cities or regions
8. replacement of the hiearchical state by a horizontal system of popular power based on the base assemblies in workplaces and neighborhoods and the federations of these over larger areas.
9. replacement of a standing, hierarchical army by a democratic popular miltitia directly accountable to the system of popular power

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Taxes and the existence of money.

Sounds like a non-communist form of left-libertarianism to me.

[KevlarPants]

Taxes and the existence of money.

Sounds like a non-communist form of left-libertarianism to me.

I just feel that money simplifies trade, instead of just trading the direct labor. It's better to just put a number on it.

Maybe taxes aren't necessary, I don't know. But the money for the free healthcare and public transportation have to come from somewhere.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The root problem is money.

Like Broletariat elucidated rather helpfully in the Cuba thread, the abolition of currency (and thus value) would dictate that the macro-economy would function on the basis that it was one internal economy. That is, instead of separating the economy into fragmented sectors and industries, businesses and organisations, that trade with each other based on the profit motive (thus trying to exploit their own labour), a moneyless economy, democratically controlled by the working class - and later (or sooner, hopefully!) controlled by direct workers' control of economic and political councils, would allow the entire economy to function without the need for money. This isn't my strong point of Marxian theory, though, so you may want to ask Zanthorus or Broletariat in particular for their knowledge on this subject.

The other problem with money (and this is more my strong point!) is that currency - as we know it in its fiat form - does not inherently represent value. Thus, whilst it might 'simplify' trade for you, it makes it far easier for the working class to be exploited, since the 'market' can be both in equilibrium (thus providing sales and liquidity for business owners) and be paying workers less than the value of their labour. This is the key point.

[KevlarPants]

The root problem is money.

Like Broletariat elucidated rather helpfully in the Cuba thread, the abolition of currency (and thus value) would dictate that the macro-economy would function on the basis that it was one internal economy. That is, instead of separating the economy into fragmented sectors and industries, businesses and organisations, that trade with each other based on the profit motive (thus trying to exploit their own labour), a moneyless economy, democratically controlled by the working class - and later (or sooner, hopefully!) controlled by direct workers' control of economic and political councils, would allow the entire economy to function without the need for money. This isn't my strong point of Marxian theory, though, so you may want to ask Zanthorus or Broletariat in particular for their knowledge on this subject.

The other problem with money (and this is more my strong point!) is that currency - as we know it in its fiat form - does not inherently represent value. Thus, whilst it might 'simplify' trade for you, it makes it far easier for the working class to be exploited, since the 'market' can be both in equilibrium (thus providing sales and liquidity for business owners) and be paying workers less than the value of their labour. This is the key point.

I agree with that, and I really wish there wasn't anymore money, because I acknowledge how it's a big stimulus for human greed, but wouldn't a country need to have all the resources it needs within itself for everything to work?

What if a country lacks food? If it doesn't have any money, it can't buy the food it needs from other countries. So, wouldn't the abolition of currency have to happen worldwide? Or is it possible for any country to have all the resources it needs within itself, and the current capitalist governments are just lying so we keep thinking no country can be independent?

I'm sorry for anything stupid I might say or might have said. It's still gonna take a while for me to figure out the economics in communism. Man, alot of this shit is gonna be alot easier when the world runs out of oil for good.

[StoneFrog]

There is enough food at the moment being produced to feed everyone, whats stopping it? communism would be able to create the structure needed to provide surplus food to other nations. With money it only limits the social organizational potential of production and distribution.

[syndicat]

people want more than food.

money does not necessarily imply market relations. and talking about all workplaces being united into a single organization doesn't eliminate the need to have information about preferences of people for products and information about relative costs. hence the need for a social accounting unit.

the root of the problem isn't money. it is subordination and exploitation of one class by another.

[Tim Cornelis]

I just feel that money simplifies trade, instead of just trading the direct labor. It's better to just put a number on it.

Maybe taxes aren't necessary, I don't know. But the money for the free healthcare and public transportation have to come from somewhere.

Money facilitates exchange and trade, but in a communist society there is no exchange and trade--it's abolished.

Rather than individuals appropriating goods they are shared amongst the community for free.

[syndicat]

Money facilitates exchange and trade, but in a communist society there is no exchange and trade--it's abolished.

Rather than individuals appropriating goods they are shared amongst the community for free.

You planning on making everything you want for yourself? If not, there will be exchange. you make things for others, others make things for you. that's an exchange. doesn't have to be mediated by markets.

why do you think free sharing will work? if people don't have to work for anything you'll get numerous free riders who will drag down the community, and people will perceive that as unjust. that's just the beginnings of the problem with free sharing.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I agree with that, and I really wish there wasn't anymore money, because I acknowledge how it's a big stimulus for human greed, but wouldn't a country need to have all the resources it needs within itself for everything to work?

What if a country lacks food? If it doesn't have any money, it can't buy the food it needs from other countries. So, wouldn't the abolition of currency have to happen worldwide? Or is it possible for any country to have all the resources it needs within itself, and the current capitalist governments are just lying so we keep thinking no country can be independent?

I'm sorry for anything stupid I might say or might have said. It's still gonna take a while for me to figure out the economics in communism. Man, alot of this shit is gonna be alot easier when the world runs out of oil for good.

Don't apologise, nothing you say is 'stupid', there's no right or wrong answer, there is only coming at stuff from a different POV. So just relax, comrade :)

But yeah, on the currency thing, it's not a matter of 'wishing' money away. There is a clear framework for it to happen. It can only happen when there has been revolution in enough countries to form an autarkical trading bloc at least, better still a world revolution, but let's not get too utopian.

The abolition of money is not the first step of revolution, in fact it requires several ambitious pre-requisites:

1) The expropriation of the political and economic power of the bourgeoisie
2a) The defence of the revolution against any counter-revolution through the institution of mass, extreme democracy.
2b) The entrenchment of the revolution as a worker-led, worker-controlled process.
3. The process of demolishing the state:
- its security apparatus, by replacing them with local, democratic militias.
- its political apparatus, by replacing the top-down, national representative system with a bottom-up system of neighbourhood, district, town, city, county and regional councils.
- its economic power, by moving any assets that became state-controlled (during expropriation) into the hands of local economic councils, into the hands of workers in their factories, offices and shop floors.

Only when these tasks have been completed: the bourgeoisie expropriated from economic and political power and thoroughly defeated, the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the destruction of the state, and only when this takes place within the framework of an autarkical trading bloc of countries, can we begin to abolish currency.

[Broletariat]

Like Broletariat elucidated rather helpfully in the Cuba thread, the abolition of currency (and thus value)

To be nit pickifully specific, money is an expression of value, not the other way around. If you and I traded a hamburger for a pencil, there's a value relationship there, but no money.




The other problem with money (and this is more my strong point!) is that currency - as we know it in its fiat form - does not inherently represent value. Thus, whilst it might 'simplify' trade for you, it makes it far easier for the working class to be exploited, since the 'market' can be both in equilibrium (thus providing sales and liquidity for business owners) and be paying workers less than the value of their labour. This is the key point.

Value is an ideal quality, the fact that fiat currency exists is a statement to this fact. It DOES represent value, because we say so essentially. Fiat money doesn't make it easier to exploit the working class at the point of production, but it does make it easier to cheat them at other areas I believe.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I accept the nitpicking.

On the second point, you're wrong. Fiat money's main purpose is NOT to represent value. Its main purpose is to provide a lot of liquidity, so that supply/demand equilibria can be met. It's much like the stock market, actually. There is a difference between exchange value (the value relationship), and inherent value, which is what we should aim to find a way of representing in terms of wages and valuing goods/services.

To use your hamburger and pencil example: there is a value relationship there, but it is exchange value, not inherent value. It may well be that (if I cooked it), the burger would hold more inherent value than the pencil, or vice versa (if it was shitty McDonalds burger).

Therein lies my criticism of your 'abolition of value = Socialism' equation. If you were to say 'abolition of exchange value = Socialism', then your point might make more sense, though i'd still say that at the point where workers' ownership of the MoP has been solidified, the revolution has taken society from Capitalism or post-Capitalism into the lowest stage of Socialism.

[Tim Cornelis]

You planning on making everything you want for yourself? If not, there will be exchange. you make things for others, others make things for you. that's an exchange. doesn't have to be mediated by markets.

why do you think free sharing will work? if people don't have to work for anything you'll get numerous free riders who will drag down the community, and people will perceive that as unjust. that's just the beginnings of the problem with free sharing.

Three people, two contribute to the "social product", the other one doesn't while he is perfectly capable of doing so. The two contributers decide to share the social product amongst each other for free. No free riding, no exchange, only sharing.

[syndicat]

if A makes shoes for you and you fix A's car, there is an exchange you have exchanged car fixing for shoes. and if you exclude people from free sharing if they haven't "contributed", you've tied what a person receives as share of the social product to their work. in a society with millions of people, people are going to want to know how much of the social product it is reasonable, fair for them to have. if "contribution" is required, how much contribution?

eliminating money is certainly not the first thing in a revolution. first thing is workers taking over the means of production, building new organizations to run production and to control the society, to replace the state. that's because the basic problem is class power.

you can talk about "abolishing money" but money exists as a reflection of, a requirement for, a kind of organization of production where the production units are fairly autonomous...the kind of autonomy that gets expressed in market relations. you have that kind of social arrangement, you will have money...even if it is inititally "abolished."

in Spain in Aragon in the '30s the villages sometimes "abolished money." but they discovered that caused all kinds of problems. they had no way to coordinate with factories in cities that produced things for them. they needed a common unit of social value, that is, a social accounting unit.

things being free didn't work out so well either. farmers started feeding bread to their pigs...a complete waste of the labor & energy to make the bread.

[Broletariat]

On the second point, you're wrong. Fiat money's main purpose is NOT to represent value. Its main purpose is to provide a lot of liquidity, so that supply/demand equilibria can be met. It's much like the stock market, actually. There is a difference between exchange value (the value relationship), and inherent value, which is what we should aim to find a way of representing in terms of wages and valuing goods/services.

To use your hamburger and pencil example: there is a value relationship there, but it is exchange value, not inherent value. It may well be that (if I cooked it), the burger would hold more inherent value than the pencil, or vice versa (if it was shitty McDonalds burger).

Therein lies my criticism of your 'abolition of value = Socialism' equation. If you were to say 'abolition of exchange value = Socialism', then your point might make more sense, though i'd still say that at the point where workers' ownership of the MoP has been solidified, the revolution has taken society from Capitalism or post-Capitalism into the lowest stage of Socialism.

I'm going to preface by saying your disagreement with me reminds me a lot of DNZ. You've picked up a little touch of Marxism good, but now you're integrating that into your own current views without thinking about the fact that they don't really mesh well. You haven't actually read Das Kapital, so your usage of the word value here is incredibly confusing, you're obviously not talking about a Marxist conception of Value, yet you continue to use it in that way.

Money in general is meant to be the embodiment of Value, you can see Chapter three of Das Kapital on this.


The first chief function of money is to supply commodities with the material for the expression of their values, or to represent their values as magnitudes of the same denomination, qualitatively equal, and quantitatively comparable. It thus serves as a universal measure of value.

Money IS the expression of value, fiat or not.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Libertarian communism is a theory of libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) which advocates the abolition of the state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29) and private property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property), and capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) in favor of common ownership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership) of the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production), a direct democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy) and self-governance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-governance).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_communism#cite_note-0)
According to the anarchist historian Max Nettlau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Nettlau), the first use of the term libertarian communism was in November 1880, when a French anarchist congress employed it to more clearly identify its doctrines.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_communism#cite_note-1) The French anarchist journalist Sébastien Faure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9bastien_Faure), later founder and editor of the four-volume Anarchist Encyclopedia, started the weekly paper Le Libertaire (The Libertarian) in 1895.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_communism#cite_note-2)


- Wikipedia, Libertarian Communism

[Tim Cornelis]

if A makes shoes for you and you fix A's car, there is an exchange you have exchanged car fixing for shoes. and if you exclude people from free sharing if they haven't "contributed", you've tied what a person receives as share of the social product to their work. in a society with millions of people, people are going to want to know how much of the social product it is reasonable, fair for them to have. if "contribution" is required, how much contribution?

eliminating money is certainly not the first thing in a revolution. first thing is workers taking over the means of production, building new organizations to run production and to control the society, to replace the state. that's because the basic problem is class power.

you can talk about "abolishing money" but money exists as a reflection of, a requirement for, a kind of organization of production where the production units are fairly autonomous...the kind of autonomy that gets expressed in market relations. you have that kind of social arrangement, you will have money...even if it is inititally "abolished."

in Spain in Aragon in the '30s the villages sometimes "abolished money." but they discovered that caused all kinds of problems. they had no way to coordinate with factories in cities that produced things for them. they needed a common unit of social value, that is, a social accounting unit.

things being free didn't work out so well either. farmers started feeding bread to their pigs...a complete waste of the labor & energy to make the bread.


If A makes shoes for you and you fix A's car, there is an exchange you have exchanged car fixing for shoes.

Indeed, that's exchange but that's not what I advocate. I advocate sharing of the social product amongst those who contribute to the social product and those unable to contribute to the social product.


if you exclude people from free sharing if they haven't "contributed", you've tied what a person receives as share of the social product to their work.

No, because the only precondition is socially recognised contribution to the social product. It does not remunerate according to effort, contribution, or exchange value as is the case in parecon, anarcho-collectivism and inclusive democracy respectively. The social product is pooled together and each consumes according to needs.


if "contribution" is required, how much contribution?

This is specified by the distributive union (producer and consumer council). A coordinative body (i.e. a federation) is still necessary.

[syndicat]

me:
If A makes shoes for you and you fix A's car, there is an exchange you have exchanged car fixing for shoes. you:
Indeed, that's exchange but that's not what I advocate. I advocate sharing of the social product amongst those who contribute to the social product and those unable to contribute to the social product.
you contradicted yourself. if A, B, C, D work in a shoe factory and make shoes and these are then worn by X, Y, Z, and X, Y, Z work in a market gardening operation that raises various kinds of vegetables and A, B, C, D consume these vegetables, then A, B, C, D have exchanged their shoe-making work for the food growing work of X, Y, Z. An exchange doesn't have to be mediated by a market. An exchange just means that certain people do things for others with the understanding those others do things for them.

i asked:
if "contribution" is required, how much contribution? but you didn't answer the question. that is, you didn't provide any principle that would say how much should be required. If you say that things are provided to those who "contribute" to their consumption and then go on to say that things are provided also to people that haven't, then you've contradicted yourself.


No, because the only precondition is socially recognised contribution to the social product. It does not remunerate according to effort, contribution, or exchange value as is the case in parecon, anarcho-collectivism and inclusive democracy respectively. The social product is pooled together and each consumes according to needs.what does "each consumes according to needs" mean? what is a "need"? is some collective body going to determine what you "need"? that sounds tyrannical or paternalistic. but if each determines their own "needs", then to talk about distribution according to "needs" means "you take whatever you want." but that is not a viable proposal nor will people view that as just.

this comes back to the point that you need a principle of how much of the social product is fair or reasonable for people to consume. if we have decided on a system of social provision to provide people with free education or free health care, then some may consume more than others because in the case of medical care people don't want to consume this for its own sake but only if they need it. Both education and health care sustain and develop people's abilities which is part of their freedom, their ability to be self-governing.

but this is different with many other things a person might consume...how much residential space should they have? how much land to control? expensive clothing? a closet full of leather jackets? a large boat to go fishing? expensive model building kits for their hobby? there are tens of thousands of products that are produced. how much is to be produced of each? what is the principle that determines allocation of resources to the production of these things?

moreover, you can't say that in all cases people only receive things if they've contributed to production of social product, because we don't require this of children, people who old enough we no longer require work, or people who are infirm or severely disabled. and there may occur situations where people are unable to contribute because there aren't enough job slots.

[Tim Cornelis]

me:you:you contradicted yourself. if A, B, C, D work in a shoe factory and make shoes and these are then worn by X, Y, Z, and X, Y, Z work in a market gardening operation that raises various kinds of vegetables and A, B, C, D consume these vegetables, then A, B, C, D have exchanged their shoe-making work for the food growing work of X, Y, Z. An exchange doesn't have to be mediated by a market. An exchange just means that certain people do things for others with the understanding those others do things for them.

i asked: but you didn't answer the question. that is, you didn't provide any principle that would say how much should be required. If you say that things are provided to those who "contribute" to their consumption and then go on to say that things are provided also to people that haven't, then you've contradicted yourself.

what does "each consumes according to needs" mean? what is a "need"? is some collective body going to determine what you "need"? that sounds tyrannical or paternalistic. but if each determines their own "needs", then to talk about distribution according to "needs" means "you take whatever you want." but that is not a viable proposal nor will people view that as just.

this comes back to the point that you need a principle of how much of the social product is fair or reasonable for people to consume. if we have decided on a system of social provision to provide people with free education or free health care, then some may consume more than others because in the case of medical care people don't want to consume this for its own sake but only if they need it. Both education and health care sustain and develop people's abilities which is part of their freedom, their ability to be self-governing.

but this is different with many other things a person might consume...how much residential space should they have? how much land to control? expensive clothing? a closet full of leather jackets? a large boat to go fishing? expensive model building kits for their hobby? there are tens of thousands of products that are produced. how much is to be produced of each? what is the principle that determines allocation of resources to the production of these things?

moreover, you can't say that in all cases people only receive things if they've contributed to production of social product, because we don't require this of children, people who old enough we no longer require work, or people who are infirm or severely disabled. and there may occur situations where people are unable to contribute because there aren't enough job slots.


you contradicted yourself. if A, B, C, D work in a shoe factory and make shoes and these are then worn by X, Y, Z, and X, Y, Z work in a market gardening operation that raises various kinds of vegetables and A, B, C, D consume these vegetables, then A, B, C, D have exchanged their shoe-making work for the food growing work of X, Y, Z. An exchange doesn't have to be mediated by a market. An exchange just means that certain people do things for others with the understanding those others do things for them.

I am talking specifically in the context of the exchange of goods, that is barter (which may or may not be facilitated by a universal unit of value) and a specific quid pro quo.

If five people organise a movie night, they decide to share the social product amongst those who contributed to it. A brings chips, B brings cola, C brings juice, D brings popcorn and E attempts to free-ride and brings nothing. A, B, C and D decide to share the product amongst each other they put it on the table and each consumes what he needs. E is excluded and may eat the left overs. There is no exchange in the sense one good is exchanged for another. There is collective sharing on the basis of anticipated behavioural patterns. If you want to call this form of sharing "exchange", so be it, but it requires no universal unit of exchange, value or account.


you didn't answer the question. that is, you didn't provide any principle that would say how much should be required. If you say that things are provided to those who "contribute" to their consumption and then go on to say that things are provided also to people that haven't, then you've contradicted yourself.

I did answer. Consumer and producer councils (distributive union) deliberates on what is to be produced, based on given resources (means of production, labour, raw materials, etc.). The consumers desire an x amount of y, the producers council agrees and produces it and thereby gain access to the social product. If the producers council does not agree they have to give specific reasons why not, this will boil down to lack of sufficient resources. The number of goods produced cannot meet the needs of the consumers and therefore distribution according to need is suspended.


but if each determines their own "needs", then to talk about distribution according to "needs" means "you take whatever you want." but that is not a viable proposal nor will people view that as just.

Ironically perhaps, this is the same conservative critique we hear from right-wingers. Consumption according to needs already exists in many ways, free water in Scotland, free healthcare in the UK, free use of pavements for each individual to use according to his self-identified needs. Free public transportation, and so forth. Bread, clothing, and furniture can easily be produced in such a scale that it can meet everyone's needs, thus the same goes for bread as goes for healthcare and education.


but this is different with many other things a person might consume...how much residential space should they have? how much land to control? expensive clothing? a closet full of leather jackets? a large boat to go fishing? expensive model building kits for their hobby? there are tens of thousands of products that are produced. how much is to be produced of each? what is the principle that determines allocation of resources to the production of these things?

The commune decides on how to allocate raw materials. Each industry communicates what raw materials are needed to meet the demand (communicated by the consumers through their respective consumers council). If there are enough raw materials they will be so allocated. If not, the communes will democratically prioritise on the allocation of raw materials. We will have enough for to satisfy everyone's needs, we will have enough clothes to satisfy everyone's needs, we will have enough furniture, etc.

But there will not be enough for yachts, and so forth.


how much residential space should they have?

Standardized size I would say.


how much land to control?

Whatever he or she uses, cultivates and/or occupies.


expensive clothing? a closet full of leather jackets?

If there is enough leather to produce enough leather jackets for each person who determined they needed it, yes. If not, another method of distribution.


a large boat to go fishing?

Same. If enough resources, yes. If not, no.


how much is to be produced of each? what is the principle that determines allocation of resources to the production of these things?

Amount is determined by distributive unions. Principles are if there is enough: needs. If there is not enough: prioritize.


moreover, you can't say that in all cases people only receive things if they've contributed to production of social product, because we don't require this of children, people who old enough we no longer require work, or people who are infirm or severely disabled. and there may occur situations where people are unable to contribute because there aren't enough job slots.

Like I said before: the social product is distributed amongst those who contribute and those unable to contribute.

This applies to all people a certain age.
and there may occur situations where people are unable to contribute because there aren't enough job slots.

There is full employment so unlikely. And may such an exception occur, the system is not controlled by impersonal forces.

-------------------------------------------------------
The reason I advocate this form of communism is because the pros outweigh the cons, not because it's perfect.

I remember you advocating parecon. If participatory economics is stripped of:

1) Balanced Job Complexes, and
2) Co-workers deciding your wages on a highly subjective basis

I would be all for it, but the latter is an integral part of parecon and so I'll stick with communism.

[syndicat]

1) Balanced Job Complexes, and
2) Co-workers deciding your wages on a highly subjective basis

I would be all for it, but the latter is an integral part of parecon and so I'll stick with communism. so you want to allow some people to monopolize the decision-making, empowering and more skilled types of work, and others, if they are to earn entitlement to consume through "contribution" are stuck with the drudge work. that's what it means to reject "balanced jobs." this is really the same as what Kropotkin called "integration of labor".


Whatever he or she uses, cultivates and/or occupies.so jack is big burly guy and he and his friends fence off 20 acres to use for their swimming pool, lawn, garden. others in the town are stuck very little as there's not much land here.
me:

and there may occur situations where people are unable to contribute because there aren't enough job slots. you:
There is full employment so unlikely. And may such an exception occur, the system is not controlled by impersonal forces.
you have no way to prove that would be the case. for one thing, some products may become obsolete or demand may go down. or there is growth in population but not in job slots. lots of reasons it could happen that at a given time there are some people who have not found a job.


I did answer. Consumer and producer councils (distributive union) deliberates on what is to be produced, based on given resources (means of production, labour, raw materials, etc.).what if people want things not approved by their "consumer council"? it's tyrannical to say all your consumption requests have to get approval by some community council.

you fail to distinguish between the things we want to be available for everyone -- public goods like health care and education and transportation facilities -- and items of personal consumption. the latter differ a lot from one person to another. any viable system has to be able to allow people an entitlement to consume things that others may not be interested in. but how much are they entitled to?

you've never answered that question.


Ironically perhaps, this is the same conservative critique we hear from right-wingers. this is just handwaving. you don't answer the question.


The commune decides on how to allocate raw materials. arbitrarily? on what basis? how is it determined how much resources to allot for the production of different things? and, again, this amounts to the view that the collective organization of the community decides what you are allowed to consume. this implies tyranny of the majority.


We will have enough for to satisfy everyone's needs, we will have enough clothes to satisfy everyone's needs, we will have enough furniture, etc.
saying that misses the point. people don't all want the same clothes or eat the same food or use the same furniture. people want more than their "needs" to be met. people have desires, and these go beyond what they "need."

me:
how much residential space should they have? you:
Standardized size I would say.so we get cookie cutter communism or barracks communism. you think the majority will go for that? lots of luck.

if somebody wants more space and is willing to give up something else...fewer vacation days, less expensive furniture, whatever...why should they not? suppose somone wants more space to have a studio to paint in or for some other reason. a person could have more space even if their total share of the social product is the same as someone else. but that assumes some way for people to make trade offs...there needs to be some concept of the total value of their entitlement to consume so they can take it in any mix of things they like. otherwise you're not enhancing human freedom but proposing to restrict it.


If there is enough leather to produce enough leather jackets for each person who determined they needed it, yes. If not, another method of distribution.you haven't said anything. you're saying here we will produce leather jackets and expensive furniture up to whatever anyone wants (that's what it means to say "they determine they need it"). so, let's suppose that certain people are more aggressive in demanding things and expressing their "needs"...on your scheme it seems they'd get more than people who are less demanding. this would encourage aggressive individualism because aggressive individualism would be rewarded. what you're missing is some notion of what limits a person's entitlement to consume.


If five people organise a movie night, they decide to share the social product amongst those who contributed to it. A brings chips, B brings cola, C brings juice, D brings popcorn and E attempts to free-ride and brings nothing. A, B, C and D decide to share the product amongst each other they put it on the table and each consumes what he needs. E is excluded and may eat the left overs. There is no exchange in the sense one good is exchanged for another. There is collective sharing on the basis of anticipated behavioural patterns. If you want to call this form of sharing "exchange", so be it, but it requires no universal unit of exchange, value or account.we're talking about an economy with tens of millions of people, hundreds of millions. when people contribute to social production for distant people they don't know, there is an expectation others will be producing things for them. that's why exchange is inherent to any economy that doesn't consist of Robinson Crusoes making everything themselves. you won't have an economy that can produce for people what they want if it can't measure how much they prefer A over B. if you say that people just list things they want ("determine they need them"), if people aren't expected to stay within some budget -- their acknowledged share of the social product -- it's likely the total of requested things will outrun what we are able and willing to produce...given that we don't want to be working 14 hour days. there needs to be some aspect of the system that gets people to prioritize and restrict their requests to their appropriate share of the social product. but how to determine what is each person's appropriate share of the total social product? if you say people can just demand or take whatever they want, then it's whoever is most aggressive who gets the most. and that will encourage aggressive individualism, not social solidarity.

one thing that i find peculiar about this freesharing stuff is, Why do its advocates think it's necessary? Why is this required for an end to domination and exploitation? it's both not viable and not necessary.


Consumption according to needs already exists in many ways, free water in Scotland, free healthcare in the UK, free use of pavements for each individual to use according to his self-identified needs.there are natural limits to how much anyone wants of these things. people don't enjoy going to the doctor for its own sake. and anyway it's rationed because there is a limit on time available with doctors or clinics or for procedures. pavements are sized according to the flow in that area. there's only so many people at any given time who want to be there. walking up and down the sidewalk or driving cars isn't something people do for it's own sake, except rare cases of joyriding...and then there can be clogged up roads. there is no natural limit on consumption of all private consumption items taken together.

people won't even know how much is socially responsible for them to consume unless there are numeric values that indicate the social costs for that item. and this comes back to the need for budgets for personal consumption that represent the person's share. people should then be free to use this to obtain whatever mix of things they want, up to the limit of their share. this would then give the production system good information about what is important to people, what their relative preferences are. and if that governs what is produced, then we have more assurance that the economy will be effective for people in terms of what it produces. and if people's shares for private consumption are the same, and their access to the free sector of public goods is the same (health care, education etc), then there is equality, equal well-being.

[Tim Cornelis]

Quote: 1) Balanced Job Complexes, and
2) Co-workers deciding your wages on a highly subjective basis

I would be all for it, but the latter is an integral part of parecon and so I'll stick with communism.

so you want to allow some people to monopolize the decision-making, empowering and more skilled types of work, and others, if they are to earn entitlement to consume through "contribution" are stuck with the drudge work. that's what it means to reject "balanced jobs." this is really the same as what Kropotkin called "integration of labor".

Quote: Whatever he or she uses, cultivates and/or occupies.

so jack is big burly guy and he and his friends fence off 20 acres to use for their swimming pool, lawn, garden. others in the town are stuck very little as there's not much land here.
me:
Quote: and there may occur situations where people are unable to contribute because there aren't enough job slots.

you:
Quote: There is full employment so unlikely. And may such an exception occur, the system is not controlled by impersonal forces.

you have no way to prove that would be the case. for one thing, some products may become obsolete or demand may go down. or there is growth in population but not in job slots. lots of reasons it could happen that at a given time there are some people who have not found a job.

Quote: I did answer. Consumer and producer councils (distributive union) deliberates on what is to be produced, based on given resources (means of production, labour, raw materials, etc.).

what if people want things not approved by their "consumer council"? it's tyrannical to say all your consumption requests have to get approval by some community council.

you fail to distinguish between the things we want to be available for everyone -- public goods like health care and education and transportation facilities -- and items of personal consumption. the latter differ a lot from one person to another. any viable system has to be able to allow people an entitlement to consume things that others may not be interested in. but how much are they entitled to?

you've never answered that question.

Quote: Ironically perhaps, this is the same conservative critique we hear from right-wingers.

this is just handwaving. you don't answer the question.

Quote: The commune decides on how to allocate raw materials.

arbitrarily? on what basis? how is it determined how much resources to allot for the production of different things? and, again, this amounts to the view that the collective organization of the community decides what you are allowed to consume. this implies tyranny of the majority.

Quote: We will have enough for to satisfy everyone's needs, we will have enough clothes to satisfy everyone's needs, we will have enough furniture, etc.

saying that misses the point. people don't all want the same clothes or eat the same food or use the same furniture. people want more than their "needs" to be met. people have desires, and these go beyond what they "need."

me:
Quote: how much residential space should they have?

you:
Quote: Standardized size I would say.

so we get cookie cutter communism or barracks communism. you think the majority will go for that? lots of luck.

if somebody wants more space and is willing to give up something else...fewer vacation days, less expensive furniture, whatever...why should they not? suppose somone wants more space to have a studio to paint in or for some other reason. a person could have more space even if their total share of the social product is the same as someone else. but that assumes some way for people to make trade offs...there needs to be some concept of the total value of their entitlement to consume so they can take it in any mix of things they like. otherwise you're not enhancing human freedom but proposing to restrict it.

Quote: If there is enough leather to produce enough leather jackets for each person who determined they needed it, yes. If not, another method of distribution.

you haven't said anything. you're saying here we will produce leather jackets and expensive furniture up to whatever anyone wants (that's what it means to say "they determine they need it"). so, let's suppose that certain people are more aggressive in demanding things and expressing their "needs"...on your scheme it seems they'd get more than people who are less demanding. this would encourage aggressive individualism because aggressive individualism would be rewarded. what you're missing is some notion of what limits a person's entitlement to consume.

Quote: If five people organise a movie night, they decide to share the social product amongst those who contributed to it. A brings chips, B brings cola, C brings juice, D brings popcorn and E attempts to free-ride and brings nothing. A, B, C and D decide to share the product amongst each other they put it on the table and each consumes what he needs. E is excluded and may eat the left overs. There is no exchange in the sense one good is exchanged for another. There is collective sharing on the basis of anticipated behavioural patterns. If you want to call this form of sharing "exchange", so be it, but it requires no universal unit of exchange, value or account.

we're talking about an economy with tens of millions of people, hundreds of millions. when people contribute to social production for distant people they don't know, there is an expectation others will be producing things for them. that's why exchange is inherent to any economy that doesn't consist of Robinson Crusoes making everything themselves. you won't have an economy that can produce for people what they want if it can't measure how much they prefer A over B. if you say that people just list things they want ("determine they need them"), if people aren't expected to stay within some budget -- their acknowledged share of the social product -- it's likely the total of requested things will outrun what we are able and willing to produce...given that we don't want to be working 14 hour days. there needs to be some aspect of the system that gets people to prioritize and restrict their requests to their appropriate share of the social product. but how to determine what is each person's appropriate share of the total social product? if you say people can just demand or take whatever they want, then it's whoever is most aggressive who gets the most. and that will encourage aggressive individualism, not social solidarity.

one thing that i find peculiar about this freesharing stuff is, Why do its advocates think it's necessary? Why is this required for an end to domination and exploitation? it's both not viable and not necessary.

Quote: Consumption according to needs already exists in many ways, free water in Scotland, free healthcare in the UK, free use of pavements for each individual to use according to his self-identified needs.

there are natural limits to how much anyone wants of these things. people don't enjoy going to the doctor for its own sake. and anyway it's rationed because there is a limit on time available with doctors or clinics or for procedures. pavements are sized according to the flow in that area. there's only so many people at any given time who want to be there. walking up and down the sidewalk or driving cars isn't something people do for it's own sake, except rare cases of joyriding...and then there can be clogged up roads. there is no natural limit on consumption of all private consumption items taken together.

people won't even know how much is socially responsible for them to consume unless there are numeric values that indicate the social costs for that item. and this comes back to the need for budgets for personal consumption that represent the person's share. people should then be free to use this to obtain whatever mix of things they want, up to the limit of their share. this would then give the production system good information about what is important to people, what their relative preferences are. and if that governs what is produced, then we have more assurance that the economy will be effective for people in terms of what it produces. and if people's shares for private consumption are the same, and their access to the free sector of public goods is the same (health care, education etc), then there is equality, equal well-being.

Balanced Job Complexes are about assigning arbitrary numbers on thousands of tasks deciding for everyone how empowering and menial these tasks are, whilst this is highly subjective. That's why I oppose it.


so you want to allow some people to monopolize the decision-making, empowering and more skilled types of work, and others, if they are to earn entitlement to consume through "contribution" are stuck with the drudge work

Access to more empowering work does not equal monopolisation of decision-making. Everyone will do the jobs he chooses, and is mentally or physically able to do. Menial work is the product of the market economy, financial constraint of individuals forcing them to accept menial jobs such as cleaning, collecting trash. Instead these should be done on a rotating basis, not by shoving people into arbitrarily defined job complexes.


so jack is big burly guy and he and his friends fence off 20 acres to use for their swimming pool, lawn, garden. others in the town are stuck very little as there's not much land here.

It has nothing to do with physical strength, “land” does not refer to “open living space”, it refers to productive soil used for the growth of crops, foods and so forth. It also has nothing to do with fencing off. If fended off land is unproductive (it is not used) it can be occupied by new users who actually use it. Use-rights rather than property rights.


you have no way to prove that would be the case. for one thing, some products may become obsolete or demand may go down. or there is growth in population but not in job slots. lots of reasons it could happen that at a given time there are some people who have not found a job.

Uhm yeah I do. Imagine an economy with four people, one capitalist and three potential workers. The capitalist has ten dollars to spend on wages. Every worker works for five dollars. Thus the capitalist can hire two workers, one is unemployed. Unemployment is the result of too little money to pay for all labour. In a communist society this would not occur. Say a factory needs twenty people to work, 30 people actually want to work, it does not mean ten people will be out of jobs but rather that the work load is spread amongst the 30 people. There is no unemployment in a socialist society.


what if people want things not approved by their "consumer council"? it's tyrannical to say all your consumption requests have to get approval by some community council.

And how does this problem not occur in participatory economics? Michael Albert: “The consumer, he [Schweickart] notes, would have to take last year's list of consumption and adapt it with changes both for different taste and for different income, and then submit that. (Schweickart mistakes the possibility of a neighbourhood questioning a submission for Sherman tanks, or for gigantic lawn lights, or for enough liquor to open a store, for a gross personal intrusion because he fails to note that the process is anonymous, again missing what is repeatedly noted in the book.)”. Thus, each consumer makes a list of what he wishes to consume in an entire year, this is submitted and then reviewed by all people of the neighbourhood (albeit anonymously) in order to prevent people from ordering unwanted goods.

To use the example of weed. A social stigma is attached to weed, if we assume this will not disappear in a libertarian socialist society we can imagine that in the communist system I propose the “weed syndicate” will not be associated to the commune and therefore its members do not gain free access to the abundant goods of the social product. However, just because the production of weed is not “socially recognised” as contribution to the social product does not mean it cannot happen. Even services that are not commercially viable in today's world may exist in the voluntary sector. The weed producers have to work in their spare time on the weed production on the basis of mutual aid. They can decide all those who contribute so many times to the production of weed may consume so many of it. They internally form a social economy similar to the “external” economy.


you fail to distinguish between the things we want to be available for everyone -- public goods like health care and education and transportation facilities -- and items of personal consumption. the latter differ a lot from one person to another. any viable system has to be able to allow people an entitlement to consume things that others may not be interested in. but how much are they entitled to?

you've never answered that question.

I did answer this question two times. The Communes via their Unions decide what the Syndicates produce. All that is available in abundance will be distributed according to needs. All that is not, will not. The Communes decide on the criteria of production and associated syndicates, for example a percentage of consumers for a particular good and another percentage for essential means of life such as medicine for rare deceases. I'm not sure whether you are asking me to specifically name the criteria and goods though.


this is just handwaving. you don't answer the question.

I did. Just not in that sentence.


arbitrarily? on what basis? how is it determined how much resources to allot for the production of different things? and, again, this amounts to the view that the collective organization of the community decides what you are allowed to consume. this implies tyranny of the majority.

The allocation of raw materials, if they are not available on a sufficient level, is decided democratically. But only the scarce raw materials. And it hardly implies tyranny of the majority as it only goes for 1) raw materials 2) if they are not abundant.

Indeed, if most goods cannot be produced in abundance the system does not work. But this is unlikely of we look at the scale of potential production.


saying that misses the point. people don't all want the same clothes or eat the same food or use the same furniture. people want more than their "needs" to be met. people have desires, and these go beyond what they "need."

This is just an utter misrepresentation of communism and what we mean by “needs”. Needs are self-defined, it encompasses desires!


so we get cookie cutter communism or barracks communism. you think the majority will go for that? lots of luck.

No. There is a huge difference between standardised SIZE and standardised APPEARANCE.


if somebody wants more space and is willing to give up something else...fewer vacation days, less expensive furniture, whatever...why should they not? suppose somone wants more space to have a studio to paint in or for some other reason. a person could have more space even if their total share of the social product is the same as someone else. but that assumes some way for people to make trade offs...there needs to be some concept of the total value of their entitlement to consume so they can take it in any mix of things they like. otherwise you're not enhancing human freedom but proposing to restrict it.

I don't see why they shouldn't, but I don't see how that's viable to organise either.


you haven't said anything. you're saying here we will produce leather jackets and expensive furniture up to whatever anyone wants (that's what it means to say "they determine they need it"). so, let's suppose that certain people are more aggressive in demanding things and expressing their "needs"...on your scheme it seems they'd get more than people who are less demanding. this would encourage aggressive individualism because aggressive individualism would be rewarded. what you're missing is some notion of what limits a person's entitlement to consume.

That's another misrepresentation. I can't explain it any more simple than I do now without going into unpredictable specifics.

If there is enough leather to produce enough leather jackets for all those who demand it then there is no conflict. If there is not enough leather to produce leather jackets for all who demand it, there is a conflict between needs and resources available to meet needs. Thus another method of distribution has to be decided upon. There is no “aggressive demanding”. Consumers communicate their needs, say 100 leather jacks and 50 leather chairs through their consumers councils. The syndicates only have so many leather available to produce the requested goods. If there is enough resources to produce these leather jackets, there is no conflict. But say there is only enough leather to produce 50 leather jacks and 50 leather chairs (or any other variation), there arises a conflict between needs and available resources. Therefore another method of distribution will be utilised, e.g. according to contribution, or prioritising top contributors or specialised professions such as doctors. There is no “aggressive demanding”.


what you're missing is some notion of what limits a person's entitlement to consume.

Not at all. What limits a person's entitlement to consume is the question of needs versus available resources to meet those needs. If they are present he will receive according to needs. If they are not present, he may not.


we're talking about an economy with tens of millions of people, hundreds of millions. when people contribute to social production for distant people they don't know, there is an expectation others will be producing things for them.

As you may remember I asked precisely this question in a thread a while ago. http://www.revleft.com/vb/disillusioned-communism-t160424/index.html

And in the mean time I considered what could work as a system to allocate resources on a global scale. Internally, that is within the local federation (a federation of several agricultural collectives, urban communes and industrial syndicates) CONSUMER GOODS are distributed according to needs. But externally an “artificial world market” allocates raw materials (and other goods which cannot be produced locally) based on an exchange rate, based very much on participatory economics.


if people aren't expected to stay within some budget -- their acknowledged share of the social product -- it's likely the total of requested things will outrun what we are able and willing to produce

Firstly, I don't think this will happen for basic goods such as water, food, clothes, furniture, housing. If indeed it turns out this notion is wrong the workers will recognise this and alter the system themselves. Communism does indeed presuppose the notion of material abundance of most consumer goods.


if you say people can just demand or take whatever they want, then it's whoever is most aggressive who gets the most. and that will encourage aggressive individualism, not social solidarity

I should note that by “demand” I simply mean as in supply and demand, not as in “I DEMAND COMPENSATION”.


one thing that i find peculiar about this freesharing stuff is, Why do its advocates think it's necessary? Why is this required for an end to domination and exploitation? it's both not viable and not necessary.

Distribution according to needs is superior to distribution according to contribution because people are naturally capable of different mental and physical capabilities—which I presume you agree with. Unlike many communists I do not agree that communism is necessary to end exploitation, I merely think it's one of many ways to end to exploitation, and it's the most practical one.

The problem with participatory economics is that it shoves subjectivity into objective social institution. Effort and sacrifice are highly subjective standards and cannot be objectively determined, so co-workers determine effort and sacrifice. There is a difference between how things are and how they are perceived. I may perceive I worked (let's use numerical values) 10 on a scale of 20, but I actually worked eight and my co-workers will judge I worked only five. This does not create solidarity but hostility.

[syndicat]

Balanced Job Complexes are about assigning arbitrary numbers on thousands of tasks deciding for everyone how empowering and menial these tasks are, whilst this is highly subjective. That's why I oppose it.
no it is not. you don't know what you're talking about.

right now capitalism tends to concentrate skilled work, discretion, decision-making and expertise into the fewest number of people possible. to do this they constantly work to deskill jobs, and design jobs that don't require skills, expertise. this is overtly an expression of class domination & exploitation and means that workers are robbed of the opportunity for personal development. this division of labor cannot continue if workers are to really become masters of production and actually control their work and the system of production.

this means the jobs have to be systematically re-designed so as to share out the decision-making, coordinating, skills, expertise in jobs, so that everyone has skills & expertise, participates in the decision-making, and also does their share of the physical work, the drudge tasks.

this is what it means to "balance" the jobs.
Access to more empowering work does not equal monopolization of decision-making. Everyone will do the jobs he chooses, and is mentally or physically able to do. Menial work is the product of the market economy, financial constraint of individuals forcing them to accept menial jobs such as cleaning, collecting trash. Instead these should be done on a rotating basis, not by shoving people into arbitrarily defined job complexes.again, you don't know what you're talking about. right now only certain people have certain kinds of skills, such as engineering training or medical science training. most people are forced into dead-end, deskilled jobs because those are what most jobs are. the capitalists design the jobs that way. jobs right now are not "arbitrarily' defined. they're defined to minimize the ability of workers to have leverage over what happens. if a company has more people with more skills & knowledge and depends on them, they will have more leverage to interfere with management decisions and demand more compensation etc.

Given that this is the way it is, workers can't all of a sudden just do any job. they have not been trained to do various kinds of things. what happens when workers in this situation take over workplaces or participate in some worker control scheme that doesn't challenge the division of labor, the more educated, skilled people....the professionals, marketing experts, etc...dominate. people can't effectively participate in the running of a place if they lack the knowledge. people learn a lot of the knowledge from doing the job, learning on the job, as well as thru various forms of training, from college to apprenticeships and so on.

so the only way the workforce will be able to effectively control the workplace is if they not only set up a formal system of assemblies and election of an administrative council and so on but also re-organize the jobs and organize training that helps them to learn the skills & expertise they need to participate effectively.

on the laissez faire..."do whatever you like" idea...which you propose, what will inevitably happen is that the professionals, ex-managers, highly skilled people will dominate and you'll have a new bureaucratic class soon in a dominant position. the only way to prevent this is to DISALLOW anyone from holding that kind of job, that is, jobs that monopolize the skills, expertise, decision making...as professionals and managers now do.

this is an example of where some anarchists take an individualist position similar to right-wing libertarians. and you can be sure that the educated professional types will love your proposal. if they can take whatever jobs they like, they'll continue as the accountants, engineers and other empowered positions, they'll keep the rest of the workforce dependent on their skills, and build privileges for themselves.

this sort of thing happened in the Spanish revolution. when the railway workers federation wanted to build a new line, they had to pay civil engineers three times what the railway workers were making because that's the only way they could get one of the people with these scarce skills to do the work they needed done.

this sort of thing happened under Yugoslav self-management where the elected workers councils only dealt with things like vacation days or how to divvy up bonuses...not how the work was organized...because they'd never been trained with the relevant knowledge and the elected director and his coterie of engineers and other professionals had the expertise and could snow the workers by arguing "we have to do things such and such way"

this is also what happens in the Mondragon coops in Spain. the managers and professional experts completely dominate and even prohibit the workers from hiring outside consultants who could help them critique or evaluate the plans concocted by the professionals.


Not at all. What limits a person's entitlement to consume is the question of needs versus available resources to meet those needs. If they are present he will receive according to needs. If they are not present, he may not.this is just handwaving. you're not said anything. you've already said that "needs" are self-defined so "needs" really means "whatever you want." moreover it is simply not plausible to say that the only things we produce are what people "need" becuase people have desires beyond what they "need"...since "need" normally has the meaning of "necessities". so if you say only what people "need" is going to be produced, you're proposing a poverty stricken conception of production.

when we translate "needs" as wants (since that's what self-defined "needs" comes to), you're saying people will get what the available resources allow. this isn't correct at all because it also depends on how much people want to work. moreover, you're only talking about the totality of production. Yes, the total of what is produced is limited by available resources plus how much we decide to work.

but that says nothing at all about what wil be produced or how much each person will get as a share of this total production.


what if people want things not approved by their "consumer council"? it's tyrannical to say all your consumption requests have to get approval by some community council. you're not conversing here with Michael Albert. you're conversing with me. What i say is that individuals have to be able to request whatever they want. this is, by the way, also what Michael Albert says.

a person is limited by their individual budget. but within that limit, a person can request whatever they want. this does not have to be approved by a "consumers council." not on my view and not on Michael Albert's view either.

me:

if people aren't expected to stay within some budget -- their acknowledged share of the social product -- it's likely the total of requested things will outrun what we are able and willing to produce you:

Firstly, I don't think this will happen for basic goods such as water, food, clothes, furniture, housing.prove it! in fact it is highly likely. if people do not have any budget...a particular share of the social product they are limited to, their entitlement to consume...why will they not demand so much that when you tally up everybody's requests, it is way beyond projected product? I think this is in fact almost inevitable. it is especially so on a moneyless system where people have no idea what the social costs are of what they request. even if they wanted to limit themselves to some socially responsible share, how could they?

here in California about 60 percent of the water falls in a small area of the state...the snowpack in the northern Sierra. there are constant fights over how this water is to be allocated...how much to maintain the fisheries, how much for irrrigated crops, how much for urban use, etc. you have developers building houses with big laws...hugely water intensive...out on the Mohave desert. you have people in suburbs with their own private pools. and you think that water being free will work?

I think it would work to allow for residential use a normal amount per person without having to pay anything. but beyond that your proposal is hopeless. and you think people will limit their requests for clothes, electronic gear, cars...how would they even know how much they should limit this to? on your scheme no one has any budget, there is no notion of what each person's share of the social product is supposed to be.

me:

if you say people can just demand or take whatever they want, then it's whoever is most aggressive who gets the most. and that will encourage aggressive individualism, not social solidarity you:
I should note that by “demand” I simply mean as in supply and demand, not as in “I DEMAND COMPENSATION”.
i wasn't talking about compensation. i was taking about taking or requesting consumer goods.

you:
It has nothing to do with physical strength, “land” does not refer to “open living space”, it refers to productive soil used for the growth of crops, foods and so forth. It also has nothing to do with fencing off. If fended off land is unproductive (it is not used) it can be occupied by new users who actually use it. Use-rights rather than property rights.
you say it doesn't have to do with physical strength but then in the next breadth you say that land that someone deems to be "unused" can then be seized by "new users." what determines they're getting the land? they have more guys, more fire power? again, you're contradicting yourself.

living space most definitely does include land. houses are built on land. houses have both ornamental gardens and sometimes vegetable gardens or orchards attached.

and you still didn't provide a plausible answer in regard to living space. saying "everyone gets the same" is not an answer because it actually violates your own principle, "from each according to ability, to each according to needs"...especially since you've allowed that needs are self-defined.

you say you don't know how a tradeoff between more living space and less of other things can be arranged. it's easy. it's called having budgets. people have a limit to their share of the social product, their entitlement to consume. they can use it to request whatever mix of products they want...up to the limit of their budget.