Selection and black markets in communism

[ZvP]

Let's say there are two tomato farms within a reasonable distance of one another. But everyone knows that tomato farm A has much better tomatoes than farm B. Several restaurants in the area need farm A's tomatoes to make the food their visitors expect from them; farm B's tomatoes simply don't taste as good. Doesn't this selection process create a sort of pseudo-market? And furthermore, if Farm A is unable to meet the demands for their tomatoes, wouldn't they have to pick and choose who gets them? And what if a few of the restaurants decided to pay farm A in some fashion so they would have priority in receiving the tomatoes, thus creating a black market?

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, OK. A situation where: one producer produces a product that is held to be inferior; where demand for the superior product is greater than the potential supply of this product; and where there's some method of the consumers influencing the behaviour of the producers.

What then?

Seems to me it would be more likely that the 'restaurants' (not sure what they would be in socialism, or why they would it seems be 'competing' against each other, which is implicit in your example) would rather find another supplier of high-grade tomatoes from slightly further away than 'pay' (not sure what that would mean in socialism) for preferential treatment. But I could be wrong.

If I worked at Farm B I'd certainly be raising the questions a) of why we weren't producing better tomatoes, at the Farm B Workers' Council, and b) of why the communal kitchen in Luxemburgogradville is trying to bribe the workers of Farm A by giving them bigger portions so they send their superior tomatoes there, in the local soviet.

I would think, to be honest, that each 'restaurant' might get 40% Farm A tomatoes, 40% Farm B tomatoes, and 20% tomatoes from outside the district.

Now you could of course claim that there's no other source of tomatoes withing 400km but I would then just assume that you're merely making shit up for the sake of it.

The question of resource allocation is a real one. How do we decide what resources are allocated where?

The answer is collectively, to set an overall plan, and on a case-by-case basis, to find the best way of fullfilling the plan.

[Lynx]

In a non-competitive market, wouldn't information be shared so that the quality of farm B's tomatoes were improved?
In a competitive market, farm B would have to improve its product or lose market share.

[citizen of industry]

Your hypothetical situation is based on commodities and exchange, not on communism. It is a capitalist scenerio. Under that scenerio, for starters, B would go under, assuming A could meet the demand. If A couldn't meet the demand, B would make a steady business, inferior or not. Some restaraunts, the larger enterprises with more capital, would pay more for A's tomatoes, and their price would rise.

In a communist society, A and B would not exist as seperate enterprises competing on the market. A would be equal to B, the tomatoes you would get would be the highest quality possible without investing an excessive amount of society's wealth into tomato production, at the expense of other industries.

What if A is on better land that produces better tomatoes, but that land is further away from the highways, railways and shipping lanes the tomatoes are transported on. Making A's tomatoes 3 or 4 times higher in price than B's? Of course, all the restaurants will buy B's. That is the more realistic capitalist scenerio. Especially since the individual enterprises reduce wages in their respective fields to the lowest amount possible, so nobody can afford A anyway, except luxury restaurants that cater to the wealthy, comparable to your black market scenerio. And it's a tomato. Add some additives and salt and you wont notice the difference.

[MarxSchmarx]

Yeah, OK. A situation where: one producer produces a product that is held to be inferior; where demand for the superior product is greater than the potential supply of this product; and where there's some method of the consumers influencing the behaviour of the producers.
...
The question of resource allocation is a real one. How do we decide what resources are allocated where?

The answer is collectively, to set an overall plan, and on a case-by-case basis, to find the best way of fullfilling the plan.

What I don't understand about the OP that is germaine to what you raise is why there would be better tomatoes in the first place. Presumably when land is allocated the planning would work such that land most fertile to tomatoes will be given to tomatoes provided there are no other pressing needs. All tomato farms of a certain variety will get roughly comparable land, resources like water, pesticides, labor etc... They will probably grow the same or very similar mixtures of crops that grow well. Random differences can arise from time to time (e.g., a farm got unlucky and got flooded ruining most of its crop) but on the whole I don't think the kinds of differences the op envisions would persist for very long in a planned economy any more than they would in a market economy.

[Blake's Baby]

It's easy to see that they would. If we're in the northern hemisphere, then Farm A occupies the northern side of the valley with south-facing slopes, and Farm B occupies the north facing slopes on the south side of the valley. Farm A gets a lot more direct sunlight. Luxemburgogradoville is in the bottom of the valley and has equally good access to both.

Of course, there's no reason to divide the valley up this. Farm A could include both north- and south-facing slopes, Farm B could include north- and south-facing slopes, and therefore both would produce both low- and high-quality tomatoes, some of which would go to the communal kitchens and some of which would be made into Luxemburgogradoville's Special Tomato Sauce that is distributed across the continent. As the farms aren't 'competing' it doesn't matter that they're producing things 'inefficiently', if there's a use for it.

[Ocean Seal]

And wouldn't the restaurants that produce the better food be outcompeting those with inferior products? In any case you've presupposed market structures, and stated ahh well there will continue to be market structures.

[Sea]

If you're tired of all the crap slinging between farms A and B, you could go over to farm Sea and pick my tomatoes!

Anywho, If the farmers on farm B aren't as skilled, because in socialism trade secrets are irrelevant and the public domain is the only one for such information to be in, the farmers could cheaply (in terms of time and resources) learn techniques for growing better tomatoes. The same holds true for any time that a lack of expertise results in a gap in commodity quality between different locations of production. If the problem is intrinsic to the soil, a better question would be why farm B is growing tomatoes and not something better suited to the conditions of the farm. Next growing season, farm B could grow something else more suited to the local environment. The same general idea of adapting, again, holds true wherever the quality of a product is lessened as a direct result of the conditions of the product's production.


But wait, there's more!

I fail to see how this applies to socialism. The presence of personal choice isn't market behavior, the seeking of profit is.

Scenarios of dilemma and resolve show up in capitalism to this day and I'm sure have also reared their heads in the feudal economies of yore.

[Blake's Baby]

... If the problem is intrinsic to the soil, a better question would be why farm B is growing tomatoes and not something better suited to the conditions of the farm. Next growing season, farm B could grow something else more suited to the local environment...

In my version this is the point - not skill, but natural resources (sunlight, soil or whatever).

But saying they could grow something else doesn't address the point - that just means that 40% of the demand for toamtoes is being fulfilled, rather than the 80% (40% of superior and 40% inferior tomatoes).


...
I fail to see how this applies to socialism. The presence of personal choice isn't market behavior, the seeking of profit is.

Scenarios of dilemma and resolve show up in capitalism to this day and I'm sure have also reared their heads in the feudal economies of yore.

But that is the point - the notion is that the recievers of the products (tomatoes in this case) could use underhand influence (eg, giving the workers of Farm A bigger portions to 'sway their votes' come tomato-allocation time, or whatever) to obtain a favourable result. How is this not market behaviour?

[ckaihatsu]

Scenarios like this one just underscore the political anxiety that exists among revolutionaries.

If the premise of scarcity of much-desired quality is accepted, then the fear is an instant political unraveling into collapse, and the re-emergence of markets.

If the premise of scarcity of much-desired quality *isn't* accepted, then the scenario becomes one of how the collectivist political economy *would* (positively) administer varying kinds of productivity -- back to the overall politics, in other words.

I think we need to understand that the softening of a fully collectivist communist-type administration leads -- not to black markets -- but to *Stalinism* -- some kind of top-heavy heavy-handedness, in an effort to resolve the lingering shortcoming through a specialist approach. The problem with this, of course, is its inherent elitism and in-crowd dynamic, but on the other hand, it *would* provide an administrative solution to the outstanding problem, at the cost of fully collectivist, transparent politics.








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.





...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


Political Spectrum, Simplified

http://postimage.org/image/35tmoycro/

[Sea]

In my version this is the point - not skill, but natural resources (sunlight, soil or whatever).

But saying they could grow something else doesn't address the point - that just means that 40% of the demand for toamtoes is being fulfilled, rather than the 80% (40% of superior and 40% inferior tomatoes.Oops.. I meant to put in my post that then some farm C or D could take over the gap left by farm B.
But that is the point - the notion is that the recievers of the products (tomatoes in this case) could use underhand influence (eg, giving the workers of Farm A bigger portions to 'sway their votes' come tomato-allocation time, or whatever) to obtain a favourable result. How is this not market behaviour?I'm not sure what you mean, comrade. That farm A gets more of the tomatoes? :confused:

[Blake's Baby]

Oops.. I meant to put in my post that then some farm C or D could take over the gap left by farm B. I'm not sure what you mean, comrade. That farm A gets more of the tomatoes? :confused:

No, the idea was the eating places in the town nearby would find ways to 'bribe' the workers from Farm A, so that Farm A would send its superior tomatoes to them.

The only way I could think of was that the workers in the communal kitchens might give Farm A workers bigger portions, so that when tomato allocation time came round, all the Farm A workers would vote to send the tomatoes to their 'friends' in the communal kitchen that gave them the big portions... meanwhile, places that didn't bribe Farm A workers, would get stuck with crappy old Farm B tomatoes, because that's all that's left.

The setup is a bit artificial, but in principle the problem is real. What if there's a way to influence productive behaviour in a way that's favourable to yourself and unfavourable to others, indirectly? Is this not a kind of 'market'?

[Sea]

The only way I could think of was that the workers in the communal kitchens might give Farm A workers bigger portions, so that when tomato allocation time came round, all the Farm A workers would vote to send the tomatoes to their 'friends' in the communal kitchen that gave them the big portions... meanwhile, places that didn't bribe Farm A workers, would get stuck with crappy old Farm B tomatoes, because that's all that's left.Alright, I see.

I guess the classic argument is that with their own selfish profit removed from the equation, people wouldn't resort to such things trying to secure more of the good tomatoes for themselves / their customers.

[Blake's Baby]

That's what I suspect, especially in the case as it's been developed. As the 'restaurants' (communal kitchens?) aren't competing against each other for 'customers', they have no reason to attempt to influence the allocation process.

But there are other potential situations where it may happen. Maybe, the debate could be rephrased to say 'what if there was demand from both Luxemburgogradoville, and from Pannekoekopolis' - in this case, there may be a problem if the communal kitchens in Luxemburgogradoville were unduly influencing the allocation process by 'bribing' the workers at Farm A nearby...

But, again, it's difficult to see why people should be trying to influence the allocation process.

[ckaihatsu]

Let's say there are two tomato farms within a reasonable distance of one another. But everyone knows that tomato farm A has much better tomatoes than farm B. Several restaurants in the area need farm A's tomatoes to make the food their visitors expect from them; farm B's tomatoes simply don't taste as good. Doesn't this selection process create a sort of pseudo-market? And furthermore, if Farm A is unable to meet the demands for their tomatoes, wouldn't they have to pick and choose who gets them? And what if a few of the restaurants decided to pay farm A in some fashion so they would have priority in receiving the tomatoes, thus creating a black market?


On second thought, I'm seeing that this formulation wouldn't be realistic to begin with.

As unintuitive as it may seem, there *would* be some kind of *administration* around all of this, so that all such day-to-day business-type concerns at the local level would be *generalized* as a matter of course.

This is partly why a revolution is needed -- to dispense with such balkanized practices that are currently handled in a cookie-cutter way endlessly across the landscape. An administration -- even the public-sector ones of today -- provides a layer of coordination and oversight that relieves the parties within of having to quibble and squabble over every little thing.

Bureaucracy is usually considered a bad word but even under less-than-ideal conditions it can provide a larger perspective and scope for regular operations on greater scales.

[Blake's Baby]

By to be honest (I had considered the possibility that there was a regional council that said - x-amount of tomatoes from Luxemburg Valley go to the local communes, y-amount go to other communes in the region...'), the (equally real) question then moves up a level.

What if the consumers (still in Luxemburgogradoville) start to bribe the regional council?

The question is about (in the abstract) 'consumers (wherever they are) bringing undue influence (however they manage it) to bear (on whoever does the allocation)'.

And it's a real question, no matter what form of bureacracy there is, or whether we're talking about tomatoes or power stations or swimming pools.

[ckaihatsu]

By to be honest (I had considered the possibility that there was a regional council that said - x-amount of tomatoes from Luxemburg Valley go to the local communes, y-amount go to other communes in the region...'), the (equally real) question then moves up a level.

What if the consumers (still in Luxemburgogradoville) start to bribe the regional council?

The question is about (in the abstract) 'consumers (wherever they are) bringing undue influence (however they manage it) to bear (on whoever does the allocation)'.

And it's a real question, no matter what form of bureacracy there is, or whether we're talking about tomatoes or power stations or swimming pools.


Ehhhhhhh, if we're going to get caught up in hypothetical determinism -- which *is* fun, no question -- it can always boil down to the glass-half-empty, glass-half-full equation: Do they do, or do they don't -- ?

Some might argue demarchy here -- I'd probably side with some sort of lab-like anonymization, so that *no one* knows where the fuck their tomatoes come from, etc.

[Blake's Baby]

Ehhhhhhh, if we're going to get caught up in hypothetical determinism -- which *is* fun, no question -- it can always boil down to the glass-half-empty, glass-half-full equation: Do they do, or do they don't -- ?...

I don't follow. The question is an abstract one, the hypothetical was an attempt to demonstrate how it might apply in practice.


Some might argue demarchy here -- I'd probably side with some sort of lab-like anonymization, so that *no one* knows where the fuck their tomatoes come from, etc.

Seriously I want to know where my tomatoes come from.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't follow. The question is an abstract one, the hypothetical was an attempt to demonstrate how it might apply in practice.


Yes.





Seriously I want to know where my tomatoes come from.


You should be aware that you're talking about *boutique* concerns -- this entire scenario smacks of a real bourgie idyllic small-town or suburbia kind of consumerist context.

If this is the shared lifestyle you and those like you *really* want to be living then I'm sure you'd find a niche and a way to do it in a hobbyist kind of mode under communism. Doubtlessly there'd be social circles for this kind of thing -- like wine or whatever -- but it's hardly a *political* concern since it's consumer-sided.

[Blake's Baby]

No, I'm talking about engagement in society.

Fuck technocracy. If you think a bunch of bureaucrats are make all the decisions then I'm revolting against you too. You and the Stalinists can just buddy up and tell the working class what to do, untill we put you all up against the wall.

[ckaihatsu]

No, I'm talking about engagement in society.





[The] question is an abstract one, the hypothetical was an attempt to demonstrate how it might apply in practice.





Yes.





Fuck technocracy. If you think a bunch of bureaucrats are make all the decisions then I'm revolting against you too. You and the Stalinists can just buddy up and tell the working class what to do, untill we put you all up against the wall.


Hey, you're making this fun and everything, but you're missing the point.

Regardless of what "I am" politically, we're dealing with a feasible hypothetical situation here -- otherwise we wouldn't be able to get anywhere *near* discussing it in a cohesive way.

It's too bad you're so dismissive of employing technology to eliminate administrative complications. I wouldn't term my suggestion a 'technocracy' all by itself, since it's only one component of a larger whole (see my blog entry), but I think it's better to iron out things in advance than to rely on political haggling over every little thing, every step of the way.

The only reason I said I would "side with the Stalinist-minded types" in post #10 was because of hypothetical unresolved objective conditions that would not allow a preferable full-egalitarian *communist*-type method:





I think we need to understand that the softening of a fully collectivist communist-type administration leads -- not to black markets -- but to *Stalinism* -- some kind of top-heavy heavy-handedness, in an effort to resolve the lingering shortcoming through a specialist approach. The problem with this, of course, is its inherent elitism and in-crowd dynamic, but on the other hand, it *would* provide an administrative solution to the outstanding problem, at the cost of fully collectivist, transparent politics.


So for all of this worrying about black markets -- and even acceptance of it happening, through corruption -- *I'm* the one getting chided for warning about the exact same thing, through bureaucratic elitism -- ??

Most of this discussion has been in a vacuum, with the hypothetical situation far removed from any historical or larger-picture basis -- its purely abstract context reveals much about the participants' politics.

[ZvP]

What about a service industry black market? If certain service providers (such as plumbers) were in high demand do you not think that they would perhaps accept bribes? And if a service provider were assigned to a specific area but he was bad at his job, do you not think people would try to make an under-the-table deal with someone else?

[ckaihatsu]

What about a service industry black market? If certain service providers (such as plumbers) were in high demand do you not think that they would perhaps accept bribes? And if a service provider were assigned to a specific area but he was bad at his job, do you not think people would try to make an under-the-table deal with someone else?


I continue to be astonished that no one here seems to know what *administration* is, of *any* amount.

Perhaps the title of the thread should just be changed to 'Selection and black markets', since it's obvious the 'communism' part isn't anywhere to be seen.

To sum up, in any situation where it would seem that black markets or localism would fill-the-void, consider that there could be a *variety* of administrative-type solutions to prevent corruption, favoritism, black markets, and patronage. I've named one already -- changing the yardstick (standard) for access to consumption, to administratively (artificially) limit demand. It wasn't received well. Here's another, from one of my blog entries:





Infrastructure / overhead

communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions


This means that before anything is considered for implementation it must have dedicated supporters, and must compete against contending plans that are vying for the same opportunity. Material logistics would have to be pre-planned and spelled-out as a part of enabling mass decision-making.

No guarantees would be provided to any given policy that's selected, so if the mass political will shifts, it can simply change over to another available policy option as needed.