Communal Market?

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I was reading about collectivist anarchism, and it, (wikipedia), said there would be a communal market. What would that be?

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

It's a market but instead of money you'll use labor notes. It's a pretty stupid idea to be honest.

[Caj]

A communal market is the market through which individuals in a collectivist society would exchange their remuneration certificates (or whatever) for goods or services produced by the community. A communal market would exist in a post-revolutionary society until the productive forces were capable of maintaining a continuous state of post-scarcity, at which point remuneration for labor, and consequently the communal market, would be rendered unecessary.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

It's a market but instead of money you'll use labor notes. It's a pretty stupid idea to be honest.

Why do you think it's stupid? Is it because it's too market oriented?

[Caj]

It's a market but instead of money you'll use labor notes. It's a pretty stupid idea to be honest.

Why is it stupid exactly?

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

A communal market is the market through which individuals in a collectivist society would exchange their remuneration certificates (or whatever) for goods or services produced by the community. A communal market would exist in a post-revolutionary society until the productive forces were capable of maintaining a continuous state of post-scarcity, at which point remuneration for labor, and consequently the communal market, would be rendered unecessary.
Anarcho-Collectivism doesn't do away with this system though, even when productive forces have reached a rate to where we could provide the necessities of the community. They still keep wages, although decided upon by the people who get's what based on job skill

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

To answer both of your questions. It is stupid because in the aspect of Anarcho-Collectivism, they do not abolish wages which will create classes due to possession of more wealth over others.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Anarcho-Collectivism doesn't do away with this system though, even when productive forces have reached a rate to where we could provide the necessities of the community. They still keep wages, although decided upon by the people who get's what based on job skill

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that similar to communist theory? You would get vouchers for your work?

[Caj]

To answer both of your questions. It is stupid because in the aspect of Anarcho-Collectivism, they do not abolish wages which will create classes due to possession of more wealth over others.

There is a difference between wages and remuneration. The former is an exploitative form of the latter.

The existence of remuneration does not create classes; differing relations to the means of production do.

[Caj]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that similar to communist theory? You would get vouchers for your work?

That's what Marx termed the "lower phase" of communism in The Critique of the Gotha Programme.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

So it seems like it could be a good idea. I don't know, I think I worry about the change from a market system I'm so used to, to a communist, etc. one, that I lean towards whichever seems more market like.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

That's what Marx termed the "lower phase" of communism in The Critique of the Gotha Programme.

What exactly is the difference between the two?

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

If I produce more, even though the skill required is less for my task, why do I get compensated less? The way of compensation for labor is by providing the necessities to restore your labor power. This, in my opinion of wages, places value on work, and allows the skillful worker to purchase more goods than he needs according to his output being less.

[Caj]

Anarcho-Collectivism doesn't do away with this system though, even when productive forces have reached a rate to where we could provide the necessities of the community.

Actually, the collectivists ultimately thought that a system of "from each according to his or her abilities, to each according to his or her needs" would be instituted.

[Caj]

What exactly is the difference between the two?

The lower phase maintains a system of remuneration and a communal market; the higher phase abolishes these and institutes a system of production and distribution organized around the maxim "from each according to his or her abilities, to each according to his or her needs."

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

What exactly is the difference between the two?
"lower" is Socialism, and "higher" is communism. In Socialism "lower" phase you'll still have a provisional government, wages, and classes. Once there is no longer classes (bourgeoisie and proletariat), and no provisional government, you have attained Communism, or the "higher" phase.

[Caj]

"lower" is Socialism, and "higher" is communism. In Socialism "lower" phase you'll still have a provisional government, wages, and classes. Once there is no longer classes (bourgeoisie and proletariat), and no provisional government, you have attained Communism, or the "higher" phase.

Marx didn't make a distinction between socialism and communism. You clearly haven't read The Critique of the Gotha Programme given your definition of the lower phase. Both the lower and higher phases of communism come about after the withering away of the dictatorship of the proletariat; thus, neither phase has a state, wages (which is distinct from remuneration), or classes.

[Caj]

If I produce more, even though the skill required is less for my task, why do I get compensated less? The way of compensation for labor is by providing the necessities to restore your labor power. This, in my opinion of wages, places value on work, and allows the skillful worker to purchase more goods than he needs according to his output being less.

You're compensated based upon both the amount and degree or difficulty of the labor you expended. This is not a wage system. Wages are what is given to the worker after the extraction of surplus value by the capitalist. Capitalists, surplus value extraction, and wages, all of which are inseperable, are non-existent in the lower phase of communism.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Marx didn't make a distinction between socialism and communism. You clearly haven't read The Critique of the Gotha Programme given your definition of the lower phase. Both the lower and higher phases of communism come about after the withering away of the dictatorship of the proletariat; thus, neither phase has a state, wages (which is distinct from remuneration), or classes.


I think it's democratically decided in collectivism, or possibly set at one wage for everyone.

[Caj]

I think it's democratically decided in collectivism, or possibly set at one wage for everyone.

The anarcho-collectivists thought that initially there would be a system of remuneration which would eventually be phased out if possible.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

You're compensated based upon both the amount and degree or difficulty of the labor you expended. This is not a wage system. Wages are what is given to the worker after the extraction of surplus value by the capitalist. Capitalists, surplus value extraction, and wages, all of which are inseperable, are non-existent in the lower phase of communism.
I'm not speaking about the wages we see in capitalism. I'm talking about tokens, 'food stamps', labor vouchers etc, awarded to an individual based on the amount of production one exerts laboring. Collectivism in an economy theory, based around the collective of production.

"[collectivist anarchism] express[es] a state of things in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the labour groups and the free communes, while the ways of retribution [i.e. distribution] of labour, communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself." - Kropotkin .

Kropotkin even stated remuneration of labor will lead to a currency and recreation of the state.

Kropotkin. Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 162

EDIT : Corrected some misspelled words.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

while the ways of retribution [i.e. distribution] of labour, communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself.

That is ridiculous. In the transition phase to an international co-operative moneyless communist society, this would lead back to inequality: If you have different wages in one commune (not only the remaining capitalist enterprises in the world, but also), other communes would trade with the people with the lowest wages... and you begin a path back to capitalism. There need to be national, trans-national, international set wages. Until there are no more markets, and no more money, there cannot be any decentralisation...:closedeyes:

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

That is ridiculous. In the transition phase to an international co-operative moneyless communist society, this would lead back to inequality: If you have different wages in one commune (not only the remaining capitalist enterprises in the world, but also), other communes would trade with the people with the lowest wages... and you begin a path back to capitalism. There need to be national, trans-national, international set wages. Until there are no more markets, and no more money, there cannot be any decentralisation...:closedeyes:
That's Anarcho-Collectivism for you. I don't see how anyone could follow it.

[Caj]

ProvenSocialist, the idea that the anarcho-collectivists advocated remuneration for labor over a system of distribution organized around "from each according to his [or her] ability, to each according to his [or her] needs" is a common misconception. The anarcho-collectivists weren't committed dogmatically to any one system of distribution and thought that, although a transitional phase of remuneration may be necessary (something the anarcho-communists also agreed with), a system of "from each according to his [or her] ability, to each according to his [or her] needs" should be adopted where practical.

The following quotes by Bakunin's fellow anarcho-collectivist James Guillaume, I hope, demonstrate this point:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...orks/ideas.htm -- right before section III:


The problem of property having been resolved, and there being no capitalists placing a tax on the labor of the masses, the question of types of distribution and remuneration become secondary. We should to the greatest possible extent institute and be guided by the principle From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. When, thanks to the progress of scientific industry and agriculture, production comes to outstrip consumption, and this will be attained some years after the Revolution, it will no longer be necessary to stingily dole out each worker’s share of goods. Everyone will draw what he needs from the abundant social reserve of commodities, without fear of depletion; and the moral sentiment which will be more highly developed among free and equal workers will prevent, or greatly reduce, abuse and waste. In the meantime, each community will decide for itself during the transition period the method they deem best for the distribution of the products of associated labor.

from a letter dated August 24, 1909 (quoted from Bakunin on Anarchy edited by Sam Dolgoff, page 158):


At first [1868 Congress of the International] the term "collectivists" designated the partisans of collective property. . . . [A]t the Basel Congress (1869) the partisans of collective ownership split into two opposing factions. Those who advocated collective ownership by the State were called "state" or "authoritarian communists." Those who advocated ownership of collective property directly by the workers' associations were called "anti-authoritarian communists" or "communist federalists" or "communist anarchists." To distinguish themselves from the authoritarians and avoid confusion, the anti-authoritarians called themselves "collectivists." . . . As to the distribution of the products of collective labor, I wrote ". . . Once the worker owns the instruments of labor, all the rest is of secondary importance. How the products of collective labor will be equitably shared must be left to the judgement of each group." . . . In my essay "On Building the New Social Order" [see selection, p. 56] I stated clearly that in the collectivist society, when machines will triple production, goods will not be sold to consumers but distributed according to needs. . . . These, and many other quotations that I could easily supply, show clearly that the collectivist Internationalists never accepted the theory of "to each according to the product of his [or her] labor."