The Free-Rider Problem in Communism

[Comrade #138672]

A free-rider is someone who benefits without compensation. Capitalists will say that in a capitalistic society free-riders will not survive because they will not earn any money (benefit) without working for it (compensation). How does communism deal with this?

If everyone shares the benefits, does that include the free-riders? And if not, isn't that another class distinction; but now between workers and free-riders? How does communism protect itself and at the same time guarantee freedom?

This apparent "weakness" has been attacked many times by capitalists. I would like to know how to counter these attacks effectively.

[Tim Cornelis]

If it turns out that free-riders are a problem there is two solutions:

1. Labour credits

2. A right to consume part of the total product for everyone, but a duty to contribute in part to the total product for those able-bodied (thus exception for students, young people, old people, and handicapped).

[Comrade #138672]

1. Isn't that just another word for money?
2. Is this duty enforced; and if so aren't the workers still slaves in that case?

[Prinskaj]

2. A right to consume part of the total product for everyone, but a duty to contribute in part to the total product for those able-bodied (thus exception for students, young people, old people, and handicapped).
I have always wanted to know about the deeper implications of this style of organization. So if a worker deicides that he/she would rather be pursuing a different line of work, how will this be managed? If said person is a doctor, whom society has placed a lot of resources into, and wants to become a lawyer (Or something completely different), which would require even more resources from society, without said person "contributing"?

[Book O'Dead]

[...]

This apparent "weakness" has been attacked many times by capitalists. I would like to know how to counter these attacks effectively.

Can there be a more "free-rider" society than capitalism, wherein the capitalist rides free on the backs of workers?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

There is no reason for work, the human species has used its brain to create gadgets that increase the productivity of labor, and now even replications of the human brain that could even do the machinery operation and thinking for us. I hope we will all become free riders. I fucking hate work, long live communism, long live the New Man!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I support the system of labour credits. They are a useful and most importantly concrete (as opposed to this 'withering away nonsense) step towards the abolition of money, and would solve the free-rider problem in an instant.

[Peoples' War]

Labour "credits" or "vouchers" only have a role to play in the lower phase of communism.

If the minds of the workers are such that "laziness" is a problem, then the revolution was never successful to begin with.

[Comrade #138672]

I support the system of labour credits. They are a useful and most importantly concrete (as opposed to this 'withering away nonsense) step towards the abolition of money, and would solve the free-rider problem in an instant.So it's a form of private property? It's specifically yours to keep and spend. What if capitalists start to accumulate it and manage to make deals with people that are more advantage for them because they outsmarted the others? This would result in profit for the capitalists reintroducing capitalism. How is this being prevented?

[Tim Cornelis]

I have always wanted to know about the deeper implications of this style of organization. So if a worker deicides that he/she would rather be pursuing a different line of work, how will this be managed? If said person is a doctor, whom society has placed a lot of resources into, and wants to become a lawyer (Or something completely different), which would require even more resources from society, without said person "contributing"?

"Contribute" would simply mean be a member of at least one syndicate (producers' association). Thus essentially, the principle listed above would mean everyone who is a member of a syndicate is entitled to part of the total product.

[NewLeft]

So it's a form of private property? It's specifically yours to keep and spend. What if capitalists start to accumulate it and manage to make deals with people that are more advantage for them because they outsmarted the others? This would result in profit for the capitalists reintroducing capitalism. How is this being prevented?
During the dictatorship of the proletariat, the capitalists would not be capable of accumulating because 1) they don't have the means to and 2) labour credits are not transferable, so they can't circulate.

[#FF0000]

The point would be, eventually, to make it so one can live without doing anything but absolutely necessary labor or work. In the 21st century, this is more easily achieved than ever before, and the idea that someone needs to submit their lives to drudgery to justify their existence is more odious than ever.

So, yeah. the free-rider problem in communism isn't a bug -- it's a feature.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Labor credits under the DotP? Fine.
Labor credits under any stage of communism? Absolute nonsense.
“There cannot exist in the future an economy which is still mercantile but which isn't capitalist anymore. Before capitalism there were economies which were partially mercantile, but capitalism is the last of this genre.” - Amadeo Bordiga.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I've heard an odd version of this one recently. A friend of mine said that in a communist society where we don't reward more skilled people and hence distinguish them from others, we could have someone doing, say, electrical work or making plastic pipework who would do a shoddy job, which would obviously be a mess.

The most obvious answer here is that generally when you screw over your community, you're also screwing over yourself.

I think that people (frustratingly) have some trouble getting it through their heads what a post-scarcity economy is and how the 'laws' that appear sensible in the artificial scarcity of capitalism don't apply in post-scarcity communist society.

The motive to reduce the amount of labour necessary remains---but in order to enhance the lives of the community and leave time for other, more creative activites as well as simple enjoyment of the products of our work, rather than for the sake of a greater rate of profit for a few wealthy individuals.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I've heard an odd version of this one recently. A friend of mine said that in a communist society where we don't reward more skilled people and hence distinguish them from others, we could have someone doing, say, electrical work or making plastic pipework who would do a shoddy job, which would obviously be a mess.

The most obvious answer here is that generally when you screw over your community, you're also screwing over yourself.

I think that people (frustratingly) have some trouble getting it through their heads what a post-scarcity economy is and how the 'laws' that appear sensible in the artificial scarcity of capitalism don't apply in post-scarcity communist society.

The motive to reduce the amount of labour necessary remains---but in order to enhance the lives of the community and leave time for other, more creative activites as well as simple enjoyment of the products of our work, rather than for the sake of a greater rate of profit for a few wealthy individuals.
I just wanted to add, this hypothetical shoddy electrician exists under capitalism because there is significant economic incentive to finish the job quickly and get the money with the least amount of work involved. See also: hypothetical shoddy mechanic

[Le Socialiste]

It helps to first differentiate between the main driving factors contributing to this distance, or lethargy under capitalism (where one has little input) and how this behavior might be modified following its overthrow. Where does this "weakness" stem from? What are the causes of such a phenomenon? We certainly know the effects; many of us feel or witness similar "traits" in our daily lives, brought on in large part by the monotony of work and the disempowerment of those directly organizing and running the basic ins and outs without formal acknowledgement from the top. In fact, the ones perched on the rungs of upper management reap the benefits!

When people are marginalized, devoid of any real power over their 'destinies', apathy sets in. The absence of any real say over one's political and economic future will, naturally, become the reigning 'ideology' of the day. Media and political pundits have continuously lamented the presence of the "freeloader" in capitalist society, using this rather over-inflated demographic as an excuse to stem the flow of spending to social welfare programs, while simultaneously granting more extensive aid packages to the ruling-classes in the form of tax cuts, breaks, subsidies, bailouts, and state and legal protection. The specter of the "free-rider" has always been tinged with varying shades of barely concealed racism, sexism, and outright contempt for the poorest struggling layers of the proletariat.

The idea that people will refuse to work en masse within the proper material and conscious contexts of socialist organization of the state and economy is a myth. The old adage "we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us" doesn't apply in this context (for reasons that should be obvious). The reality is, the number of actual "freeloaders" are and will remain negligible - as they have always been; socialism requires a general consciousness alongside the empowerment of every workingwoman and man. When people have actual control over their creative and productive lives, they will be less susceptible to apathy and the alienation it breeds. These latter qualities are a direct consequence of the productive and distributive relations inherent in the extractive and distributive processes of private capital. In other words, the issue is systemic, with less burden (or blame, for that matter) placed on the individual who is a direct product of these destructive and contradictory inner workings that render him or her mere cogs in a cold, emotionless machine.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm not convinced that there is a free-rider problem. If there was, then surely any welfare system put in place under capitalism would have rapidly collapsed under the weight of free-riding (because it makes more economic sense to get something for nothing). But we do not see this, indeed the current rolling-back of the welfare state has nothing to do with ability to provide such things - they are being rolled back because the ruling classes are becoming tight(er) assholes once again.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah. If the free-rider problem was real, we'd all be on the lovely lovely dole ha hah ha sick on you chumps who go to work for a living, you idiots. I love to be harrassed by the Dole Office just so I can laugh at everyone who allowed my life of 'luxury'.

The fact is, that communism is depends on a simple rule: 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs'.

What does this actually mean? Firstly it means 'people need to contribute'. Not 'the state will force people to contribute' so no, it's not some sort of state slavery; but 'people need to contribute... because that's how things happen'. If no-one goes to work at the power-station, no-one has any power. If no-one goes to work on the farms, no-one has any food. It no-one goes to work in the shoe-factory, no-one has any shoes; etc etc. We thus all sit around in the dark, hungry, with no shoes, blaming other people. Fact is, we obviously didn't want food, shoes or power that badly, or we would have done something about it.

The point of communism is the liberation of labour. In the higher stage of communism, which is I assume what we're talking about here, we will all work less. What's going to be the socially-necessary amount of labour we 'need' to put in for society to function? I dunno. I'm hoping not more than 8 hours a week.

Is the free rider problem real? In a way I hope it is because the free rider problem is why we need socialism. There's no necessity to work 48 hours a week for little reward, when we could work 8 hours a week for all the rewards. Right to be lazy? Bloody right.

Will there be people, however, who, though they enjoy the benefits of society, refuse to work at all, refuse to contribute in any way? This is where we get back to 'from each... to each...' - I'd argue that 'to each' in the end has to be dependent on 'from each'.

This is where I disagree about labour vouchers with many on this board: I don't think they'll work as in 'I've done x-amount, I'm entitled to y-amount', which seems like money to me (and which is why people refer to them as 'labour time vouchers'). I think if they exist, they'll work more like a passport: 'I've contributed, period. I'm entitled, period'.

Now that can't mean 'I've done eight hours making cheese, I want a cruise liner for myself'. Why? Because communes won't have cruise liners in the communal store. Maybe you could get a cruise liner. But you'd have to persuade other people to make it for you, or make it yourself. Or maybe you could just go on a cruise liner instead. I'm sure they'll still exist. I'm sure that there's eight hours of things you do to help run the ship in the week you're on your cruise.

But in the end the 'free rider problem' is this: what if there are people who are so antisocial that they refuse to do anything to contribute to society? Well, in the end... fuck 'em. I suspect that the reason it's an-caps and their ilk that bring this up is because they are precisely the people they are talking about - antisocial people who are so concerned about not being exploited by others that they refuse to do anything for anyone but want the world to look after them. I also suspect that they won't be such a problem after the revolution. They'll either pitch in, or they'll starve in the cold and dark. Either way it's a win for the rest of us.

[Manic Impressive]

So it's a form of private property? It's specifically yours to keep and spend. What if capitalists start to accumulate it and manage to make deals with people that are more advantage for them because they outsmarted the others? This would result in profit for the capitalists reintroducing capitalism. How is this being prevented?
You are absolutely correct. It would still be a capitalist system generating many of the same problems that capitalism generates. Personally I have no idea why some of these people want to cling on to capitalism so badly.

The idea of labour vouchers was around before Marx and promoted by some of the utopian socialists. What no one has mentioned yet is why some people think they are needed, it has sod all to do with free loaders. They are only needed in a situation where scarcity still exists. We can currently provide housing clothing and food for everyone on the planet with surplus left over. The only thing stopping the resources from being allocated to where they need to be is capitalism. This is the reason why socialism can not exist in isolated areas, it must be global. So we already produce enough for everyone with a surplus but we work bloody hard to produce it. How will communism change this? Easily many of us do not do jobs which are beneficial to humanity as a whole. Many of us work in finance, insurance, etc jobs which will become obsolete along with the abolition of private property. There's a massive amount of untapped labour which is currently being poured into industries which will no longer exist. This productive force turned towards labour which does benefit society as a whole will greatly reduce the time and effort that it currently takes to generate the amount production we need to satisfy people's needs. So labour time vouchers are all about scarcity and isolation, they cannot exist in socialism.

Anyway can't believe no one's linked you to this yet http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/index.htm

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yeah. If the free-rider problem was real, we'd all be on the lovely lovely dole ha hah ha sick on you chumps who go to work for a living, you idiots. I love to be harrassed by the Dole Office just so I can laugh at everyone who allowed my life of 'luxury'.

Well, the fact of the matter is that the DWP loses more money to clerical errors than it does to fraud. The problems with providing handouts have had nothing to do with their uptake (legitimate or otherwise), and everything to do with the fact that they're typically half-arsed and, as it seems to be turning out, temporary.

Although if they do a complete rollback, are they not just back at Square One? What's to stop the same problems that forced them to introduce things like the welfare state from returning?


This is where I disagree about labour vouchers with many on this board: I don't think they'll work as in 'I've done x-amount, I'm entitled to y-amount', which seems like money to me (and which is why people refer to them as 'labour time vouchers'). I think if they exist, they'll work more like a passport: 'I've contributed, period. I'm entitled, period'.

My preference is for an energy accounting system whereby everyone gets an equal, non-transferable share of society's total energy output for a certain period. The energy cost of things like utilities and transportation would be included in the energy cost of running society, since pretty much everybody uses them. Labour is highly variable and to a degree subjective (which is harder, doing quadratic equations all day or emptying an entire neighbourhood's bins? I'd say it depends who you ask), whereas energy is a physical phenomenon that is directly measurable.


But in the end the 'free rider problem' is this: what if there are people who are so antisocial that they refuse to do anything to contribute to society? Well, in the end... fuck 'em. I suspect that the reason it's an-caps and their ilk that bring this up is because they are precisely the people they are talking about - antisocial people who are so concerned about not being exploited by others that they refuse to do anything for anyone but want the world to look after them. I also suspect that they won't be such a problem after the revolution. They'll either pitch in, or they'll starve in the cold and dark. Either way it's a win for the rest of us.

I can't help but think that it would actually be very hard to contribute absolutely nothing to a communist society. Do these nay-sayers imagine significant amounts of people doing nothing more than eating or sleeping? No arts or crafts or hobbies, no interest in science, engineering, technology or manufacturing whatsoever, no socialising or looking after loved ones?

If the means of production have advanced to the point where if the workload required to maintain society was equally spread, everyone would be able to get away with doing two hours of work a week or less, I think natural variations in peoples' levels of laziness and/or industriousness would mean that there would be enough of those who like working for the work-shy to be unproblematic.

I've always suspected that the growth of the "service sector" has been symptomatic of the demand for work greatly exceeding the supply, with the result that it is full of bullshit mind-numbing low-wage menial make-work that in previous centuries would have been done by individuals themselves or by servants, if at all.

[Questionable]

Am I the only one who doesn't see a problem with "free-riders"? As long as they're not detrimental to society or exploiting others, let them be lazy. Who cares? It seems to be based on the conservative bourgeois sentiment about all workers who get on the wrong side of capitalism being lazy people who should have worked harder. As long as their laziness have no negative effect, I don't really mind.

[Igor]

honestly, i think the ultimate goal should be having as many people riding free as possible. the idea that everyone should be working their arses off to earn a living is bourgie as fuck and if the society can function without someone contributing to it with menial labour, good for him really. there should be no work just for the sake of working.

[Blake's Baby]

I agree. I may have said 'fuck 'em' but that's because I suspect that the only 'free riders' will be people who steadfastly refuse to co-operate, get along and pitch in.

I'm a communist. I believe that people work best in groups and people who don't like other people are selfish fuckwits. I want to contribute to making the world a better place. Partly because I think it's good to be useful, partly because I want to live in a nice place, that's why I don't crap on my own carpet. If someone else is too selfish to do that (help a bit, not crap on the carpet) they're a git and an idiot.

I also want to have lots of time to do whatever else the hell I like. Read history books, play my guitar, go for walks in the country, draw distribution maps of historic sites, go swimnming. Can't do all that if I'm woking like a chump.

If we all pitch in, we can all do it all - sort out the necessary stuff so no-one's doing all of it, and still have loads of time left to do the stuff we want to do 'just because'.

That's the ideal, isn't it?

[RedHammer]

honestly, i think the ultimate goal should be having as many people riding free as possible. the idea that everyone should be working their arses off to earn a living is bourgie as fuck and if the society can function without someone contributing to it with menial labour, good for him really. there should be no work just for the sake of working.

I would agree, but if you only have some people contributing and others, who are capable, not contributing, that is unfair. Unless you do some rotating shifts.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So it's a form of private property? It's specifically yours to keep and spend. What if capitalists start to accumulate it and manage to make deals with people that are more advantage for them because they outsmarted the others? This would result in profit for the capitalists reintroducing capitalism. How is this being prevented?

Labour credits bear no monetary denomination, and no 'value' relative to the exchange-ratio of commodities or services. In other words, a labour credit can be seen as an adjudication of a set amount of socially necessary labour time. Receipt of the labour credit allows the recipient access to whichever goods he/she wants. The only restrictions being that which is not produced, as decided democratically in workplace councils.

That is my vision, anyway. I know not everyone has such a keen sense for council democracy and the abolition of things. :rolleyes:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Labor credits under the DotP? Fine.
Labor credits under any stage of communism? Absolute nonsense.
“There cannot exist in the future an economy which is still mercantile but which isn't capitalist anymore. Before capitalism there were economies which were partially mercantile, but capitalism is the last of this genre.” - Amadeo Bordiga.

Labour credits could be an essential part of the lower phase of communism, as unlike any of this 'withering away' nonsense that is spouted by some on the left, the idea of labour credits actually presents, in concrete terms, a blueprint for the abolition of money. The introduction of labour credits, workers' councils and absolute and inclusive workers' political democracy in the form of no-party democracy at the national level and council democracy at sub-national levels provide three concrete ways in which society can move towards becoming moneyless (labour credits), classless (absolute worker political democracy i.e DotP in its most extreme, democratic, organic form) and stateless (workers' councils ridding us of the need for overbearing centralisation and bureaucracy i.e. the state. I know this is a difficult idea for some to understand).

[Strannik]

I think that people in current society fail to consider how terrible it is to be "freerider" in a communist society. On what would such a "freerider" base their self-respect? They are surrounded by people for whom there is no difference between work and reward. I want something, I'm willing to work for it. The ability to contribute to society is the single source of respect in communist society where commodity fetishism is long dead. Yes, I think that such people might appear; failed artists, people who have perhaps caused an accident, people who refuse to work with others to maintain a illusory self-image. But the thing is - there is no way that their status would be seen as desirable by society at large. In communism, lazy people are simply pityful; therefore lazyness is an individual, not a social problem.

[Blake's Baby]

Labour credits could be an essential part of the lower phase of communism, as unlike any of this 'withering away' nonsense that is spouted by some on the left, the idea of labour credits actually presents, in concrete terms, a blueprint for the abolition of money...

I really don't understand this. It's not about 'abolishing' money, the question is, why is anyone thinking of retaining or supporting money? Money only exists because governments guarantee it. Without government guarantees, money is toilet paper. We don't need a blueprint for its abolition.

[ckaihatsu]

A free-rider is someone who benefits without compensation. Capitalists will say that in a capitalistic society free-riders will not survive because they will not earn any money (benefit) without working for it (compensation). How does communism deal with this?

If everyone shares the benefits, does that include the free-riders? And if not, isn't that another class distinction; but now between workers and free-riders? How does communism protect itself and at the same time guarantee freedom?

This apparent "weakness" has been attacked many times by capitalists. I would like to know how to counter these attacks effectively.


The trick employed here is the implication of a 'zero-sum' game, indicating that one hour of productive work confers a reward of one hour of consumerist leisure. This trick works, especially in casual or rapid-fire contexts, because the prevailing social benchmark is eight hours of work, eight hours of personal time, and eight hours of sleep.

A moment of thought, though, reveals that actually *subscribing* to such an assumption would turn one into a willing fool. Certainly there's *far more* production created than what one hour of one's work produces -- this would probably be true even *without* the labor-multiplying industrial and computerized systems of implementation used today.

This shows the hazards of using 'ethical' or 'moral' subjectivities when approaching this subject, since they are out-of-touch with actual material productivity.

[ckaihatsu]

[I]f you only have some people contributing and others, who are capable, not contributing, that is unfair. Unless you do some rotating shifts.


I differ with any 'ethical' or 'moral' approaches to this question, on *material* grounds -- the subjectivity involved in either formulating a standard policy for 'fairness' or else defaulting to a case-by-case judgment, would rely too much on the vagaries of administration and would be too unwieldy and controversial.





Labour credits bear no monetary denomination, and no 'value' relative to the exchange-ratio of commodities or services. In other words, a labour credit can be seen as an adjudication of a set amount of socially necessary labour time. Receipt of the labour credit allows the recipient access to whichever goods he/she wants. The only restrictions being that which is not produced, as decided democratically in workplace councils.

That is my vision, anyway. I know not everyone has such a keen sense for council democracy and the abolition of things. :rolleyes:


This is self-contradictory. Which is it, this part...





Labour credits bear no monetary denomination, and no 'value' relative to the exchange-ratio of commodities or services.


Or this part...?





Receipt of the labour credit allows the recipient access to whichever goods he/she wants.


If this formulation of a labor credit system is meant to just be a 'checkmark' that socially necessarily labor time has been contributed, as is indicated in the first part, then there could be no set standard as to what constitutes 'socially necessary labor' for everyone. People's abilities vary and some sort of political process would have to be involved for determining people's abilities on a case-by-case basis. This would invite specialization of administration on this matter and could easily lead to an elitist control over liberated labor.

And if this version of the labor credit is *more* than just a checkmark, as the second part indicates, then the possession of greater numbers of labor credits would confer a greater purchasing power over goods and services. This would be an abstraction of material value and would necessarily involve *ratios* to be established for the exchange of labor credits for various material items. The determination of these ratios would necessitate some kind of administration, which would invite specialization and elitism since much could be gained by diverging the official ratios away from actual material realities.





If it turns out that free-riders are a problem there is two solutions:

1. Labour credits


This, as just mentioned, is subject to the politics around deciding on what ratios to establish for the exchange of goods and services to abstracted valuations, and for what ratios to establish for what kinds of liberated labor, and how much, for the receipt of formal tokens of value.





2. A right to consume part of the total product for everyone, but a duty to contribute in part to the total product for those able-bodied (thus exception for students, young people, old people, and handicapped).


This, like above, necessitates a specialization of administration to define what 'duty' is, on a case-by-case basis, and how it would directly relate to proportional consumption of the total product. It would be inherently prone to bureaucratic elitism over the decision-making over these matters.





My preference is for an energy accounting system whereby everyone gets an equal, non-transferable share of society's total energy output for a certain period. The energy cost of things like utilities and transportation would be included in the energy cost of running society, since pretty much everybody uses them. Labour is highly variable and to a degree subjective (which is harder, doing quadratic equations all day or emptying an entire neighbourhood's bins? I'd say it depends who you ask), whereas energy is a physical phenomenon that is directly measurable.


I agree that the determination of the relative value of different types of (liberated) labor can be too subjective in its method, and therefore controversial.

But the answer is not to *sidestep* the question in a bid to find objective-type valuations *outside* of people's labor efforts. Externalizing the basis of value *away* from labor, to a material resource, then leaves unanswered the question of why everyone should work to the extent of making an undifferentiated amount of energy available to everyone, when people will in reality have more-personalized, *varying* requirements for energy usage.

If such a method is implemented nonetheless it will only invite the use of markets as a way of redistributing the identical parcels according to a more-realistic, individualized supply-and-demand.

And if such person-to-person transfers are disallowed, a definite, distinct class-like schism would open up, with an 'official' faction supporting the imposition of the energy accounting system, against those who would want something that better takes into account *their own* individual labor efforts and individual energy consumption requirements.





During the dictatorship of the proletariat, the capitalists would not be capable of accumulating because 1) they don't have the means to and 2) labour credits are not transferable, so they can't circulate.


Actually, it turns out, from my own considerations of various approaches, that a viable post-capitalist political economy *should* use a system of labor credits that *do* circulate -- with a caveat:





To clarify and simplify, the labor credits system is like a cash-only economy that only works for *services* (labor), while the world of material implements, resources, and products is open-access and non-abstractable. (No financial valuations.) Given the world's current capacity for an abundance of productivity for the most essential items, there should be no doubt about producing a ready surplus of anything that's important, to satisfy every single person's basic humane needs.

[I]t would only be fair that those who put in the actual (liberated) labor to produce anything should also be able to get 'first dibs' of anything they produce.

In practice [...] everything would be pre-planned, so the workers would just factor in their own personal requirements as part of the project or production run. (Nothing would be done on a speculative or open-ended basis, the way it's done now, so all recipients and orders would be pre-determined -- it would make for minimal waste.)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11269

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If this formulation of a labor credit system is meant to just be a 'checkmark' that socially necessarily labor time has been contributed, as is indicated in the first part, then there could be no set standard as to what constitutes 'socially necessary labor' for everyone. People's abilities vary and some sort of political process would have to be involved for determining people's abilities on a case-by-case basis. This would invite specialization of administration on this matter and could easily lead to an elitist control over liberated labor.

And if this version of the labor credit is *more* than just a checkmark, as the second part indicates, then the possession of greater numbers of labor credits would confer a greater purchasing power over goods and services. This would be an abstraction of material value and would necessarily involve *ratios* to be established for the exchange of labor credits for various material items. The determination of these ratios would necessitate some kind of administration, which would invite specialization and elitism since much could be gained by diverging the official ratios away from actual material realities.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant the former: that there is either 0 or 1 labour voucher award per period, per worker, effectively like a checkmark.

By de-centralising both the political and economic administration, we can devolve these labour voucher awarding decisions especially to a special committee of workers at local/workplace level. By ensuring that membership of this voucher council is both limited to one month at a time (e.g. nobody serves consecutive terms), and demarchic, then given the abolition of money and the very nature of labour vouchers, there is little chance of any corruption. Moreover, the de-centralised nature of the decision making means that the decision is being made not according to some technocratic checklist of what constitutes 'socially necessary labour time', but based on a personal decision of a workers' efforts over the previous month, by those who have worked alongside the worker, know them personally, know their job role etc.

So nobody can possess more than 1 labour voucher per month, they are non-transferrable. When I said they bear no relation to the value of goods, what I meant was that there is no situation where a Ferrari costs 1 voucher and an apple can be bought with 0.1 vouchers. What I meant was that 1 labour voucher awarded allows unlimited access to goods produced, with 0 labour vouchers perhaps allowing only limited access to goods produced.

The advantage of having this monthly system, decided by one's peers and the system of demarchic committee membership, is that no 'inequality' can become entrenched. If someone puts in a poor effort one month and their peers deny them access to luxury goods, then they can improve their effort and have access to all goods no more than one month later.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I really don't understand this. It's not about 'abolishing' money, the question is, why is anyone thinking of retaining or supporting money? Money only exists because governments guarantee it. Without government guarantees, money is toilet paper. We don't need a blueprint for its abolition.

You still have to have some sort of methodology for production and consumption of goods, and short of declaring 'Socialist man' somehow morally superior and visioning a utopia post-market society where there is suddenly abundance in production and distribution merely because there is Socialism, there has to be a fair, practical and justifiable incentive for relating productive inputs to consumptive outputs. Otherwise corruption will flourish and shortages will lead to black markets an the undermining of the 'official' economy and, by extension, political system, as we've seen every time a formal, centrally planned economy has been put into place.

[ckaihatsu]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant the former: that there is either 0 or 1 labour voucher award per period, per worker, effectively like a checkmark.


Okay. Thanks for clarifying.





By de-centralising both the political and economic administration, we can devolve these labour voucher awarding decisions especially to a special committee of workers at local/workplace level. By ensuring that membership of this voucher council is both limited to one month at a time (e.g. nobody serves consecutive terms), and demarchic, then given the abolition of money and the very nature of labour vouchers, there is little chance of any corruption. Moreover, the de-centralised nature of the decision making means that the decision is being made not according to some technocratic checklist of what constitutes 'socially necessary labour time', but based on a personal decision of a workers' efforts over the previous month, by those who have worked alongside the worker, know them personally, know their job role etc.




So nobody can possess more than 1 labour voucher per month, they are non-transferrable. When I said they bear no relation to the value of goods, what I meant was that there is no situation where a Ferrari costs 1 voucher and an apple can be bought with 0.1 vouchers. What I meant was that 1 labour voucher awarded allows unlimited access to goods produced, with 0 labour vouchers perhaps allowing only limited access to goods produced.

The advantage of having this monthly system, decided by one's peers and the system of demarchic committee membership, is that no 'inequality' can become entrenched. If someone puts in a poor effort one month and their peers deny them access to luxury goods, then they can improve their effort and have access to all goods no more than one month later.


Okay, so this is like academic peer-review for all fields of labor.

I wouldn't be as concerned with the possibility of corruption with this method as I would be with the unintentional emergence of unfulfillable expectations on a broad scale. I say this because, while most would doubtlessly be able to contribute up to and beyond the threshold of socially necessary labor, once they did they would want to gain access to a larger array of consumer goods that they expect *others* to provide.

Please note the difference in thresholds here -- there's a 'zero' threshold for *receiving* a minimum staple for basic life and living, but only a 'one' threshold for receiving full access to any and all goods produced. On the *production* side, though, a 'one' threshold will only supply socially necessary labor, presumably according to the 'minimum staple' standard, with no guarantee that anything *beyond* that will be produced for society.

And, since this is locality / locally determined, I would see such a process as inherently dampening down potentialities for more-complex and larger-scale types of production, since the coordination of such across localities could easily be vetoed at any local level as being "not socially necessary".

[Blake's Baby]

You still have to have some sort of methodology for production and consumption of goods, and short of declaring 'Socialist man' somehow morally superior and visioning a utopia post-market society where there is suddenly abundance in production and distribution merely because there is Socialism...

yeah, go on...


... there has to be a fair, practical and justifiable incentive for relating productive inputs to consumptive outputs...


No there doesn't. Therer has to be production for need. Those who can produce need to produce for those who need (and in the vast majority of cases producers and consumers are the same people) because otherwise stuff doesn't get done. I can't sit around whining about not having any power if I don't help out at the powerplant.


... Otherwise corruption will flourish and shortages will lead to black markets an the undermining of the 'official' economy and, by extension, political system, as we've seen every time a formal, centrally planned economy has been put into place.

Difficult to set up a black market without money, I'd have thought. Unless you think we'll all be trading blow-jobs for ... what? ... behind the communal bikesheds. I'm not sure what you mean here by an 'official... formal centrally-planned economy'. I'm guessing that a great deal of production will be more localised than it is now, as there are no 'economies of scale' or other economic distorting factors to worry about.

Communities will decide priorities - needs - and production centres will produce to fulfill them. Why does one need vouchers for that?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I agree that the determination of the relative value of different types of (liberated) labor can be too subjective in its method, and therefore controversial.

But the answer is not to *sidestep* the question in a bid to find objective-type valuations *outside* of people's labor efforts. Externalizing the basis of value *away* from labor, to a material resource, then leaves unanswered the question of why everyone should work to the extent of making an undifferentiated amount of energy available to everyone, when people will in reality have more-personalized, *varying* requirements for energy usage.

Hence the equal allocation of Energy Credits (after factoring the energy costs of maintaining society as a whole), which are used according to one's wishes.


If such a method is implemented nonetheless it will only invite the use of markets as a way of redistributing the identical parcels according to a more-realistic, individualized supply-and-demand.

Identical parcels? Whut? Every product or service would have a certain value of Energy Credits associated with it, derived from continually-updated measurements of the energy consumed (remembering to include wasted energy and other inefficiencies) at all points from start to finish. It would already be "individualised" in that people would be able to choose what products/services to use up their Energy Credits with.


And if such person-to-person transfers are disallowed, a definite, distinct class-like schism would open up, with an 'official' faction supporting the imposition of the energy accounting system, against those who would want something that better takes into account *their own* individual labor efforts and individual energy consumption requirements.

How so? Any kind of production process can be analysed and measured and thus integrated into an energy accounting system. How Energy Credits are used is up to the individual receiving them, indeed such choice is necessary in order for the system to work.

[Misanthrope]

Typical capitalist argument: always assuming workers are lazy parasites and at their disposal.

[ckaihatsu]

I agree that the determination of the relative value of different types of (liberated) labor can be too subjective in its method, and therefore controversial.

But the answer is not to *sidestep* the question in a bid to find objective-type valuations *outside* of people's labor efforts. Externalizing the basis of value *away* from labor, to a material resource, then leaves unanswered the question of why everyone should work to the extent of making an undifferentiated amount of energy available to everyone, when people will in reality have more-personalized, *varying* requirements for energy usage.





Hence the equal allocation of Energy Credits (after factoring the energy costs of maintaining society as a whole), which are used according to one's wishes.


You're not understanding -- people may well object that they shouldn't have to work beyond the amount needed for fulfilling everyone's customized, *individual* requirements for energy. By maintaining a flat, undifferentiated goal of energy provision, through energy credits, the work required to produce that set rate may easily be more than what society actually needs -- an unjustifiable definition of 'socially necessary labor'.

The mismatch between produced supplies of energy -- a surplus -- and that of actual consumer needs, would encourage a bartering of energy credits to rationalize their distribution, leading to a market-type system.





If such a method is implemented nonetheless it will only invite the use of markets as a way of redistributing the identical parcels according to a more-realistic, individualized supply-and-demand.





Identical parcels? Whut? Every product or service would have a certain value of Energy Credits associated with it, derived from continually-updated measurements of the energy consumed (remembering to include wasted energy and other inefficiencies) at all points from start to finish. It would already be "individualised" in that people would be able to choose what products/services to use up their Energy Credits with.


That's fine as far as matching up material energy supplies to productive requirements for energy, but it does *not* match total energy produced to people's actual real-world usage of it. It's an arbitrary allocation of fixed energy portions to everyone, without attempting to survey in advance how much energy *should* be produced. (In other words, it should be assumed that all people *would* cash-in all of their energy credits, and to pre-plan enough production to accomodate that, correct -- ?)





And if such person-to-person transfers are disallowed, a definite, distinct class-like schism would open up, with an 'official' faction supporting the imposition of the energy accounting system, against those who would want something that better takes into account *their own* individual labor efforts and individual energy consumption requirements.





How so? Any kind of production process can be analysed and measured and thus integrated into an energy accounting system. How Energy Credits are used is up to the individual receiving them, indeed such choice is necessary in order for the system to work.


Terrific, and maybe I'm missing something here, but an energy credit is too crude a measurement for determining exactly *what kinds* of production should take place for the fulfillment of those energy credits.

I'll argue that, from what I've heard so far, this method is too 'supply-side' and makes presumptions about people's actual needs and desires for productivity.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Please note the difference in thresholds here -- there's a 'zero' threshold for *receiving* a minimum staple for basic life and living, but only a 'one' threshold for receiving full access to any and all goods produced. On the *production* side, though, a 'one' threshold will only supply socially necessary labor, presumably according to the 'minimum staple' standard, with no guarantee that anything *beyond* that will be produced for society.

And, since this is locality / locally determined, I would see such a process as inherently dampening down potentialities for more-complex and larger-scale types of production, since the coordination of such across localities could easily be vetoed at any local level as being "not socially necessary".

That's a legitimate weakness, something I didn't think about and certainly needs to be adjusted.

But still, the basic methodology stands. You have a threshold below which, the inputted value of labour is judged to be worth zero labour vouchers, and above which - above and to infinite - the inputted value of labour is judged to be worth one labour voucher. This threshold needs to be necessarily high, so as to provide incentive for high levels of productive effort. Again, I don't believe that simply because Socialism exists, that production per capita will magically increase. There HAS to be some sort of incentive, and by introducing labour vouchers we are enforcing a divergence between incentives and monetary remuneration, thereby setting in place the potential for the total eradication of money. This is concrete.

What I clearly need to work on is where this threshold lies (not exactly, but in terms of productive levels based on what sort of output they produce). I will have a think about this.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No there doesn't. Therer has to be production for need. Those who can produce need to produce for those who need (and in the vast majority of cases producers and consumers are the same people) because otherwise stuff doesn't get done. I can't sit around whining about not having any power if I don't help out at the powerplant.

What is need? Is need subsistence? Or is need the production of plenty? Your view is too assumptive: it assumes that producing at the level of 'need' will both satisfy consumer demand, and that it will be possible to have the productive level high enough without incentives. I don't believe that the destruction of Capitalism and rise of workers' political power will lead to a rise in productive levels on its own. Incentives are still needed, and as i've said above, by divorcing incentives and money, we make concrete movements towards a non-monetary economy.

Also, you say that we don't need incentives in production, but then you say "I can't sit around whining about not having any power if I don't help out at the powerplant." Ignoring the crude nature of this analogy, you are essentially agreeing with me - your work is factory work at the powerplant and your incentive is power. I'm saying, let's make the incentive the ability to consume aplenty, and let's divorce it from any financial considerations. It's a transition step towards a moneyless economy.



Communities will decide priorities - needs - and production centres will produce to fulfill them. Why does one need vouchers for that?

1. You're making the assumption that productive centres will merely bow their heads and be able to produce at the level of demand. This will not be the case without some incentive to do so.

2. There is no point communities deciding priorities if there is a divorce from the production process. Besides, most people don't merely consume priorities (well, they do in Capitalism, but it's not their aspiration). I'm fairly sure most workers will not be happy merely consuming basic goods. Thus, there will need to be a higher level of productive output so that wants, as well as needs, are freely available to be consumed by those who put a reasonable effort into the production process.

[ckaihatsu]

That's a legitimate weakness, something I didn't think about and certainly needs to be adjusted.


Well, I don't mean to be dismissively ultra-left or overly skeptical or nit-picky. Nonetheless I think it's valuable to hash out some of the generalities, if only so that we can say we have a tentative plan ready-to-go for when capitalism collapses.





But still, the basic methodology stands. You have a threshold below which, the inputted value of labour is judged to be worth zero labour vouchers, and above which - above and to infinite - the inputted value of labour is judged to be worth one labour voucher.


This is not a bad place to start, and I think it immediately speaks to the principle of a workers *political* economy -- the actual threshold would be a political issue, one to be collectively determined outside of the machinations of abstracted (capital) valuations.





This threshold needs to be necessarily high, so as to provide incentive for high levels of productive effort.


Curiously enough, this would be *your own* position in the context of such a threshold-based system.





Again, I don't believe that simply because Socialism exists, that production per capita will magically increase. There HAS to be some sort of incentive,


I tend to agree here -- beyond everyone's basic human needs, and various calls for higher-quality goods and services, there will have to be a way of addressing, and compensating, the liberated labor required for such more-discretionary productivity.





and by introducing labour vouchers we are enforcing a divergence between incentives and monetary remuneration, thereby setting in place the potential for the total eradication of money. This is concrete.




What I clearly need to work on is where this threshold lies (not exactly, but in terms of productive levels based on what sort of output they produce). I will have a think about this.


If you like, though attempting to resolve specifics in an as-yet unrealized scenario is just being speculative within an imaginary construction -- 'thinking in a vacuum'.

[Blake's Baby]

What is need? Is need subsistence? Or is need the production of plenty? Your view is too assumptive: it assumes that producing at the level of 'need' will both satisfy consumer demand...


What? This makes no sense.

What on earth do you mean by 'consumer demand' here? 'Need' = 'consumer demand'. We decide what we need, we decide how we're going to make it, we make it. There's no 'market', there's no 'let's see what we can produce and what people will take', there's no speculation. There's demand, and there's production to fulfill that demand. What's the problem?


...and that it will be possible to have the productive level high enough without incentives. I don't believe that the destruction of Capitalism and rise of workers' political power will lead to a rise in productive levels on its own. Incentives are still needed, and as i've said above, by divorcing incentives and money, we make concrete movements towards a non-monetary economy...

You don't think 'if you don't work, you starve to death cold and in the dark with no shoes in your own shit' is an incentive? Coz I sure do.


...
Also, you say that we don't need incentives in production, but then you say "I can't sit around whining about not having any power if I don't help out at the powerplant." Ignoring the crude nature of this analogy, you are essentially agreeing with me - your work is factory work at the powerplant and your incentive is power. I'm saying, let's make the incentive the ability to consume aplenty, and let's divorce it from any financial considerations. It's a transition step towards a moneyless economy...

Money has ceased to exist, why do you want to move back towards a moneyed economy?


...
1. You're making the assumption that productive centres will merely bow their heads and be able to produce at the level of demand. This will not be the case without some incentive to do so...

What 'productive centres' are you talking about? You seem to have this weird notion that some kind of corporation or something will exist. Why?

If you're talking about factories or plants or whatever, why on earth would (let's say) I stand up and argue that I need more power (consumer demand/need), then go to work at the power plant and say, 'well if that eejit Blake thinks I'm going to make any power for myself, he's as big an eejit as he thinks I am', and all my neighbours, who also want power, say, 'yeah we're all eejits, let's not generate any power for ourselves, that will be a right laugh'? Really, explain why you think that scenario is likely or sensible, and I might be able to see your point; otherwise it just seems ... rubbish.


2. There is no point communities deciding priorities if there is a divorce from the production process...

Why is there a divorce from the production process? Why are you positing this complex productive structure that isn't in the control of the working class? Why are you ytrying to re-introduce capitalism as the rest of us are busy abolishing it?


... Besides, most people don't merely consume priorities (well, they do in Capitalism, but it's not their aspiration). I'm fairly sure most workers will not be happy merely consuming basic goods...

What have 'basic goods' got to do with anything? 'Needs' come first - then 'wants'. Bread for all, before Ferraris for anyone, as a rule of thumb. But there's no necessity to stop at bread. What society decides we need, we produce. We produce it because we want to have it, there's the 'incentive'


...Thus, there will need to be a higher level of productive output so that wants, as well as needs, are freely available to be consumed by those who put a reasonable effort into the production process.

Much earlier I suggested a 'passport'-style idea. 'I have worked; I can consume'. Not 'I have worked x-amount of hours, I am entitled to y-value of goods form the social store'.

'From each according to their ability; to each according their needs'. If there's a surplus, if there are non-necessary things that aren't in infinite supply, I'm happy that there should be a system in place so that those who contribute to society can access them. But there's no need for any kind of 'accounting' beyond 'have they contributed to society?' and if the answer is 'yes' then they qualify.

[Agent]

It is called a 'Worker's Revolution'. Not an 'Unemployed Hanger On Revolution'.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What? This makes no sense.

What on earth do you mean by 'consumer demand' here? 'Need' = 'consumer demand'. We decide what we need, we decide how we're going to make it, we make it. There's no 'market', there's no 'let's see what we can produce and what people will take', there's no speculation. There's demand, and there's production to fulfill that demand. What's the problem?



You don't think 'if you don't work, you starve to death cold and in the dark with no shoes in your own shit' is an incentive? Coz I sure do.



Money has ceased to exist, why do you want to move back towards a moneyed economy?



What 'productive centres' are you talking about? You seem to have this weird notion that some kind of corporation or something will exist. Why?

If you're talking about factories or plants or whatever, why on earth would (let's say) I stand up and argue that I need more power (consumer demand/need), then go to work at the power plant and say, 'well if that eejit Blake thinks I'm going to make any power for myself, he's as big an eejit as he thinks I am', and all my neighbours, who also want power, say, 'yeah we're all eejits, let's not generate any power for ourselves, that will be a right laugh'? Really, explain why you think that scenario is likely or sensible, and I might be able to see your point; otherwise it just seems ... rubbish.



Why is there a divorce from the production process? Why are you positing this complex productive structure that isn't in the control of the working class? Why are you ytrying to re-introduce capitalism as the rest of us are busy abolishing it?



What have 'basic goods' got to do with anything? 'Needs' come first - then 'wants'. Bread for all, before Ferraris for anyone, as a rule of thumb. But there's no necessity to stop at bread. What society decides we need, we produce. We produce it because we want to have it, there's the 'incentive'



Much earlier I suggested a 'passport'-style idea. 'I have worked; I can consume'. Not 'I have worked x-amount of hours, I am entitled to y-value of goods form the social store'.

'From each according to their ability; to each according their needs'. If there's a surplus, if there are non-necessary things that aren't in infinite supply, I'm happy that there should be a system in place so that those who contribute to society can access them. But there's no need for any kind of 'accounting' beyond 'have they contributed to society?' and if the answer is 'yes' then they qualify.

You seem confused as to the nature of 'needs', hence my question about it.

At the top of the post you suggest that need = consumer demand, implying that need encompasses the entirety of demand and thus productive levels, or supply, must at least equal this demand. Yet later in the post you distinguish between 'needs' and 'wants', implying that 'needs' are only one part of consumer demand. This is what I meant about the difficulty in appropriating productive levels - where should they aim to meet? Basic need, or the entirety of consumer demand (i.e. including luxury goods)? It's not as simple as merely saying, "here is a workers' council, here is democracy, supply will equal demand, money will be abolished and this system will just work perfectly".

Secondly, I don't think that ANY Socialist society can really exist without some welfare element. I don't mean financial welfare, but I mean that certain people (or anyone, in this regard) who produces zero or close to zero, should still have access to a basket of goods that covers their needs. Moreover, those who cannot produce - the physically and mentally disabled - and who will never be able to produce, should not be confined to a live of destitution and material poverty. They should surely be allowed (even in cases where they cannot at all take part in the production process) access to a wider range of goods than just 'needs'. Anything otherwise strikes me as inherently unfair.

You're accusing me of trying to re-introduce Capitalism, but i'm not. I'm working from the assumption that we're at the day after revolution - the bourgeoisie has been expropriated but people still need to buy bread, money still exists, nothing is worked out. In my mind, to simply just say 'money is abolished, here are workers' councils, go live in utopia' is a dereliction of our duty as politically conscious Socialists. We have to find a way where, instead of just saying 'oh the state and money will just be abolished/wither away', we have to find a way to actually get to the stage where society can exist without money and without a state. To my mind, it is not that controversial to suggest a system where workers' councils make it possible to de-centralise political administration/economic decisions, and labour credits disengage money from the economy.

And lastly, it's too simplistic to just say, "what society says it needs/wants, we produce". It has to be a more two way process. There is no point society saying it needs things that cannot be produced and conversely, there is no point society saying what it needs/wants if the production side can produce more. Workers' councils will obviously contain both producers and consumers, and there needs to be a dialogue, based on what it is known can be produced, in order to decide productive levels.

Again, the question of what are needs, what are wants and what makes up consumer demand really is crucial here.

[Blake's Baby]

You seem confused as to the nature of 'needs', hence my question about it.

At the top of the post you suggest that need = consumer demand, implying that need encompasses the entirety of demand and thus productive levels, or supply, must at least equal this demand...

No, I don't (I emboldened the part I'm disagreeing with here) - I think production should seek to meet demand.



... Yet later in the post you distinguish between 'needs' and 'wants', implying that 'needs' are only one part of consumer demand...

Right, I wasn't aware that people didn't know the difference between 'needs' and wants'; but in essence, 'needs' are socially-decided - "we need x-amount of food to feed y-amount of people, we need x-amount of glass to fix the windows in y-amount of people's houses and community buildings, we need x-amount of power to supply the homes and workplaces and communal spaces of y-amount of people, we, the y-people's soviet have decided this" - and 'wants' are individually-determined - "I want a boat, I don't 'need' a boat" - and/or socially-determined non-necessities - "the y-people's soviet has determined that getting a boat would be good, as we could park it on the river and take kids for trips in it, they'll enjoy that. But frankly if it's a choice between enough food and a boat to take the kids on river-trips, food is more important at the moment."

'Needs', which must be prioritised in production, will be whatever we communally decide our needs are.


... This is what I meant about the difficulty in appropriating productive levels - where should they aim to meet? Basic need, or the entirety of consumer demand (i.e. including luxury goods)? It's not as simple as merely saying, "here is a workers' council, here is democracy, supply will equal demand, money will be abolished and this system will just work perfectly"...

I doubt it will work perfectly. Why imply I did? They should 'aim to meet' (and at first it will just be an 'aim', we will not hit all targets, but we should will obviously be able to adjust as we go along) where we decide they should meet. Isn't that what 'aim' means? We set targets based on what we decide we need, we try to meet those targets, stuff that isn't prioritised as highly maybe will, maybe won't, get done.



...
Secondly, I don't think that ANY Socialist society can really exist without some welfare element. I don't mean financial welfare, but I mean that certain people (or anyone, in this regard) who produces zero or close to zero, should still have access to a basket of goods that covers their needs...

OK, in principle I agree, but the argument is not about a society of abundance, is it? We're still talking about a situation where there are shortages, aren't we?


... Moreover, those who cannot produce - the physically and mentally disabled - and who will never be able to produce, should not be confined to a live of destitution and material poverty...

No-one said they should, so I don't know who you're arguing against here. We're discussing what should be done about people who deliberately violate the principle of 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need'.


... They should surely be allowed (even in cases where they cannot at all take part in the production process) access to a wider range of goods than just 'needs'. Anything otherwise strikes me as inherently unfair...

Again, don't know who you're arguing against here.


... You're accusing me of trying to re-introduce Capitalism, but i'm not...

OK, fair point if 'trying' means 'deliberately seeking to'. I don't think you're 'deliberately seeking to reintroduce capitalism', I think that you're 'deliberately trying to introduce a system that, whether you realise it or not, is a step towards the reintroduction of capitalism'.


... I'm working from the assumption that we're at the day after revolution - the bourgeoisie has been expropriated but people still need to buy bread, money still exists, nothing is worked out...

Why? How? Who's guaranteeing the money?




... In my mind, to simply just say 'money is abolished, here are workers' councils, go live in utopia' is a dereliction of our duty as politically conscious Socialists...

And who's saying this? You don't need to 'abolish' money, you need to stop allowing it to live. You're saying 'the workers councils will continue to operate the capitalist economy'. That's a dereliction of our duty as socialists. Why are you saying it?


... We have to find a way where, instead of just saying 'oh the state and money will just be abolished/wither away', we have to find a way to actually get to the stage where society can exist without money and without a state...

The state relies on classes, classes rely on property... the state will not wither away until property and classes cease to exist. Wanting to retain aspects of property relations are not a way that this will happen.


... To my mind, it is not that controversial to suggest a system where workers' councils make it possible to de-centralise political administration/economic decisions, and labour credits disengage money from the economy...

I'm with you until the 'labour credits' part. I see them as neither necessary nor desirable.


... And lastly, it's too simplistic to just say, "what society says it needs/wants, we produce". It has to be a more two way process. There is no point society saying it needs things that cannot be produced and conversely, there is no point society saying what it needs/wants if the production side can produce more...

Oh, no, totally wrong on both counts.

If society needs jumblies and no jumblies are produced, then a way to produce them needs to be found.

If society needs a million jumblies, then producing 50 million jumblies is stupid and a waste of resources that be used to produce flumps.


... Workers' councils will obviously contain both producers and consumers, and there needs to be a dialogue, based on what it is known can be produced, in order to decide productive levels...

Never said anything to contradict this.

But if we decide we need a million jumblies, and we produce 5 jumblies, we obviously need to find ways of upping our jumblie production. Training of jumblie-production workers, production of jumblifiers, that sort of thing.


... Again, the question of what are needs, what are wants and what makes up consumer demand really is crucial here.

Again, I don't disagree. I hope it's clearer what I mean.