Communomics: Free-market vs Patterned Distribution

[PhilosophyGreg]

Hi guys, I'm new to this forum. I wouldn't describe myself as a Marxist (just yet) but I would lean toward egalitarianism in distribution, so the question I have is an economical/philosophical one.

In short, how do you guys think that a Communist economy might be organised? One of the biggest challenges facing Communist theory is how much of a disaster a command economy has turned out to be, for two reasons:

1) Though this is clearly not universally binding, the points raised by libertarians like Hayek and Nozick suggest plausibly that a command economy (or patterned-distribution, to couch it in philosophical terms) impermissibly violates the freedoms of individuals to engage voluntarily in transactions. I'm aware of the literature that deals with points raised by this proposal that, for example, errors in distribution violate the conditions of "voluntariness" in transfer, but on a more human level few would assent to an economy that did not allow for entrepreneurship, and freedom to set up enterprises and companies where one was one's own boss. Instead, however, of just simply stating what's wrong with the current free-market system of distribution*, what are the proposed alternatives?

2) The Economic Calculus issue, that of the inability of any controller to efficiently judge the allocation of resources in a supply/demand context, causes problems for the fact that in a command economy inevitably vast amounts of resources are over/underproduced and, in keeping with the first point, the plan has to severely violate the freedoms of producers in order to remain on track.

Some examples of replies I don't want:

1) "Well, would you call the current free-market system efficient? Environmental damage/Imperialism/Third World Poverty/First World waste etc" I don't want to debate the efficiency of free-market capitalism, I want to read an informed alternative that avoids or at least mitigates the first two points.

2) Anything suggesting that this question is rhetorical, or, further to that, anything suggesting I'm some sort of spy or infiltrator trying to undermine the forum. This is a question posed solely in the spirit of educating and discussing, and I am open to any sort of proposal just as long as it is reasonable.

*I'm not crazy, there's SHITLOADS wrong with it...

[Kotze]

but on a more human level few would assent to an economy that did not allow for entrepreneurship, and freedom to set up enterprises and companies where one was one's own boss.I'm pretty sure that most people don't believe they are in a position to start their own company. As for calculation, Paul Cockshott (who is also on this forum) has written about it.

[PhilosophyGreg]

But if they are unable to start their own company, it's not due to any illegitimacy, but to circumstances which are beyond the control of any particular body to rectify for them. In a strictly practical sense the only limitation on economic activity is that precluded by law, and setting up one's own company is not precluded by law. Remember it's the system we're talking about.

Where might I find Cockshott's writing?

[NewLeft]

Good questions, I definately wont be able to answer them, but I do remember seeing a response by Brus addressing specifically what you asked. I'll edit this post to include the link if I ever find it.

[Broletariat]

Communist economy is not a "command economy."

Communism abolishes Value relations, and so doesn't really have an "economy" as you typically think of it.

PS. fuck rights

[NewLeft]

Communist economy is not a "command economy."

Communism abolishes Value relations, and so doesn't really have an "economy" as you typically think of it.

PS. fuck rights

Capital C communism - central planning? Even councils/cooperatives..

[Kotze]

Where might I find Cockshott's writing?In the early 90s, Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell wrote a book about planned economies: Towards a New Socialism (http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/%7Ecottrell/socialism_book/). There are several articles about planning with computers on Cockshott's site (http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/%7Ewpc/reports/). He demonstrates that when you have the data, calculation is easy. As far as I know, he doesn't deal much with incentives for revealing correct information though.

I have trouble parsing the rest of that post, could you rephrase what you mean?

[thefinalmarch]

Communomics
Is that even a real word?

[PhilosophyGreg]

Thanks Kotze, I`ll definitely have a look at this Cockshott stuff.

"Communomics" isn`t a real word, but it can be if you want it to be.

I don`t understand basically anything of what Broletariat said. "Fuck rights"? What sort of a comment is that? If you`re going to sweep away a vast and profound source of moral reasoning for some of the elements of libertarianism or basically anything to the right of radical Communist\Anarchist egalitarianism, then where does that leave you once you start advocating abstract notions such as "freedom" or "solidarity" or any of the other Communist buzzwords?

[Broletariat]

I don`t understand basically anything of what Broletariat said. "Fuck rights"? What sort of a comment is that? If you`re going to sweep away a vast and profound source of moral reasoning for some of the elements of libertarianism or basically anything to the right of radical Communist\Anarchist egalitarianism, then where does that leave you once you start advocating abstract notions such as "freedom" or "solidarity" or any of the other Communist buzzwords?


Those abstract notions are useful propaganda pieces, nothing more. Actually, solidarity is useful as a concept because it is in the interests of the working class.

Communists hold no eternal principles, save one, the material interests of the working class, no more no less. If anyone tells you otherwise they are not a Communist, or they are lying, take it from the Manifesto.

"They [Communists] have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole."

Eternal principles are divisive and cumbersome to our project, the majority of them were created by enlightened bourgeois thinkers and thus serve to benefit them.

[danyboy27]

In short, how do you guys think that a Communist economy might be organised? One of the biggest challenges facing Communist theory is how much of a disaster a command economy has turned out to be, for two reasons:

The problems with the command economy model that have been tried in China and the USSR where mainly due to the lack of accontability and control from the population and the overkill centralisation of the production.

You cant have 30 people efficiently managing the ressources of several millions people, its just not possible.

A good result would be to have a mixed economy with some feature centrally planned while other would be run by communities.


Hi guys, I'm new to this forum. I wouldn't describe myself as a Marxist (just yet) but I would lean toward egalitarianism in distribution, so the question I have is an economical/philosophical one.

In short, how do you guys think that a Communist economy might be organised? One of the biggest challenges facing Communist theory is how much of a disaster a command economy has turned out to be, for two reasons:

1) Though this is clearly not universally binding, the points raised by libertarians like Hayek and Nozick suggest plausibly that a command economy (or patterned-distribution, to couch it in philosophical terms) impermissibly violates the freedoms of individuals to engage voluntarily in transactions. I'm aware of the literature that deals with points raised by this proposal that, for example, errors in distribution violate the conditions of "voluntariness" in transfer, but on a more human level few would assent to an economy that did not allow for entrepreneurship, and freedom to set up enterprises and companies where one was one's own boss. Instead, however, of just simply stating what's wrong with the current free-market system of distribution*, what are the proposed alternatives?
..
Well Its all about economic democracy. Has i said you could have a system that would allow a relative freedom of exchange for some transactions while at the same time democratically regulating others like, lets say the production and transfert of heavy machinery or fissile material. I mean, we already sortof work like that today, minus the democratic part of course. exchanges are and where always somehow regulated by some sort of critera to avoid problematic situation, that why has independent human being i cant get my hands on a plutonium ingot (god know how much i tried.)



2) The Economic Calculus issue, that of the inability of any controller to efficiently judge the allocation of resources in a supply/demand context, causes problems for the fact that in a command economy inevitably vast amounts of resources are over/underproduced and, in keeping with the first point, the plan has to severely violate the freedoms of producers in order to remain on track.
..
If has i said earlier the burden of the central economy is decreased by both a mixed economy and the introduction of a democratic structure in the control of what planned, it shouldnt be that hard to know what to build and when, After all corporations are today able to manage their supply and demand need based on similar principles, i dont see why it would be impossible for a society to do the same in a more democratic fashion.

When toyota want to build a new plant, the board of director get together, take the decision and then give the project to some project manager, that guy get a team together that will then create a series of teams who will have various task to finally, after 5 year finish the construction of the plant.

It wouldnt be that hard to work around that kind of structure to make it fully democratic and even more efficient.

I am a communist, but i have to say, capitalism served its purpose pretty well by giving us the mean to get to the next level.

[Decommissioner]

On the question of entrepreneurship (the idealistic definition and not what it really translates to under capitalism now), I would say entrepreneurship (in the sense of the freedom to start a "business") would thrive under socialism.

Anything that doesn't have to do with providing for the needs of society, such as entertainment, or specific services, workers would have more freedom to do than they do now.

I can't start a business because I don't have the money. This is the same for all workers. Under socialism, it would be far more plausible for me to and a small cooperative or council of workers to start a bar..or a record store, or start software developement team or become game developers. I would imagine the management of property would be a council of its own, and that one would merely consult with them to see if there are viable spaces within a community to start your "business."

[PhilosophyGreg]

These are really excellent replies, but I do not feel the issue is being addressed very clearly.

Broletariat, the final lines of the Manifesto are a clear advocation of the moral preferability of freedom. If you believe that abstract moral notions are only pragmatic, then there is literally no reason why you should align yourself with Communists and not with Capitalists. You may recognise a total inevitability in the development or emergence of Communist society but why doesn't this lead to adopting a hardlined Capitalist stance to protect your private interests against this revolution? It ought to be clear that you have at least some sympathy with the proletariat because you feel they have some moral mandate or another that means that their interests OUGHT to be promoted, that goes beyond the simple fact that they'll come to outnumber you when you disagree. The issue here is the internalization of revolutionary fervour and true emotional commitment to the aim, and that isn't just supported by pragmatism.

"Well Its all about economic democracy. Has i said you could have a system that would allow a relative freedom of exchange for some transactions while at the same time democratically regulating others like, lets say the production and transfert of heavy machinery or fissile material. I mean, we already sortof work like that today, minus the democratic part of course. exchanges are and where always somehow regulated by some sort of critera to avoid problematic situation, that why has independent human being i cant get my hands on a plutonium ingot (god know how much i tried.)"

Danyboy, in as much as the economy were subject to market forces and not to democratic decision, then the problems of profiteering and exploitation would still arise. In as much as it were subject to democratic decision, it would be radically inefficient in comparison with free-market capitalism. Hell, given the fact that the economic information is displaced among a larger amount of decision-makers, it would be even less efficient than an economic autocrat. Mixed economies have always been preferable for both moral and efficient reasons but if we're talking about a revolution that rearranges the structure of the economy to end the system of owner-worker relations in its entirety, then surely the very theoretical bases on which concepts like the mixed economy need to be revised also?

For me it seems like though egalitarianism the only thoroughly defensible moral standpoint on distribution, the Marxist claim to economic change lacks any impetus in that it lacks a clearly defined end. Surely nobody wants a revolution and then just chaos, there has to be some sort of plan that will avoid the mistakes of the past.

"I can't start a business because I don't have the money. This is the same for all workers. Under socialism, it would be far more plausible for me to and a small cooperative or council of workers to start a bar..or a record store, or start software developement team or become game developers. I would imagine the management of property would be a council of its own, and that one would merely consult with them to see if there are viable spaces within a community to start your "business.""

Decommissioner, this is very telling. My first post raised the point of the undesirability of command-economy because of the restriction on entrepreneurial freedom. Firstly, what do you do if the council straight said "no" to you starting your business? Would you be happy with that? Even if you would, do you think that's a stable way of managing society and economic freedom? Those questions are rhetorical, you'd have riots on your hands if your economic decisions were restricted by an alien body. This is one of the points raised so memorably in Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom".

[Decommissioner]

Decommissioner, this is very telling. My first post raised the point of the undesirability of command-economy because of the restriction on entrepreneurial freedom. Firstly, what do you do if the council straight said "no" to you starting your business? Would you be happy with that? Even if you would, do you think that's a stable way of managing society and economic freedom? Those questions are rhetorical, you'd have riots on your hands if your economic decisions were restricted by an alien body. This is one of the points raised so memorably in Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom".

I wouldn't view the hypothetical council that manages existing property as an alien body, as it would be democratically run by workers and must answer to the community and demands of other councils. If they were to say "no" that could mean "we have a more desirable use for this facility, but you may have this one." if the no seems unjust, then it would be challenged. Of course, communist society will not be a utopia, so if a no in that situation was passed down and there was reason, than theres really no grounds for complaint other than not getting what I personally wanted. The fact that I at least had a say in where I wanted my establishment is what matters most.

[Broletariat]

These are really excellent replies, but I do not feel the issue is being addressed very clearly.

Broletariat, the final lines of the Manifesto are a clear advocation of the moral preferability of freedom.

We'll also note that the Manifesto was a propaganda pamphlete, and that we are talking specifically freedom of the proletariat, which wouldn't be any freedom at all since we're now infringing upon the bourgeois by forcefully taking their "rightful" property or whatever.


If you believe that abstract moral notions are only pragmatic, then there is literally no reason why you should align yourself with Communists and not with Capitalists.

I am of the working class and Communism is in my material interests, clear enough?


You may recognise a total inevitability in the development or emergence of Communist society but why doesn't this lead to adopting a hardlined Capitalist stance to protect your private interests against this revolution?

I have no private interests against this revolution.



It ought to be clear that you have at least some sympathy with the proletariat because you feel they have some moral mandate or another that means that their interests OUGHT to be promoted, that goes beyond the simple fact that they'll come to outnumber you when you disagree. The issue here is the internalization of revolutionary fervour and true emotional commitment to the aim, and that isn't just supported by pragmatism.


You speak as if I'm not a member of the proletariat, I am, this is in my direct material interests and that is why I support it. I'm tired of worrying about my future and all that shit, Capitalism sucks ass I don't care if God himself said we should live Capitalistically, if heaven rides against us then God himself must be damned.

[Leftsolidarity]

I think people need to give legit responses to these questions instead of bullshit little attacks on maybe one sentence out of the entire OP. These are good questions that I assume we all had at one point. Give real responses.

[blah]

Communism is the last phase of socialism, and is only possible through superabundance. It does not really matter what the system will be, it can also be market based (if it emerged from market socialism), just due to superabundance, all prices will tend to zero, and all wages will tend to infinity. For example, you would work for two hours a day and buy a new house from your daily wage.

[danyboy27]

Danyboy, in as much as the economy were subject to market forces and not to democratic decision, then the problems of profiteering and exploitation would still arise.
.
legalizing certain kind of free exchange wouldnt result in the creation of a market economy, or at least not in the same way the market exist today.



. In as much as it were subject to democratic decision, it would be radically inefficient in comparison with free-market capitalism. Hell, given the fact that the economic information is displaced among a larger amount of decision-makers, it would be even less efficient than an economic autocrat
.
There are thousand, millions of cooperatives around the world that operate in a democratic fashion and many are doing pretty well. Democracy can either be bureaucratic and clunky or simple and straightfoward.

Its even becoming a trend in certain corporations to let the workers speak out in order to avoid the regular hierarchical fuckup.

the soviet and former chinese economic system failed precisely beccause it was utterly autocratic.

[Tim Cornelis]

2) The Economic Calculus issue, that of the inability of any controller to efficiently judge the allocation of resources in a supply/demand context, causes problems for the fact that in a command economy inevitably vast amounts of resources are over/underproduced and, in keeping with the first point, the plan has to severely violate the freedoms of producers in order to remain on track.

It should first be pointed out that there would not be a command economy in a communist society. Instead there would some model of "cooperative distribution" (a free association of producers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_association_(communism_and_anarchism))), a system of distributive cooperatives concerned with balancing supply and demand. These distributive cooperatives would be controlled by the consumers and producers through mandated and recallable delegates, because of this the consumers directly communicate their needs and wants to the producers and so we determine demand. And instead of using disequilibrium (i.e. misleading) prices to base investment decisions on, as in capitalism, we look at the fluctuation in demand and the demand communicated by the consumers where necessary.

[Broletariat]

Communism is the last phase of socialism, and is only possible through superabundance. It does not really matter what the system will be, it can also be market based (if it emerged from market socialism), just due to superabundance, all prices will tend to zero, and all wages will tend to infinity. For example, you would work for two hours a day and buy a new house from your daily wage.


Wages, prices, markets, sounds a lot like Capitalism to me.

Marx and Engels used the words Socialism and Communism interchangeably, Socialism is not a distinct mode of production from Communism, and if it is I challenge you to show me what makes it different from both Capitalism and Communism at the same time.

[ckaihatsu]

2) The Economic Calculus issue, that of the inability of any controller to efficiently judge the allocation of resources in a supply/demand context, causes problems for the fact that in a command economy inevitably vast amounts of resources are over/underproduced and, in keeping with the first point, the plan has to severely violate the freedoms of producers in order to remain on track.




Instead, however, of just simply stating what's wrong with the current free-market system of distribution*, what are the proposed alternatives?


In close-knit personal relationships with plenty there's no "exchange theory" going on -- some people currently have the means with which to do as they like, with the people they like, without being concerned over the hows and whys. They don't discipline their associations to a balance sheet, and any little material inconsistencies are soon smoothed out. We might think of these as 'discretional income micro economies' that are fully funded and commanded at the pleasure of those in ownership.

The premise of communism is that the *material conditions* currently exist for this way of living and producing to be *everywhere*, for *all* people. Instead of being tethered to market exchanges and commodified social relationships in order to keep society running, we *should* all be doing what we determine to be the *best* utilization of our time for society, and that includes solely personal pursuits and leisurely activities.

Individual sovereignty over one's material means is our current societal norm, but it is *not* enough because, in the aggregate, it gives rise to a system of economic exchanges that favors *existing privilege* -- almost for its own sake -- with individual *political* sovereignty a distant second, at best. In a sparsely developed material world such primacy of economic exchanges and competition over production may make some sense and be appropriate, but, once kick-started, such a system has proven itself to be inappropriate for *coordinating* technologically advanced production in the populous global society that we now live in.

In short the economic system is not matched to the material context in which it operates -- any system of production and distribution should be *consciously chosen* for the way in which it is appropriate to varying levels of material scarcity and abundance. Given our technological capacity for actually producing a *surplus* of what people need the most there is no argument left for retaining a system that only knows competition when a mass coordination among laborers would be more efficacious for everyone.

For alternatives feel free to see tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-concise-communism and my blog entry.