Can You Have Communism With A Market?

[Blackbird123]

I wondering if there we anyway to use the market instead of central planning. I have thought of a that it might work but I don't know if you could call it communism still.

What are your thoughts?

[campesino]

nope, private property would still exist in a market.

Production must be social and consumption must be social. A market is producers creating competition among themselves and consumers. Distribution is decided by who can extract the most value from another. Which is exploitation. When there is exploitation, classes will appear and lead to class struggle. Communism is the end of conditions that create classes.

[The Idler]

Like a Participatory Economy but still with banks, wages, profit etc.? If you're concerned about democracy, how about decentralised planning? A resource-based economy of free access where exchange would be unnecessary?

[Blackbird123]

Like a Participatory Economy but still with banks, wages, profit etc.?

No, like a economy were you can meaurse the scaricity of a resource and make it more harder to obtain or make the price go up to allow resources to be allocated effeicently.


If you're concerned about democracy, how about decentralised planning?

This is the plan I most agree with but how big would this decentralized plan be or how could cities suffice without trading something to the country in return of their manufatued goods in order to get more resources to make more manufactured goods?



A resource-based economy of free access where exchange would be unnecessary?

yes, but how could you ensure that those resources are allocated efficiently? That is my main concern.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Absolutely not. Honestly, market socialism is the biggest contradiction of terms I have ever heard. If you maintain the market, you maintain a bourgeois economy. There is a reason that market socialists are restricted on this site.

Edit: For further reading on this, I would suggest reading Amadeo Bordiga's Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism. The link is in my signature and my quote in the signature comes from part 1.

[campesino]

resources would be allocated efficiently because production and use of resource would be based on need, resources wont' be used on inefficiencies.

lets say memphis has a railroad track factory and little rock has a steel mill and atlanta has an iron mine. there would be no trade in between those cities, only shipping of resources and products. because worker's would produce what is needed and give what is needed to the city that needs it to make what is needed.

Society deems it necessary to produce tomatoes, every worker who creates something that supports tomatoes production will not be trading his produce, but giving his produce in order to satisfy society's needs.

if you have markets,instead of having society producing tomatoes, you will have little capitalist collectives competing negotiating and fighting over resources to produce tomatoes.

[Bostana]

Nope.

There would be no need for market

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Check out the leader of the CPUSA, Sam Webb, and his essay 'Reflections on Socialism' (2005). If you want to see a future Socialist society with a market in, check out how nutty and decrepit it'd be in his essay.

He calls those who engage in 'class vs class' warfare (i.e. the class war) 'communist militants', and says that we must be more collaborationist. The leader of the US Communist Party! :lol:

[Gman]

Check out the leader of the CPUSA, Sam Webb, and his essay 'Reflections on Socialism' (2005). If you want to see a future Socialist society with a market in, check out how nutty and decrepit it'd be in his essay.

He calls those who engage in 'class vs class' warfare (i.e. the class war) 'communist militants', and says that we must be more collaborationist. The leader of the US Communist Party! :lol:

Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't that essentially a pillar of Fascism? :lol: (coupled in defense of the nationalism state mind you)

[Blackburn]

I've never observed it having any success.

All these Chinese millionaires are quite disturbing.

[helot]

No, like a economy were you can meaurse the scaricity of a resource and make it more harder to obtain or make the price go up to allow resources to be allocated effeicently.


You don't need a price mechanism to determine whether or not something is scarce or if resources are allocated efficiently. Standard measurements of output and consumption can tell you that. It's not like communism is opposed to maths.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Check out the leader of the CPUSA, Sam Webb, and his essay 'Reflections on Socialism' (2005). If you want to see a future Socialist society with a market in, check out how nutty and decrepit it'd be in his essay.

He calls those who engage in 'class vs class' warfare (i.e. the class war) 'communist militants', and says that we must be more collaborationist. The leader of the US Communist Party! :lol:

I'm interested in reading about this dystopia, can we have a link?:cool:

[Comrades Unite!]

The thought itself is enough to sicken me.
This type of though and talk is clearly only advantageous to the bourgeois and would be likely to stir up some more Capitalist traits... and then some more ... and then some more until boom we hit rock bottem and turn into a De-Facto capitalist state.

[Catma]

If you have markets, you have the profit motive, which leads to flawed distribution and ever-increasing inequality.

[Blackbird123]

You don't need a price mechanism to determine whether or not something is scarce or if resources are allocated efficiently. Standard measurements of output and consumption can tell you that. It's not like communism is opposed to maths.

Well obviously I hope it is not opposed to math.:laugh:
So this output vs. consumption could be measured say by a checkout counter and when each person chooses a certain item, lets say a can a peas,and when taken out of the warehouse or whatever holds these, the information could be sent to a central computer that has the number of the cans of peas they have vs the number of cans of peas used.

[The Idler]

Its called calculation in kind and was written about by Otto Neurath.

[Paul Cockshott]

In the first phase of communism you can have something a bit like a consumer goods market. People would pay for their goods in labour tokens and payment would be made to the public retail organisation rather than a private company. But you can not have a market in means of production or labour power, as then capitalist relations would still exist.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Since communism is an ideology rightly against the market and the private property , well no communism and market do not make a good relationship. If they are combined, it is sure that the people living in such system would suffer from capitalism and opportunism. BTW, let me tell you that the SYRIZA party in Greece wants to have a supposed "communist" state with a market as well.

[Geiseric]

The market is the medium in which commodities (labor included) are exchanged by private owners of those commodities. commodities made in a socialist society need to be owned only by the soviets, workers councils, and not by any capitalist. unless it's an n.e.p. situation, but that's only to build the groundwork for the construction of a socialist economy.

[Lynx]

There existed markets without capitalism?

[Blackbird123]

Its called calculation in kind and was written about by Otto Neurath.

Thanks, I will have to read the book.

[Blackbird123]

In the first phase of communism you can have something a bit like a consumer goods market. People would pay for their goods in labour tokens and payment would be made to the public retail organisation rather than a private company. But you can not have a market in means of production or labour power, as then capitalist relations would still exist.

This what I was thinking in terms of a martket.

[Lucretia]

No, you cannot have socialism with a commodity-based/market-based economy. The whole point of socialism is collective control over production. A market-based economy by definition makes this impossible since it presupposes individual rather than collective decisions about what and how much to produce. It will be dictated by the law of value and all the contradictions and anti-democratic anarchy entailed therein. David McNally's Against the Market does a good job of elaborating on these issues.

[Paul Cockshott]

There existed markets without capitalism?

That is true but markets with private production generate a dispersion of income which tends to lead to ploarisation of wealth, even if the agents in the market are cooperatives.

[Delenda Carthago]

6. The development of the communist mode of production in its first stage, socialism, is a process through which the distribution of the social product in monetary form becomes abolished. Communist production – even in its immature stage – is directly social production: the division of labour does not take place for exchange, it is not effected through the market, and the products of labour that are individually consumed are not commodities.

The division of labour in the socialized means of production is based on the plan that organizes production and determines its proportions, with the aim of satisfying the expanded social needs, and the distribution of products (use values). In other words, it is a centrally planned division of social labour and directly integrates - not via the market - individual labour, as part of the total social labour. Central Planning distributes the total societal working time, so that the different functions of labour are in correct proportions in order to satisfy different social needs.

Central Planning expresses the conscious mapping of the objective proportions of production and distribution, as well as the effort for the all-round development of the productive forces. It is for this reason that it should not be understood as a techno-economic instrument, but as a communist relation of production and distribution that links workers to the means of production, to socialist bodies. It includes a consciously planned choice of motives and goals for production, and it aims at the extended satisfaction of social needs (basic economic law of the communist mode of production). The guiding laws of Central Planning cannot be identified with the plan existing at any specific moment, which should reflect in a scientific way these objective proportions.

Among the problems of Central Planning is included the complex issue of the determination of ‘social needs’, especially under international conditions, where capitalism shapes a rather warped conception of what social needs really are. Social needs are determined based on the level of development of the productive forces that have been achieved in the given historical period. These needs must be understood in their historical context, changing in relationship to the development of the productive forces. Likewise, the way in which the basic law of communism is realized must develop, with the goal of overcoming the inadequacies and differentiations that exist in the coverage of social needs.

7. A characteristic of the first stage of communist relations is the distribution of one part of the products “according to labour”. A theoretical and political debate has arisen regarding the “measure” of labour. The distribution of part of socialist production “according to labour” (which in terms of form resembles commodity exchange [5]) is a vestige of capitalism. The new mode of production has not managed to discard it yet, because it has not developed all of the necessary human productive power and all the means of production in the necessary dimensions, through the broad use of new technology. Labour productivity does not yet allow a decisively large reduction of labour time, the abolition of heavy and one-sided labour, so that the social need for compulsory labour can be abolished.

The planned distribution of labour power and of the means of production entails the planned distribution of the social product. The distribution of the social product cannot be effected through the market, based on the laws and categories of commodity exchange. According to Marx, the mode of distribution will change when the particular mode of the social productive organism and the corresponding historical level of development of the productive forces change [6] (e.g. these were at a certain level in the USSR in the 1930s, yet at a different level in the USSR in the 1950s and 1960s).

Marxism clearly defines labour time as the measure of the individual participation of the producer to common labour. Consequently, the labour time of the producer is also defined as a measure of the share he deserves from the product that is destined for individual consumption and that is distributed based on labour. [7] Another part (education, health, medicines, heating, etc.) is already distributed based on needs. “Labour time” [8] under socialism is not the “socially necessary labour time” that constitutes the measure of value for the exchange of commodities in commodity production. “Labour time” is the measure of the individual contribution to social labour for the production of the total product. It is noted characteristically in “Capital”: “In socialized production money capital gets out of the picture. Society distributes labour power and the means of production to different branches of production. The producers would, if you so wish, receive paper vouchers with which they can take from the stock of consumption products of the society an amount analogous to the time they worked. These vouchers are not money. They do not circulate.” [9]

Access to that part of the social product that is distributed “according to labour” is determined by the individual labour contribution of each person in the totality of social labour, without distinguishing between complex and simple, manual labour or otherwise. The measure of individual contribution is the labour time, which the plan determines based on the total needs of social production; the material conditions of the production process in which “individual” labour is included; the special needs of social production for the concentration of labour force in certain areas, branches, etc.; special social needs, such as motherhood, individuals with special needs, etc.; the personal stance of each individual vis-a-vis the organization and the execution of the productive process. In other words, labour time must be linked to goals, such as the conservation of materials, the implementation of more productive technologies, a more rational organization of labour, workers’ control of administration-management.

The planned development of the productive forces in the communist mode of production should increasingly free up more time from work, which should then be used to raise the educational-cultural level of working people; to allow for workers’ participation in the carrying out of their duties regarding workers’ power and administration of production, etc. The all-round development of man as the productive force in the building of the new type of society and of communist relations (including the communist attitude towards directly social labour) is a two-way relationship. Depending on the historical phase, either one or the other side will take precedence.

The development of Central Planning and the extension of social ownership in all areas make money gradually superfluous, removing its content as the form of value.

8. The product of individual and cooperative production, the greater part of which is derived from agriculture, is exchanged with the socialist product by means of commodity-money relations. Cooperative production is subordinated to some extent to Central Planning, which determines the part of the production that is allocated to the state and sets the state prices, as well as the maximum prices for that part of production that is allocated through the cooperative market.

The direction by which to resolve the differences between town and country, between industrial and agricultural production, consists of: the merging of the peasant-producers in the joint use of large tracts of land for the production of social product with the use of modern mechanization and other means of scientific-technological progress, provided by the socialist state and belonging to it and for the enhancement of labour productivity; the creation of a strong infrastructure for the preservation of the product from unforeseen weather hazards; the subjection of the directly social labour for the production of agricultural raw materials and their industrial processing to unified socialist organizations. This direction serves to transform the entire agricultural production into a part of the directly social production.


KKE's 18th Congress, Resolution on socialism. (http://inter.kke.gr/News/2009news/18congres-resolution-2nd)

[helot]

In the first phase of communism you can have something a bit like a consumer goods market. People would pay for their goods in labour tokens and payment would be made to the public retail organisation rather than a private company. But you can not have a market in means of production or labour power, as then capitalist relations would still exist.

There's a problem though, it's difficult to create a hard and fast line between articles of production and articles of consumption. A market in consumer goods can easily result in a market of means of production. It's one of the reasons why i favour rationing before production is properly reorganised and reaction defeated not to mention that rationing will be necessary during this period anyway. If you want to make sure that everyone with access to rations needs to work then that can be done via a weekly stamp that entitles them as opposed to exchanging labour tokens for goods which is monetary exchange under a different name.

[Paul Cockshott]

People would soon get fed up with rationing as people have different wants and tastes. Provided that they consume no more than their share in terms of labour content, they should be allowed to choose what they want.
There are some things which are both consumer and producer goods, but public institutions and production units would have to indent for these against a budget in terms of indirect labour time approved by a plan.
What prevents a market from developing is that public institutions - including productive institutions would not sell anything.
Look at the way the NHS used to operate before market 'reforms', hospitals had budgets to purchase equipment but their output - treatment was not a commodity.

[helot]

People would soon get fed up with rationing as people have different wants and tastes. Provided that they consume no more than their share in terms of labour content, they should be allowed to choose what they want.
There are some things which are both consumer and producer goods, but public institutions and production units would have to indent for these against a budget in terms of indirect labour time approved by a plan.
What prevents a market from developing is that public institutions - including productive institutions would not sell anything.
Look at the way the NHS used to operate before market 'reforms', hospitals had budgets to purchase equipment but their output - treatment was not a commodity.


I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed choice nor that rations would not vary just that with anything that's scarce rationing is the most equitable method of distribution. If there's a shortage of milk, for example, i don't care what adult wants milk they ought not to be entitled to it before a child. If something's not scarce then there's little point in any sort of restrictions of which labour tokens are a form of. The differences between these two approaches towards scarce goods is that rationing lacks exchange and can easily result in distribution based on 'from each... to each...'

You explicitly said "[p]eople would pay for their goods in labour tokens". That's a method of direct exchange and thus would necessitate a market. Granted, atleast in theory it would be based upon an individual's output as opposed to with wages in capitalist society.

You mention "[p]rovided that they consume no more than their share in terms of labour content" how would you calculate this? We're in a society of social production and i'm pretty sure that it's impossible to calculate an individual's share in the production of the world's wealth.


I'm not opposed to requiring proof that someone has engaged in socially necessary labour but that can easily be done without any form of exchange, a simple stamp would suffice.

[A Marxist Historian]

No, like a economy were you can meaurse the scaricity of a resource and make it more harder to obtain or make the price go up to allow resources to be allocated effeicently.

This is the plan I most agree with but how big would this decentralized plan be or how could cities suffice without trading something to the country in return of their manufatued goods in order to get more resources to make more manufactured goods?

yes, but how could you ensure that those resources are allocated efficiently? That is my main concern.

If you have a market, you have commodities, this is not socialism or communism. How do you allocate efficiently? Through workers democracy instead of top-down Stalinist style economic planning, where the consumers democratically let the planners know what's needed.

That takes quite a while to develop properly, and requires a high level of material abundance, education, culture and social equality. So you'll have a transition period in between capitalism and socialism, during which the market remains a component part of the overall economy. But until markets, money and commodities are abolished, society cannot yet be called socialist, much less communist.

And, by the way, decentralization has nothing to do with this and in fact could play a negative role. Especially with modern computer and communication technology, the Internet etc., there is absolutely no contradiction between centralization and democracy. Indeed, especially with the world's mounting ecological problems, the only solution is democratically centralized economic decision making.

Decentralization nowadays means think locally, act yokelly. To be avoided.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

There existed markets without capitalism?

Of course. Simple commodity production to one degree or another is a feature of just about all pre-capitalist modes of production. Capitalism as the dominant form is only about half a millenium old and the human race has been around for quite a while now.

-M.H.-

[Paul Cockshott]

You mention "[p]rovided that they consume no more than their share in terms of labour content" how would you calculate this? We're in a society of social production and i'm pretty sure that it's impossible to calculate an individual's share in the production of the world's wealth.
Marx said it would be done in terms of duration and intensity of work done.

[helot]

Marx said it would be done in terms of duration and intensity of work done.

Duration of work is easily measured but how would you measure the intensity? I suppose you could go with how much force is exerted, how much energy is used but there would be widely different results per person. Even ignoring the different forms of intensity between mental and manual work and the different levels of intensity, would it be tempered by an individual's capabilities? I think that's best as even if one person performs better than another so long as they're both trying their hardest without putting themselves or anyone else at risk i fail to see why one person should be allowed access to more than another.

To be honest it's sounding like there will be a need for quite a bit of labour going into monitoring not only collective input and output but also physical monitoring of workers. Would it not be better that that labour is turned towards something with an actual social use? If there's enough being produced that perfectly capable people would be put to work monitoring to the tinest of detail of individual's work patterns i doubt there'd be any point.

[A Marxist Historian]

Duration of work is easily measured but how would you measure the intensity? I suppose you could go with how much force is exerted, how much energy is used but there would be widely different results per person. Even ignoring the different forms of intensity between mental and manual work and the different levels of intensity, would it be tempered by an individual's capabilities? I think that's best as even if one person performs better than another so long as they're both trying their hardest without putting themselves or anyone else at risk i fail to see why one person should be allowed access to more than another.

To be honest it's sounding like there will be a need for quite a bit of labour going into monitoring not only collective input and output but also physical monitoring of workers. Would it not be better that that labour is turned towards something with an actual social use? If there's enough being produced that perfectly capable people would be put to work monitoring to the tinest of detail of individual's work patterns i doubt there'd be any point.

As for intensity, you don't have to go all 1984 Big Computer Screen Is Watching You to monitor work intensity. Hopefully we won't need the classic easy method, piecework payment. Rather, social consensus at the worksite, monitored by the elected foreperson as a minor part of overall supervisory duties.

In the early stage of communist society, socialism, yes those more capable than others will get more. Such is life. Far too complex to try to figure out such adjustments.

In a truly communist society, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, naturally no monitoring is necessary. But creating such a society will be a difficult and lengthy process, likely just as difficult in different ways as going from capitalism to socialism.

-M.H.-

[ckaihatsu]

There's a problem though, it's difficult to create a hard and fast line between articles of production and articles of consumption.


Really? It's difficult to follow this line of reasoning -- you're saying that people would be unable to tell the difference between *consumer goods* and *types of equipment* -- ?





A market in consumer goods can easily result in a market of means of production.


No, it's for things like this that politics is meant to address -- certainly a post-capitalist order would be able to consciously administrate without becoming confused about which is which.

[Teacher]

Time is all you would need to measure. I don't think "intensity" is quantifiable. Socially necessary labor is socially necessary labor. I think switching to labor tokens based simply on time while making a concerted effort at all levels to make the division of labor as fair as possible (not one group of people doing all the grunt work etc) is a better solution than trying to institute some murky concept of "intensity."

The fairness of the division of labor in a given workplace could be decided on much more democratically and easily by the workers without the antagonisms that would result from certain workers being paid more because they are working at a higher "intensity."

This is easy to say in theory, but I admit that in the back of my mind I wonder about labor discipline under such a system. However, I think this doubt may simply be because of my own nascent anti-communism and all the propaganda we are inundated with that insists people need material incentives for everything.

[ckaihatsu]

Time is all you would need to measure. I don't think "intensity" is quantifiable. Socially necessary labor is socially necessary labor. I think switching to labor tokens based simply on time while making a concerted effort at all levels to make the division of labor as fair as possible (not one group of people doing all the grunt work etc) is a better solution than trying to institute some murky concept of "intensity."

The fairness of the division of labor in a given workplace could be decided on much more democratically and easily by the workers without the antagonisms that would result from certain workers being paid more because they are working at a higher "intensity."

This is easy to say in theory, but I admit that in the back of my mind I wonder about labor discipline under such a system. However, I think this doubt may simply be because of my own nascent anti-communism and all the propaganda we are inundated with that insists people need material incentives for everything.


All of these variables would depend on prevailing conditions, and especially on the *goals* decided on by such a post-oppression social order.

Sure, much can be done locally -- villages have existed for centuries without "needing" anything more complicated, but the development of feudalism, for example, created the material basis required for urban living and city life's increased opportunities for self-chosen living.

A revolution powerful enough to overthrow the world's capitalist ruling class would also introduce a social organization never before seen in human history -- it would be large and complex enough to undertake *gargantuan* feats of public works projects, if that was deemed to be most worthy. The mass *political* basis of revolutionary consciousness would probably inspire large-scale thinking on the part of the world's protagonist proletarians, and such spirit *could* be enough on its own to simply *push through* grand achievements, Great-Pyramids-style, or perhaps a newfound sense of individualistic freedom and materialism would have to be catered to with more economic-type incentives. Who knows....

[MarxSchmarx]

I suspect that as long as there is a means of exchange (i.e., money) there will be at least small scale markets in communism.

For example, I can see relatively scarce goods of negligible social utility like vintage unopened Kenny G CDs in their original packaging being traded for so-many labor vouchers among a small group of people. Already we see things like these develop in MMORPGS for example.

Indeed throughout a communist economy I anticipate there will be pre-communist economic instruments complimenting the dominant mode of production, much in the way some people grow their own food under capitalism even when they don't have to.

[Veovis]

Here's a lecture from the ISO's recent Socialism 2012 conference about the inadequacy of the market as a tool to fulfill social need.

http://wearemany.org/a/2012/06/against-market-case-for-socialist-planning

[ckaihatsu]

I suspect that as long as there is a means of exchange (i.e., money) there will be at least small scale markets in communism.

For example, I can see relatively scarce goods of negligible social utility like vintage unopened Kenny G CDs in their original packaging being traded for so-many labor vouchers among a small group of people. Already we see things like these develop in MMORPGS for example.

Indeed throughout a communist economy I anticipate there will be pre-communist economic instruments complimenting the dominant mode of production, much in the way some people grow their own food under capitalism even when they don't have to.





Kenny G CDs


Ummmmmmm, _yeah_. I *know* they're unopened, but as for the rest.... = )

I've toyed with the idea of more-complex barter loops, for things like this, especially now that we have electronic communication networks. If someone wanted those CDs *and* could pass along something *else* that a third party wanted, etc., then eventually the loop could be closed (into a circle), with no more transactions needed for that loop. This would obviate the need for any currency, or two-way (contrived) bartering, or even much valuation at all -- as long as everything passed forward was roughly equivalent, and could be done within a certain time limit, then everyone's happy.

The disclaimer is that this is *consumer-only*, of course, and has nothing to do with politics or mass production, so it shouldn't be given undue importance.

[MarxSchmarx]

I've toyed with the idea of more-complex barter loops, for things like this, especially now that we have electronic communication networks. If someone wanted those CDs *and* could pass along something *else* that a third party wanted, etc., then eventually the loop could be closed (into a circle), with no more transactions needed for that loop. This would obviate the need for any currency, or two-way (contrived) bartering, or even much valuation at all -- as long as everything passed forward was roughly equivalent, and could be done within a certain time limit, then everyone's happy.

The disclaimer is that this is *consumer-only*, of course, and has nothing to do with politics or mass production, so it shouldn't be given undue importance.

The problem I think is that as you note, ensuring that "everything passed forward" is roughly equivalent and done efficiently is, for things that are at the margin of the productive economy where planning is of dubious utility, perhaps best handled by a medium of exchange (i.e., money). It could be that the allocation mechanism is so sophisticated, and the volume lf si\uch marginal goods sufficiently diverse and optimized that it quickly resolves potential exchanges. But I rather doubt this would be the case. Even if it were, there might be advantages to something like money and markets in idiosyncratic settings. To take the CD example, even if I can't ultimately exchange say my knitted sweater for your CDs because there is no intermediate product that works, somebody who is willing to part with their CDs with a medium that allows for them to purchase a product that may arise at some point (ie. credits) would seem desirable.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

In the first phase of communism you can have something a bit like a consumer goods market. People would pay for their goods in labour tokens and payment would be made to the public retail organisation rather than a private company. But you can not have a market in means of production or labour power, as then capitalist relations would still exist.

The final goal of Communism is to get rid of all monetary value distinction and base production on social terms. But until that "higher stage" of Communism is reached, the lower phase of communism which seems to be understood to be "Socialism", will necessarily have (as Paul has said) markets for consumer goods; so long there is a currency, this could be called the "lower phase" of communism, Socialism, which will necessarily or rather for practical purposes, have consumer markets but within a completely socialised economy in which all enterprises do not use markets for latter production needs but get them directly from other sectors within the state socialised monopoly. Until there is no more currency of accounting, until there is complete automation of production and the scarcity removed, there will necessarily be consumer markets in the "Lower phase" of communism.

[Paul Cockshott]

It may be worth distinguishing between 'socialism' which retains money, and the lower phase of communism which uses labour accounts.

[ckaihatsu]

The problem I think is that as you note, ensuring that "everything passed forward" is roughly equivalent and done efficiently is, for things that are at the margin of the productive economy where planning is of dubious utility, perhaps best handled by a medium of exchange (i.e., money).


This point is highly debatable, especially in our information-enabled age. Using abstractions of value obviously lends flexibility, as you're arguing, but with godlike powers over record-keeping and communicating, *what's the point* -- ???

It only *adds* to the socialist cause to point out the inanities of consumer-sided value tracking -- shouldn't everyone just have a 'live list' that indicates what they want and what they want to get rid of? Anything that abstracts from this is a mere academic exercise, at best, and eternal dollar-flipping at worst.





It could be that the allocation mechanism is so sophisticated, and the volume lf si\uch marginal goods sufficiently diverse and optimized that it quickly resolves potential exchanges. But I rather doubt this would be the case. Even if it were, there might be advantages to something like money and markets in idiosyncratic settings. To take the CD example, even if I can't ultimately exchange say my knitted sweater for your CDs because there is no intermediate product that works, somebody who is willing to part with their CDs with a medium that allows for them to purchase a product that may arise at some point (ie. credits) would seem desirable.


Another factor -- besides the just-mentioned focus on the *personal* domain -- is that of *time* and how it's handled within systems of abstraction.

Before that, I have to note that it sounds strange to hear a socialist like yourself revolve around to argue from the market perspective, but I'll just take it that you're playing devils-advocate.

Even if we wanted to acknowledge and use a more-formal method of valuation than that of politics around basic human needs and wants, it wouldn't take much more than a "balance sheet" of *descriptive* (and sorted) itemizations for a person's lifetime of material dealings. There could be a column for 'stuff given away' and one for 'stuff received' and one for 'stuff desired'. But even this, as potentially flexible and forgiving with matters of valuation, would still not necessarily handle matters of *time* very well, at least at face-value. Political-type discussions would be recommended, so that a *narrative* of the person's material position can be arrived at, in the context of certain larger social relations and societal roles.

But even all of this sounds *ridiculous* compared to a truly genuine free-access communism. People should be valued -- formally -- for their individual *service* to the world of material order, instead of allowing any mass groupthink to fetishize *items* and confer formal valuations on *them*. Manufacturing -- the bringing-into-the-world of new tools, conveniences, and pleasures, should be considered a *service* and rewarded appropriately, with its fruits being pre-planned and fully socialized.

I have a model at my blog entry that uses a system of labor credits to formally value *liberated labor*, but it does not allow for any valuations of material *items*.

[Liberty]

Of course you can; that's where we make money so you can take it from us with high taxes.

[Rafiq]

Of course you can; that's where we make money so you can take it from us with high taxes.

No, you'll be strung up from your balls on a lamp post while everything you own is expropriated, motherfucker.

[A Marxist Historian]

It may be worth distinguishing between 'socialism' which retains money, and the lower phase of communism which uses labour accounts.

Is this a verbal distinction or an actual? Are you distinguishing between labor vouchers and labor accounts?

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

No, you'll be strung up from your balls on a lamp post while everything you own is expropriated, motherfucker.

Naw. The petty bourgeois (what I assume this poster to be) sufficiently displeased with the way things are to want to post to Revleft (if not just trolling) is to be won over to the side of the workers.

After all, the petty bourgeois may not like high taxes or annoying wage demands from their employees (or employee) but they have even better reason to dislike being crushed by big business and loansharked by the banks.

In fact, doing that sort of thing to the outright class enemy just brings us down to their level. Killing should take place only as necessary to defend the revolution, on the internal front or in warfare with external enemies, and stupid gleeful brutalities just give revolutionaries a bad name.

Like Felix Dzherzhinskii liked to say, "the Cheka does not judge, it strikes."

-M.H.-

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

A market is a response to immediate scarcity and the lack of social access to goods rom another. Saying whether "communism" will have "no market" really depends on the extent to which proletarians are able to negate the material necessities of the marketplace. Attempts to simply stamp out a market by force without dealing with the kinds of scarcity issues which cause the market to exist will just create a black market, and because of its clandestine nature a black market is often worse for society than an open one.

Whether or not you think "communism" includes a market or not depends on how purist your definition of "communism" is. Society may well overcome the need to distribute most resources via a market, but there might be pockets of it for some time.

[helot]

A market is a response to immediate scarcity and the lack of social access to goods rom another. Saying whether "communism" will have "no market" really depends on the extent to which proletarians are able to negate the material necessities of the marketplace. Attempts to simply stamp out a market by force without dealing with the kinds of scarcity issues which cause the market to exist will just create a black market, and because of its clandestine nature a black market is often worse for society than an open one.

Whether or not you think "communism" includes a market or not depends on how purist your definition of "communism" is. Society may well overcome the need to distribute most resources via a market, but there might be pockets of it for some time.

Thing is though immediate scarcity is better solved through rations than through a market mechanism. You can't distribute scarce necessities to those in need through a market, thats just not how it functions it's always those with a higher purchasing power that have first dibs. It's not equitable and as such even a communist society that isn't "purist" as you say would not remain communist through using such a mechanism.

[ckaihatsu]

A market is a response to immediate scarcity and the lack of social access to goods rom another. Saying whether "communism" will have "no market" really depends on the extent to which proletarians are able to negate the material necessities of the marketplace. Attempts to simply stamp out a market by force without dealing with the kinds of scarcity issues which cause the market to exist will just create a black market, and because of its clandestine nature a black market is often worse for society than an open one.

Whether or not you think "communism" includes a market or not depends on how purist your definition of "communism" is. Society may well overcome the need to distribute most resources via a market, but there might be pockets of it for some time.


This is a critical point -- we don't know the variables of how *quickly* a proletarian revolution would be able to surpass commodity production, or the *extent* to which a global proletarian mass production would usurp smaller-scale production and distribution.

What we *do* know is that such a revolution would, by definition, install an intentional *conscious* mass control over all economic activity -- this means that if "markets" continued to exist in some form after capitalism is abolished, they could only be in areas that a mass-planned system couldn't *possibly* cover -- the fringes, basically, of highly individualized, custom-made, rare, and specialized production, like arts and crafts, for example.

For the purposes of description I made an illustration of how various post-capitalist production and distribution systems might co-exist and overlap:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://tinyurl.com/mtspczpcpe
http://postimage.org/image/ccfl07uy5/

[Igor]

It may be worth distinguishing between 'socialism' which retains money, and the lower phase of communism which uses labour accounts.

it would be if this was somehow universally accepted, but money is seriously one hella divisive concept among the revolutionary left and there's quite many commies (Bordiga among many) who think money should be done with as soon as we reach the dictatorship of the proletariat. yeah so think whatever you want of the issue, but don't try to present your views on it as some kind of consensus.

[Strannik]

Yes, feudals and slavery-based societies had also markets.

I believe, that a communist society has no need for a market. From logical point of view, its not important whether it is centrally planned or decentrally. It has been proven, that its the same whether you have one large logical calculator or many tiny ones - all you need is correct data. Now, sizes of resource inventories and lists of ordered goods/services contain all the information one needs for planning the economy and with a greater precision than market/money based economy. Centrally planned social consumption greatly reduces the need for commodities. The thing is - communist economy does not have to be either centrally planned or crowd-planned. The best result is achieved when its both. (Much like communism is not "collectivist" nor "individualist" - its both).

Nevertheless, I think that this does not mean that early postcapitalist society can't use markets to relate to capitalist enclaves or economic sectors. Basically, when, for some reason you do not have access to objective economic information then one has to use the market as a backup plan. A socialist society is pragmatic first and foremost. It uses whatever works best in a particular situation. That's why its able to triumph over previous systems.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Thing is though immediate scarcity is better solved through rations than through a market mechanism. You can't distribute scarce necessities to those in need through a market, thats just not how it functions it's always those with a higher purchasing power that have first dibs. It's not equitable and as such even a communist society that isn't "purist" as you say would not remain communist through using such a mechanism.

How does one "ration" a completely unique piece of art which some people want more than others? There are some commodities whereby developing a collective mode of distribution is far more difficult than with other commodities.

[ckaihatsu]

Nevertheless, I think that this does not mean that early postcapitalist society can't use markets to relate to capitalist enclaves or economic sectors.


I have to respectfully disagree here.

It doesn't help socialism or humanity to equivocate about what it is we're fighting for -- if we know that a communist-type system is objectively *better*, then we should be able to explain why and how that is, and *destroy* all ideological defenses that market advocates use for themselves.

We shouldn't have to "use markets" or "relate to capitalist enclaves" -- to even mention such possible considerations is bad politics and only serves to confuse.

We only need to keep in mind that commodity production is *inherently incompatible* with a free-access liberated production, because it demands that external valuations be placed on everything, including people and our labor, and to run the world according to those abstract valuations. People have been resisting this approach ever since it was initially forced on them, and we continue to do so today.





Basically, when, for some reason you do not have access to objective economic information then one has to use the market as a backup plan. A socialist society is pragmatic first and foremost. It uses whatever works best in a particular situation. That's why its able to triumph over previous systems.


The market system *can't* be a "backup plan" because, by definition, it's *not* a plan. It leaves all economic decision-making to the hands-off, emergent properties of aggregated market dynamics, with *no one* actually at-the-wheel.

A revolution that brings in mass-conscious, *democratic* control over economic planning will not *be able* to go back to the non-conscious method that prevails today, because the very thought of it would be unthinkable -- how would everyone even be able to "let go" of democratic decision-making at the same time when that's just how things are done -- ?

The very *concept* of revolutionary upheaval serves to illustrate that what we're living in today is a kind of groupthink that puts its faith in the circulation of symbols of formal value in order to make the world go around. "Returning" to this method of (dis-)order would require re-adopting this kind of groupthink on a mass scale as well.





I believe, that a communist society has no need for a market. From logical point of view, its not important whether it is centrally planned or decentrally.


It *does* matter whether it's centrally planned or not, because if it's *not* centrally planned there then there would have to be 'interfaces' among the disparate, adjacent entities that may want to arrange material transactions with each other on fairly large scales -- without a central administration to standardize production across these 'interfaces' the entities would have to resort to ad hoc methods of valuation, over time, which would just lead right into the abstraction of value and therefore into commodity production.





It has been proven, that its the same whether you have one large logical calculator or many tiny ones - all you need is correct data.


This is a spurious metaphor.





Now, sizes of resource inventories and lists of ordered goods/services contain all the information one needs for planning the economy and with a greater precision than market/money based economy. Centrally planned social consumption greatly reduces the need for commodities.


Agreed.





The thing is - communist economy does not have to be either centrally planned or crowd-planned. The best result is achieved when its both. (Much like communism is not "collectivist" nor "individualist" - its both).


If we define 'planning' as 'logistical coordination and oversight of production and consumption inputs and outputs', then this is *not* something that a 'crowd' can do. A crowd is not large enough to directly represent the world's total production and consumption.

That said, though, I *do* think that the *world's* population -- the largest crowd there is, if you will -- can *directly* represent total production and consumption through realtime data techniques. This would enable a mass-democratic process over all material activity, concentrating into a final policy, or policies, that is centrally administered.

[citizen of industry]

I have to respectfully disagree here.

It doesn't help socialism or humanity to equivocate about what it is we're fighting for -- if we know that a communist-type system is objectively *better*, then we should be able to explain why and how that is, and *destroy* all ideological defenses that market advocates use for themselves.

We shouldn't have to "use markets" or "relate to capitalist enclaves" -- to even mention such possible considerations is bad politics and only serves to confuse.

We only need to keep in mind that commodity production is *inherently incompatible* with a free-access liberated production, because it demands that external valuations be placed on everything, including people and our labor, and to run the world according to those abstract valuations. People have been resisting this approach ever since it was initially forced on them, and we continue to do so today.





The market system *can't* be a "backup plan" because, by definition, it's *not* a plan. It leaves all economic decision-making to the hands-off, emergent properties of aggregated market dynamics, with *no one* actually at-the-wheel.

A revolution that brings in mass-conscious, *democratic* control over economic planning will not *be able* to go back to the non-conscious method that prevails today, because the very thought of it would be unthinkable -- how would everyone even be able to "let go" of democratic decision-making at the same time when that's just how things are done -- ?

The very *concept* of revolutionary upheaval serves to illustrate that what we're living in today is a kind of groupthink that puts its faith in the circulation of symbols of formal value in order to make the world go around. "Returning" to this method of (dis-)order would require re-adopting this kind of groupthink on a mass scale as well.





It *does* matter whether it's centrally planned or not, because if it's *not* centrally planned there then there would have to be 'interfaces' among the disparate, adjacent entities that may want to arrange material transactions with each other on fairly large scales -- without a central administration to standardize production across these 'interfaces' the entities would have to resort to ad hoc methods of valuation, over time, which would just lead right into the abstraction of value and therefore into commodity production.





This is a spurious metaphor.





Agreed.





If we define 'planning' as 'logistical coordination and oversight of production and consumption inputs and outputs', then this is *not* something that a 'crowd' can do. A crowd is not large enough to directly represent the world's total production and consumption.

That said, though, I *do* think that the *world's* population -- the largest crowd there is, if you will -- can *directly* represent total production and consumption through realtime data techniques. This would enable a mass-democratic process over all material activity, concentrating into a final policy, or policies, that is centrally administered.
Can you stop the *asterisks*? I was going to ask if you could use *quotation marks* but then I noticed you use *both* It detracts from your posts. It's like a *fireworks* show. Kind of like using excessive vocabulary like "explosive explosion" or "demolish without mercy."

[helot]

How does one "ration" a completely unique piece of art which some people want more than others? There are some commodities whereby developing a collective mode of distribution is far more difficult than with other commodities.

I mentioned scarce necessities but i'll bite.

The only forms of art that would have any problems with distribution would be paintings and sculptures.

All pieces of art, of course, are unique yet a society that has abolished private property would result in more people having access to the skills and materials needed for the creation of art. I highly doubt that there'd be enough demand for one specific piece by one specific person to necessitate any sort of concern over its distribution.

I've got to say, though, you've come up with the most absurd justification for markets. I'm afraid that two people wanting the same painting isn't anywhere close to being an important economic problem. If they can't agree put the damn thing in a gallery or rotate it between their houses.

I'll turn this into a question involving fish because im hungry and wouldn't mind some fish...

What if there's not enough cod for everyone this week? Maybe some people will have to make do with haddock or plaise.

[ckaihatsu]

Can you stop the *asterisks*? I was going to ask if you could use *quotation marks* but then I noticed you use *both* It detracts from your posts. It's like a *fireworks* show. Kind of like using excessive vocabulary like "explosive explosion" or "demolish without mercy."


Yes, you're not the first who's mentioned it.

All I can say is that I make efforts to be conscious of my usage of it, and that I keep it to only those instances where it's absolutely needed. I like the style of the emphasis that it brings, especially when I'm making pointed points, and I like to think that I use it in a way that accentuates the pace and the content of the text.

If you look through several of my other posts you'll notice that I hardly *ever* use quotation marks -- it's basically just the one you're referencing.

[Paul Cockshott]

it would be if this was somehow universally accepted, but money is seriously one hella divisive concept among the revolutionary left and there's quite many commies (Bordiga among many) who think money should be done with as soon as we reach the dictatorship of the proletariat. yeah so think whatever you want of the issue, but don't try to present your views on it as some kind of consensus.

I am not saying there is concensus, but the people like Bordiga who advocated the immediate abolition of commodity production called themselves communists not socialists.
I think that you should set the abolition of money and the establishment of a labour account system as a relatively immediate goal, but in advocating that I am being more a communist than a socialist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Is this a verbal distinction or an actual? Are you distinguishing between labor vouchers and labor accounts?

-M.H.-

He's distinguishing between something like the Soviet ruble and labour credits and accounts.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I mentioned scarce necessities but i'll bite.

The only forms of art that would have any problems with distribution would be paintings and sculptures.

All pieces of art, of course, are unique yet a society that has abolished private property would result in more people having access to the skills and materials needed for the creation of art. I highly doubt that there'd be enough demand for one specific piece by one specific person to necessitate any sort of concern over its distribution.


Every artist has unique talents and styles. I might really like one artist and not another.



I've got to say, though, you've come up with the most absurd justification for markets. I'm afraid that two people wanting the same painting isn't anywhere close to being an important economic problem. If they can't agree put the damn thing in a gallery or rotate it between their houses.

I'll turn this into a question involving fish because im hungry and wouldn't mind some fish...

What if there's not enough cod for everyone this week? Maybe some people will have to make do with haddock or plaise.You are confusing an "example" for a "justification." There are any number of commodities which will share the same problem of art in particular contexts. Any commodity which is demanded beyond its supply, and ends up in the hands of or distributed to people who may want it less than others, is liable to make a venture on the market. If the infrastructure does not exist to distribute the goods in a fair way yet society tries to force the equitable distribution, then a black market will be formed. To use your example of fish, Tuna is being overfished in the ocean, and to maintain sustainable levels, the amount drawn from the sea must be drastically reduced. However, everyone has different tastes in tuna, so distributing a small amount to everyone won't work either. The public would need to create mechanisms to distribute it fairly so that only those who can enjoy it will get any, but that people won't get more than goes beyond their needs. Until those mechanisms exist and are stable enough, the market will continue to exist in some form, either in the open or as a black market.

[ckaihatsu]

There are any number of commodities which will share the same problem of art in particular contexts. Any commodity which is demanded beyond its supply, and ends up in the hands of or distributed to people who may want it less than others, is liable to make a venture on the market. If the infrastructure does not exist to distribute the goods in a fair way yet society tries to force the equitable distribution, then a black market will be formed. To use your example of fish, Tuna is being overfished in the ocean, and to maintain sustainable levels, the amount drawn from the sea must be drastically reduced. However, everyone has different tastes in tuna, so distributing a small amount to everyone won't work either. The public would need to create mechanisms to distribute it fairly so that only those who can enjoy it will get any, but that people won't get more than goes beyond their needs. Until those mechanisms exist and are stable enough, the market will continue to exist in some form, either in the open or as a black market.


This is an instance where I would side with the *Stalinist*-minded types, and posit that a certain amount of social engineering / influence might go some ways to shape a material culture that is *inhibited* from "liking" a natural resource that happens to be scarce.

Certainly we should do all we can to make availability as equitably accessible as possible, but, failing that, I would readily side with those who encourage 'alternatives' to "natural" inclinations.

So, then, *who* should get tuna -- ? Only those who brave the propaganda the hardiest to arrive at their undeterred goal, all else be damned. It isn't pretty, but it's a *social* (political) way to separate the wheat from the chaff, if it comes to it.

[ckaihatsu]

...And here's the campaign-in-waiting, if it's ever needed:

"Tuna???! Fuck that shit!! Your own asshole tastes better than that shit! Why don't you be a bad-ass and buck the curve -- ! While others turn their noses away from seafood you can be living like a king or queen without tuna, since all the seafood in the world will be yours. But, shhhhhhhhhh! Don't let others in on your secret!"


x D

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I doubt people's love of tuna will go away overnight, and there's no saying that fish stocks couldn't be allowed to repopulate then get fished in a sustainable way in the long term. The issue is the expediency with which the proletariat can reasonably set up their world-wide gift economy