If work is voluntary [Archive]

helot

28th September 2012, 19:52

OK. So let's think this through:

The community has decided to train people to be engineers, doctors, ect ect ect. They have spent a lot of time and resources in doing so.

So what does the community say? Does it say to the doctor Go forth and heal? No it says Go forth and clean a public toilet.

Why is a community stronger because it takes the services of that doctor away from the community for such a task? Isn't in fact weaker? And what about the time lost in training to improve his or her medical skills? Isn't that also a loss to the community?

And why is the community stronger when nobody is particularly skilled in such work? Isn't the community stronger when there are people who know and are masters of the unpleasant tasks of society? That they do their job as opposed to volunteers on a rotating basis- people who will never have the training skills as part time as they would doing it full-time?

A community isn't some abstract entity nor just a collection of atomised individuals, it encompasses the social bonds between people. A community is stronger when the social bonds are stronger.

Are you telling me that someone with medical training lacks the skills to clean? People are more than capable of being skilled in multiple things and more than capable of doing two different things at two different times.

You should also take into account what i actually said. First of, i said "probably", giving the implication that i'm not setting out some blueprint but a possible solution to a problem within a society of liberated labour. The nuts and bolts of sorting out such a problem will be upto those in that society.

You'll also notice that i said 'necessary tasks that no one wants to do'. It doesn't take a leap of logic to think that people who already do tasks in which there's a shortage of labour wouldn't have to take part in other necessary tasks in which there's a huge shortage.

Supposing though that there isn't a shortage of doctors then why shouldn't they engage in necessary tasks that there is a shortage of? Is it not the responsibility of people living in an area to make sure that it's not covered in filth?

I know your solution, though, dispossession and coercion.

Mass Grave Aesthetics

28th September 2012, 19:52

Of course, one could simply resolve this problem by adopting capitalist methods. Why are re-inventing the wheel?
Why indeed?!

I actually think we should rather force the former stockbrokers, managers and shareholders to do all the most unpleasent jobs in the community. Much better than automation.

Ostrinski

28th September 2012, 20:08

If a system of voluntary labor cannot work then socialism will fail.

Ostrinski

28th September 2012, 20:08

Why indeed?!

I actually think we should rather force the former stockbrokers, managers and shareholders to do all the most unpleasent jobs in the community. Much better than automation.slave labor eh

Baseball

28th September 2012, 20:13

A community isn't some abstract entity nor just a collection of atomised individuals, it encompasses the social bonds between people. A community is stronger when the social bonds are stronger.

Isn't a doctor, who is trained by the community, participating in strengthening social bonds by practicing medicine, and not by cleaning bathrooms?

Are you telling me that someone with medical training lacks the skills to clean? People are more than capable of being skilled in multiple things and more than capable of doing two different things at two different times.

Sure. If that doctor wishes to devote time to cleaning bathrooms, I have no issue with it.
But you are claiming this should be a social standard- amongst ALL people, and that it is public good.
I'm suggesting it isn't.

You should also take into account what i actually said. First of, i said "probably", giving the implication that i'm not setting out some blueprint but a possible solution to a problem within a society of liberated labour. The nuts and bolts of sorting out such a problem will be upto those in that society.

fair enough. Of course, as I mentioned elsewhere, a capitalist community solves the problem by paying somebody a wage. Presumably, that is not a solution available to the liberated workers.

You'll also notice that i said 'necessary tasks that no one wants to do'. It doesn't take a leap of logic to think that people who already do tasks in which there's a shortage of labour wouldn't have to take part in other necessary tasks in which there's a huge shortage.

Its most gratifying to hear that certain "liberated" workers will not "have" to work somewhere they might not want- provide of course they are presently laboring in a field nobody else wishes.
I guess some "liberated" workers are more "liberated" than others.

Supposing though that there isn't a shortage of doctors then why shouldn't they engage in necessary tasks that there is a shortage of?

Are doctors considered "liberated" workers?
If there is a shortage of labor in a needed job, why the capitalist has a nice and benign solution-- simply pay somebody more. Thus far, the solutions of the "liberated worker" community does not seem so benign.

I
s it not the responsibility of people living in an area to make sure that it's not covered in filth?

Sure-- what and in what amount are resources are those people prepared to give up in order to find people to do so? Or do they expect somebody should provide that service at no cost to them?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

28th September 2012, 20:17

Of course, one could simply resolve this problem by adopting capitalist methods. Why are re-inventing the wheel?

Wheels are fine if you want to roll along the ground. But we intend to be flying, so we're going to need some kind of wing...

Mass Grave Aesthetics

28th September 2012, 20:27

slave labor eh
I was being ironic. I was responding to Baseball´s suggestion on just resorting to capitalist methods, not seriously suggesting forced labour.

helot

28th September 2012, 20:38

Isn't a doctor, who is trained by the community, participating in strengthening social bonds by practicing medicine, and not by cleaning bathrooms? You say that like there's some contradiction between practicing medicine and cleaning. They are not mutually exclusive.

Also, if practicing medicine helps strengthen social bonds, why wouldn't helping to make sure we have clean streets also strengthen social bonds?

Sure. If that doctor wishes to devote time to cleaning bathrooms, I have no issue with it.
But you are claiming this should be a social standard- amongst ALL people, and that it is public good.
I'm suggesting it isn't. Clean streets, for example, is a public good. It's also vital in the prevention of disease. The key here is how to make sure that unpopular yet necessary tasks are done without recourse to forcing people to do it. I'd maintain that the community coming to an agreement about rotating the necessary task is an equitable method. This you haven't disproven.

fair enough. Of course, as I mentioned elsewhere, a capitalist community solves the problem by paying somebody a wage. Presumably, that is not a solution available to the liberated workers. A capitalist system would not solve the problem because it necessitates a dispossessed class and systemic coercion.

Its most gratifying to hear that certain "liberated" workers will not "have" to work somewhere they might not want- provide of course they are presently laboring in a field nobody else wishes.
I guess some "liberated" workers are more "liberated" than others.

You fail to understand what im actually saying.

Are doctors considered "liberated" workers?
If there is a shortage of labor in a needed job, why the capitalist has a nice and benign solution-- simply pay somebody more. Thus far, the solutions of the "liberated worker" community does not seem so benign.

Ironic then that you consider systemic coercion as being benign yet a community lacking such systemic coercion reaching a democratic agreement on how to solve such a problem (of which i gave one possible solution) as being malignant. I think you may need to look in a dictionary.

Sure-- what and in what amount are resources are those people prepared to give up in order to find people to do so? Or do they expect somebody should provide that service at no cost to them?
I think the cost is obvious; food, housing, clothing, education, tools etc.

The Douche

28th September 2012, 20:42

Either people will volunteer their labor power, or they won't and we will figure out a solution, or abandon the task.

Baseball

28th September 2012, 20:52

You say that like there's some contradiction between practicing medicine and cleaning. They are not mutually exclusive.

I am saying that if the community trains a doctor and sends that doctor off to clean he streets, the community is losing the services of that doctor.

Also, if practicing medicine helps strengthen social bonds, why wouldn't helping to make sure we have clean streets also strengthen social bonds?

Fine. Then the government can tax the doctor on his earnings and pay somebody to clean the street. That way the community has the services of the doctor as well as clean streets. This seems a better solution, yes?

Clean streets, for example, is a public good. It's also vital in the prevention of disease. The key here is how to make sure that unpopular yet necessary tasks are done without recourse to forcing people to do it. I'd maintain that the community coming to an agreement about rotating the necessary task is an equitable method. This you haven't disproven.

Unless the community vote needs to be 100%, somebody will be forced.
Of course, the community could just vote to HIRE somebody who is willing to do it, rather than drafting somebody via alottery.

Ironic then that you consider systemic coercion as being benign yet a community lacking such systemic coercion reaching a democratic agreement on how to solve such a problem (of which i gave one possible solution) as being malignant. I think you may need to look in a dictionary.

Unless that democratic vote requires it to be 100% for or against, you have not eliminated coercion.
But you have eliminated skilled people, for a time, doing for the community that which they are trained and skilled to do.

I think the cost is obvious; food, housing, clothing, education, tools etc.

I suspect you misunderstood my comment.

MustCrushCapitalism

28th September 2012, 20:53

Labor vouchers, yo. Marx predicted they'd fade out of use due to lack of necessity, not that they'd suddenly be abolished or anything.

And it shouldn't really be that much of an issue. I'm sure someone would devote time to doing it, the same way someone devotes time to doing the necessary tasks in a family. If not there are still many ways the job could theoretically be allotted. We'll naturally find the most effective way of working these things out through trial and error under socialism - we can't perfectly predict just now how that will be exactly.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

29th September 2012, 01:31

If they wanna get me making toys
If they wanna get me, well, I got no choice

Careers
Careers
Careers

Jimmie Higgins

30th September 2012, 11:25

Either people will volunteer their labor power, or they won't and we will figure out a solution, or abandon the task.

Right. I think asking "who will do this specific job" after capitalism is kind of the wrong way to think about the question. Many pecific jobs and task designations only make sense from the standpoint of the way capitalism organizes labor. The question I think workers will face is: "is this task necissary for our purposes" and then, if so, they will figure out the best way to meet that need. In some things capitalism has already made some tasks potentially eiser and we can just reshape their methods to suit our needs, but many many many other tasks will have to be re-thought from the bottom up and reworked so that the work done is for our benifit rather than being the way that's just most profitable.

So if it is in the interests of workers to just clean up their own workspace at the end of the day, then "janitorial" work can be handled like that - you clean up after yourself and maybe once a month, one of the workers who shares that space spends more time doing a full cleaning and moping. Or maybe it doesn't make sense for everyone to clean a little and so you do need a dedicated cleaning crew (jobs like resturants and hospitals that need more regular and thourgough cleaning than offices or workshops) - well then people will figure out how to complete the tasks in a way that makes sense to them. If no one wants to do that work each shift they work, then the hours might be reduced to entice people and split the labor more or there might be a rotating lottery where people trade off on the tasks.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

30th September 2012, 12:04

Job rotation.

After all, even a doctor can do a janitor's job;)

Baseball

30th September 2012, 12:31

Right. I think asking "who will do this specific job" after capitalism is kind of the wrong way to think about the question. Many pecific jobs and task designations only make sense from the standpoint of the way capitalism organizes labor. The question I think workers will face is: "is this task necissary for our purposes" and then, if so, they will figure out the best way to meet that need. In some things capitalism has already made some tasks potentially eiser and we can just reshape their methods to suit our needs, but many many many other tasks will have to be re-thought from the bottom up and reworked so that the work done is for our benifit rather than being the way that's just most profitable.

But isn't the purpose to provide somebody with needed goods? Why should the work site be structured so as to make work beneficial to those workers at that site, as opposed to structured so as to deliver that product in the best way possible? They are generally not mutually complimentary to each other.

So if it is in the interests of workers to just clean up their own workspace at the end of the day, then "janitorial" work can be handled like that - you clean up after yourself and maybe once a month, one of the workers who shares that space spends more time doing a full cleaning and moping. Or maybe it doesn't make sense for everyone to clean a little and so you do need a dedicated cleaning crew (jobs like resturants and hospitals that need more regular and thourgough cleaning than offices or workshops) - well then people will figure out how to complete the tasks in a way that makes sense to them. If no one wants to do that work each shift they work, then the hours might be reduced to entice people and split the labor more or there might be a rotating lottery where people trade off on the tasks.

Why would it make sense to reduce the hours of operation of production (and thus reduce output) to task workers to clean? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply have a crew whose task is specifically to do this? Maybe they could work at multiple job sites.

Baseball

30th September 2012, 12:33

Job rotation.

After all, even a doctor can do a janitor's job;)

Not necessarily true; and why would you want the doctor to do it anyways?

Jimmie Higgins

30th September 2012, 13:08

But isn't the purpose to provide somebody with needed goods? Why should the work site be structured so as to make work beneficial to those workers at that site, as opposed to structured so as to deliver that product in the best way possible? They are generally not mutually complimentary to each other.How is it not? If people decide that toothpase is worth prioritizing and producing, then we make it, but we try and organize this labor in a way that both accomplishes the task for fufilling the use value (the need for toothpase, different varieties and so on) in a way that makes sense.

These decisions are made today, it's just that it's based on not finding the most efficient way to produce for use-value, but the most efficient way to produce surplus value, profits. And because it's oriented this way, it's hard to have any sort of collective decision-making at work, needing to cut people's wages or speed up production based on profit-reasons means getting rid of any resistance - the same with state-run operations in capitalist countries or so-called socialist states.

Why would it make sense to reduce the hours of operation of production (and thus reduce output) to task workers to clean? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply have a crew whose task is specifically to do this? Maybe they could work at multiple job sites.It would depend - if it's specalized work, then maybe it does make sense to have some people learn the skills and work on that task mainly. But if it's a matter of clearing some trash and emptying the bin, well just shifting those duties would probably be enough so that everyone just has to take a few minutes at the end of their shift rather than some people who just clean all the time.

Again, janitorial services come out of the logic of capitalism. If you can have a contact company do the janitorial services, then you can save some money - it doesn't mean it's efficient though, as anyone (like me) who's been at a job where then they decide to cut back on janitorial hours while expecting the same level of service can attest.

But my point was not to describe the perfect way to organize this taks in some future society; only to show that if there is a task that is deemed necissary for a job to be done, then workers can figure out a way to have it done.

The Douche

30th September 2012, 13:41

The question really is a non-starter. I don't know why everybody is paying it so much attention.

If nobody wants to clean up trash and shit, and nobody volunteers, then it won't be taken care of. I give it about a week and a half before there are so many volunteers to clean, that we wouldn't know what to do with all of them.

Lynx

30th September 2012, 14:24

Of course, one could simply resolve this problem by adopting capitalist methods. Why are re-inventing the wheel?
Under full employment conditions, a shortage of workers in a particular field would result in higher wages or benefits.
Hence capitalist method #1: make sure there is unemployment

Vladimir Innit Lenin

30th September 2012, 17:50

Not necessarily true; and why would you want the doctor to do it anyways?

As The Douche says, if after a week there's no food being produced and the trash is piling up, I think you'll find plenty of people finding 'value' in the jobs that capitalism doesn't value, such as the janitor's job.

barbelo

30th September 2012, 18:52

Then who will do the job of the janitor and the like?

Robots and machines.

CryingWolf

30th September 2012, 19:47

Nevermind. It's a much more complicated a question than it seems at first since the mechanisms for organizing labor would be vastly different.

Sam_b

30th September 2012, 19:50

I think the idea of machines/robots/automation or whatever fundamentally misses the point of what a socialist attitude to work is. Now, using the term 'janitor' is a poor example, in the sense that it is still a skilled job in many areas (people in Glasgow will testify to my complete ineptability to even change a lightbulb at times), but it works in the case it is seen as a manual, labouring job which is viewed down upon by several sections of society.

The problem under capitalism is not just that these jobs are poorly paid, but the fact that they are completely boring - to the point the worker feels he/she is not a real part of the 'success' of the factory or company. What we should really be supporting is the idea of revolutionising workplaces by the control of the workers. Not only is the janitor somebody that maintains the running of the building, but is someone who is invested in the company, and has a direct say in what goes on. This worker is as much a part of the 'board' as the director is, as the assembly line worker is, as the canteen staff are. Yes, by splitting the workload a lot of the labour-intensive practices are shared, but the crucial thing is the collective ownership of the means of production and value in a workplace. When each one of us, our class, is given responsibilities and say in the running of where we work then it is not merely a manual job which nobody wants to do, but rather a role that also shows our potential that has a direct responsibility within the collective.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

1st October 2012, 16:49

Sam B is absolutely right. But we must also not downplay the idea of shared responsbility/job rotation, because it's a veritable consequence of genuine common ownership, in contrast to paper common ownership. It's not enough - though of course admirable it may be - to suggest that the workplace must be controlled by the workers.

We must be more specific: not just 'revolutionising workplaces by the control of the workers', but 'revolutionising workplaces by the active, democratic and equal day-to-day control of the workplace by all the workers', it surely a better aim/slogan/whatever.

Sam B is, however, right again that a key problem with some 'menial' jobs is the boredom they entail, combined with the non-skilled nature of some (but not all) of them, means that you don't feel a part of the collective. Genuine democratic input, combined with job rotation, would eliminate the 'boredom' of work to a (hopefully greater!) degree.

Baseball

1st October 2012, 22:48

As The Douche says, if after a week there's no food being produced and the trash is piling up, I think you'll find plenty of people finding 'value' in the jobs that capitalism doesn't value, such as the janitor's job.

The problem here seems to be that the SOCIALIST does not value that job. I didn't wonder how socialism will solve the problem of securing labor in jobs which may not be terribly glamorous- I simply responded to a solution offered.

Baseball

1st October 2012, 22:49

double post

Baseball

1st October 2012, 23:01

How is it not? If people decide that toothpase is worth prioritizing and producing, then we make it, but we try and organize this labor in a way that both accomplishes the task for fufilling the use value (the need for toothpase, different varieties and so on) in a way that makes sense.

These decisions are made today, it's just that it's based on not finding the most efficient way to produce for use-value, but the most efficient way to produce surplus value, profits. And because it's oriented this way, it's hard to have any sort of collective decision-making at work, needing to cut people's wages or speed up production based on profit-reasons means getting rid of any resistance - the same with state-run operations in capitalist countries or so-called socialist states.

It would depend - if it's specalized work, then maybe it does make sense to have some people learn the skills and work on that task mainly. But if it's a matter of clearing some trash and emptying the bin, well just shifting those duties would probably be enough so that everyone just has to take a few minutes at the end of their shift rather than some people who just clean all the time.

Again, janitorial services come out of the logic of capitalism. If you can have a contact company do the janitorial services, then you can save some money - it doesn't mean it's efficient though, as anyone (like me) who's been at a job where then they decide to cut back on janitorial hours while expecting the same level of service can attest.

But my point was not to describe the perfect way to organize this taks in some future society; only to show that if there is a task that is deemed necissary for a job to be done, then workers can figure out a way to have it done.
[/QUOTE]

But thing of it is this: How the workers "figure out a way" would need to be based upon the "logic" of socialism. I am not asking for a detailed description of some perfect future society, but the "logic" which underpins. Saying the workers will "figure it out" does not seem much in the way of "logic."

Yes, decisions are made today in producing goods and services. They are based upon capitalist "logic." What is socialist "logic?" What "makes sense" as per socialist "logic?" Why is not "sensible" not "logical" in a socialist community to have workers whose job it is to clean ect ect?

Marxaveli

1st October 2012, 23:08

The "logic" of Capitalism is suppression and exploitation. The "logic" of Socialism is democracy and equality.

Jimmie Higgins

2nd October 2012, 09:42

But thing of it is this: How the workers "figure out a way" would need to be based upon the "logic" of socialism. I am not asking for a detailed description of some perfect future society, but the "logic" which underpins. Saying the workers will "figure it out" does not seem much in the way of "logic."

Yes, decisions are made today in producing goods and services. They are based upon capitalist "logic." What is socialist "logic?" What "makes sense" as per socialist "logic?" Why is not "sensible" not "logical" in a socialist community to have workers whose job it is to clean ect ect?

The logic of use value. The logic of there is a task we agree needs to be done, so if it's not particularly appealing, but necissary, then let's figure out a way. It's the logic of how people lived for most of history and how people deal with many problems today when the market isn't a factor. Empty lot in the neighborhood? How do kids figure out how to cut the grass and clear the area for a baseball game or dirt-bike track without a boss and wages? Bullying might work one afternoon, but then the bullied kids just won't go to hang out in that field after that. So something that takes some work over a couple days, requires cooperation and trading off of labor or some kind of sharing of tasks and so on.

The logic is "how do we accomplish the task with the quality we want in a way that makes the most sense to us". The logic now, is how can we accomplish this task in a way that saves us the most labor and produces the bigest profit? A concrete example is labor saving technology: capitalists use this and end up fireing people, with "socialist logic" we have increased material wealth with less effort and therfore can either spend that extra labor time on other tasks, personal enjoyment, or work the same amount of time but make that work easier.

Blake's Baby

2nd October 2012, 11:33

...
Yes, decisions are made today in producing goods and services. They are based upon capitalist "logic." What is socialist "logic?" What "makes sense" as per socialist "logic?" Why is not "sensible" not "logical" in a socialist community to have workers whose job it is to clean ect ect?

OK; capitalist logic is 'what makes money for capitalism?' - in this case, division of labour.

Socialist logic is 'what promotes the creative development of human beings?' - in this case, not having some people who are made to fit into socially-pre-defined roles.

If someone wants to spend all the hours they can in a lab doing something labby or down a hole doing something holey or with a mop doing something moppy, we're not going to stop them. But if they don't want to we're not going to make them - except in so far as there might in some circumstances be occasions when communities collectively decide that, as some jobs are unpopular, some system like a rota might be in order.

I don't enjoy washing dishes or doing laundry or cleaning the toilet, but I do them because the alternative is a worse hassle and I'm not an idiot. As I live with other people we try to share the relatively boring/unpleasant jobs. That's not a bad way to look at the way a co-operative society will work.

Jimmie Higgins

2nd October 2012, 12:01

OK; capitalist logic is 'what makes money for capitalism?' - in this case, division of labour.

Socialist logic is 'what promotes the creative development of human beings?' - in this case, not having some people who are made to fit into socially-pre-defined roles.

If someone wants to spend all the hours they can in a lab doing something labby or down a hole doing something holey or with a mop doing something moppy, we're not going to stop them. But if they don't want to we're not going to make them - except in so far as there might in some circumstances be occasions when communities collectively decide that, as some jobs are unpopular, some system like a rota might be in order.

I don't enjoy washing dishes or doing laundry or cleaning the toilet, but I do them because the alternative is a worse hassle and I'm not an idiot. As I live with other people we try to share the relatively boring/unpleasant jobs. That's not a bad way to look at the way a co-operative society will work.

Yeah except we all go home and inefficiently do our own dishes, water our own lawns for free after working for someone else all day. This can cause resentment or slacking off in communal living situations.

I think in socialist communities not only would people figure out easier and more efficient ways to collectivly handle tasks at work, but also create communal laundry for small communities, communal kitchens, daycare and communal green-spaces. So things "outside the market" that become personal respocibility and chores in capitalist societies can be organized in a more efficient way too.

Blake's Baby

2nd October 2012, 17:50

...
I think in socialist communities not only would people figure out easier and more efficient ways to collectivly handle tasks at work, but also create communal laundry for small communities, communal kitchens, daycare and communal green-spaces. So things "outside the market" that become personal respocibility and chores in capitalist societies can be organized in a more efficient way too.

Sure, I wasn't specifically referring to how dishes would be washed, laundry would be done, and toilets would be cleaned. I was just giving examples of things I don't particularly like doing but that have to be done. There will still be things in socialism that need to be done, that people don't particualrly want to do, is all I was getting at. I agree that in a society built on solidarity and co-operation, we can mitigate some of the worst effects of having to do those things, both by more sensible organisation (you mention communal laundries, we don't all need an individual washing machine for sure) and just more solidarity in doing them - instead of these things being individual isolated activities there'll be more social interaction while we do them.

Jimmie Higgins

3rd October 2012, 09:11

^sorry, just to clarify, I wasn't disagreeing with you - just trying to add to your point.

Dean

5th October 2012, 21:00

Supposing though that there isn't a shortage of doctors then why shouldn't they engage in necessary tasks that there is a shortage of? Is it not the responsibility of people living in an area to make sure that it's not covered in filth?
Sure-- what and in what amount are resources are those people prepared to give up in order to find people to do so?
As has been argued ad nauseum, worker or community based councils will be managing their accounting in various ways; in terms of sanitation, it isn't hard to find local incentives or sufficiently skilled labor to accommodate for it.

Or do they expect somebody should provide that service at no cost to them?
Per helot, the coercion model is no different. Unpaid internships and slavery are staples of the global capitalist economy; in the case of the latter, there are more people enslaved today than at any point in history. True to the free market dogma, slavery happens primarily in economies/industries with low labor regulations or enforcement. But this is not even necessary to show just how absurd your argument is: if capitalism is efficient at all, it emphasizes labor that is insecure and approaches zero cost. Unpaid internships are like the crest of this process; their "costs" are only the cost of consumed fixed capital assets, and interns tend to respect capital assets and work with their own perceived incentive, unlike slaves who have no incentive to maintain capital assets nor to efficiently produce.

But you already know that much of socialist theory is referring to gift economies and voluntary labor. So that it is "for free" is assumed, what is left is merely to coordinate needs and skills.

Me? I clean up after myself, including in public places. If people can cease to live their lives competing with every other member of society for even the pettiest of utility expenditures and gains (i.e. not trying to "save your energy" by throwing trash on the ground), something I think is quite possible as it is correlated with socialization in general, we can expect a lot more people respecting public places, and even feeling like it is worth something to mop up the hall occasionally, as well.

o well this is ok I guess

5th October 2012, 22:01

doesn't even make sense

5th October 2012, 22:04

I don't really see the massive problem here. Not everyone is looking for a vocation that they can dedicate their lives to and build their identities around. I think plenty, probably most people would gladly opt to take the many simple jobs society needs given the guarantee of dignity on the job and a decent life. What people hate isn't working, it's feeling degraded, exhausted, and inferior when they are slaving away under someone else's thumb.

I feel like this question is a confused one where we mix up characteristics of a future socialist society (free and voluntary labor) and our current society (extremely steep gradients of status inequality). Being a janitor or a server or receptionist or whatever else at the lower end of the labor market isn't shitty because of the functions of the jobs themselves but because of their place in the labor market and what comes with that.

Most jobs are shittier than they have to be because of the way those jobs are organized, and that organization doesn't necessarily have anything to do with efficiently performing that jobs function. I think most people's experience can verify that, save maybe some fortunate folks who landed their first choice job out of college.

On the whole topic of reorganizing work tasks to divide all the mundane stuff, I think the opposite is pretty likely myself. Given more flexibility and autonomy, people whose responsibilities tend to lie in menial tasks could certainly find other ways to make themselves useful. Lots of janitors already double as handymen and technicians to some degree or another. I even think socialism would lead to a revival of craftsmanship when things that might now just be hobbies or just inclinations never acted upon can be easily cultivated through training and access to means of production if one so chooses.

tl;dr you're not concerned with how painfully boring cleaning is, merely that the janitor has a say in his boredom.

I think what the gentleman is getting at is that having a say, a real say, is a potent cure for boredom. And if the job is so terrible that nobody wants to do it, the people who have been doing it know best how to fix it.

Baseball

6th October 2012, 20:18

The logic of use value. The logic of there is a task we agree needs to be done, so if it's not particularly appealing, but necissary, then let's figure out a way. It's the logic of how people lived for most of history

But why would people today want to live as people have mostly lived in history? You clearly don't-- you are using a computer.

The logic is "how do we accomplish the task with the quality we want in a way that makes the most sense to us". The logic now, is how can we accomplish this task in a way that saves us the most labor and produces the bigest profit?

But why would socialist "logic" lead people to use more and more labor power on a particular task? Wouldn't such "logic" lead to a situation where there is less labor available to pursue other tasks? Why does this make any "sense" whatsoever, even in socialist terms?

A concrete example is labor saving technology: capitalists use this and end up fireing people, with "socialist logic" we have increased material wealth with less effort and therfore can either spend that extra labor time on other tasks, personal enjoyment, or work the same amount of time but make that work easier.

OK-- so technology advancement means 7 workers can do what 10 previously did- so in the capitalist community those those 3 are fired (their labor is no longer valuable to that task). You condemn this.
Yet what does the socialist "logic" state: well those three workers can work on other tasks (ie they are "fired"), or sit around, enjoy life and do nothing (which I am sure the the remaining 7 workers would be proud of not only producing that which they produce, but are allowing for those three people to fish all day), or they could stay and make work easier for the other seven (but why does that make equal "sense" to having those three workers "fired" (or whatever polite term you wish to use) and working at some other needed task?)

Baseball

6th October 2012, 20:22

OK; capitalist logic is 'what makes money for capitalism?' - in this case, division of labour.

Socialist logic is 'what promotes the creative development of human beings?' - in this case, not having some people who are made to fit into socially-pre-defined roles.

If someone wants to spend all the hours they can in a lab doing something labby or down a hole doing something holey or with a mop doing something moppy, we're not going to stop them. But if they don't want to we're not going to make them - except in so far as there might in some circumstances be occasions when communities collectively decide that, as some jobs are unpopular, some system like a rota might be in order.

I don't enjoy washing dishes or doing laundry or cleaning the toilet, but I do them because the alternative is a worse hassle and I'm not an idiot. As I live with other people we try to share the relatively boring/unpleasant jobs. That's not a bad way to look at the way a co-operative society will work.

Blake- we're not talking a couple people- we are talking about tens of thousands, millions virtually all who do not know each other. Its a little more complicated than 3 or 4 people deciding the bathtub scrubbing schedule.

Baseball

6th October 2012, 20:40

[QUOTE=Dean;2517271]As has been argued ad nauseum, worker or community based councils will be managing their accounting in various ways; in terms of sanitation, it isn't hard to find local incentives or sufficiently skilled labor to accommodate for it.

It has not been argued "ad nauseum". Certainly the (reasonable) proposal "to find local incentives or sufficiently skilled labor" has in fact been shot down by the revlefters on this particular thread.
I of course would now ask the context of "community based councils will be managing their accounting in various ways." What are those "various ways"? Again asked in terms of a socialist context, in socialist "logic."

Per helot, the coercion model is no different. Unpaid internships and slavery are staples of the global capitalist economy; ect ect

Over the past century, there have been plenty of "staples" of the "global capitalist economy," as so argued by socialists.
But, again, even if those arguments are correct with respect to capitalism, it says nothing about socialism being any better or viable.

[B]if capitalism is efficient at all, it emphasizes labor that is insecure and approaches zero cost.

To use a cliche, how secure were the jobs of the typewriters workers? Should it have been? Does a socialist community truly denounce technological progress and the upheaval it causes, amongst a workforce?

And I'll ask again, why is NOT an objective of a socialist community to keep costs as low as possible, including of labor?

But you already know that much of socialist theory is referring to gift economies and voluntary labor. So that it is "for free" is assumed, what is left is merely to coordinate needs and skills.

And what is the "logic" in how socialists go about such coordination?

Me? I clean up after myself, including in public places. If people can cease to live their lives competing with every other member of society for even the pettiest of utility expenditures and gains (i.e. not trying to "save your energy" by throwing trash on the ground), something I think is quite possible as it is correlated with socialization in general, we can expect a lot more people respecting public places, and even feeling like it is worth something to mop up the hall occasionally, as well.

Garbage still needs to go to a landfill; sewer lines need repairing from time to time ect ect. As you say earlier, better to have skilled labor doing this kind of stuff than the guy whose day job is to "coordinate needs and skills" "volunteering" to be down in the ditch a few hours a month.

Let's Get Free

7th October 2012, 02:30

The more unappealing jobs would be spread among as many people as possible rather than distributed on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, or gender as they are under capitalism.

Prinskaj

7th October 2012, 12:44

To use a cliche, how secure were the jobs of the typewriters workers? Should it have been? Does a socialist community truly denounce technological progress and the upheaval it causes, amongst a workforce?
The problem is not, as you seem to think, that people's jobs will become obsolete. The problem is that, when it happens, the livelihood of the worker disappeared with it. This would not be a problem if the workers owned the means of production, since that would just allow them to focus on something else or have more free time.

And I'll ask again, why is NOT an objective of a socialist community to keep costs as low as possible, including of labor?
Your understanding of the socialist/communist mode of production is flawed beyond compare. "The cost of labor" will no longer be such a factor, since the most costly aspect of labour under capitalism is wages, which communism aims to abolish.

Blake's Baby

7th October 2012, 12:49

Blake- we're not talking a couple people- we are talking about tens of thousands, millions virtually all who do not know each other. Its a little more complicated than 3 or 4 people deciding the bathtub scrubbing schedule.

Yeah, I know.

Strangely, I don't think I need to travel to Addis Ababa to clean anyone's bath, or buy margarine for anyone in Shanghai. They can probably manage that quite well in Addis Ababa and Shanghai.

Got any more strawmen?

Baseball

8th October 2012, 00:01

The problem is not, as you seem to think, that people's jobs will become obsolete. The problem is that, when it happens, the livelihood of the worker disappeared with it. This would not be a problem if the workers owned the means of production, since that would just allow them to focus on something else or have more free time.

Ok-- So when a workers job becomes "obsolete" that worker can either "focus on something else" (btw- why is this any different a problem that needs to be faced than what happens in capitalism with obsolete work), or that worker could have "more free time" (ie loaf around. But then here why is that option ONLY available to workers in "obsolete" industries and how does the community that in fact such an industry is "obsolete" or that the labor which the worker provides is no longer needed?)

Your understanding of the socialist/communist mode of production is flawed beyond compare. "The cost of labor" will no longer be such a factor, since the most costly aspect of labour under capitalism is wages, which communism aims to abolish.

Of course "cost of labor" will always be a factor- even in a socialist system. A worker builds computers at the cost, at that time, of building telephones, for example.

RedMaterialist

8th October 2012, 04:18

Of course "cost of labor" will always be a factor- even in a socialist system. A worker builds computers at the cost, at that time, of building telephones, for example.

This sounds suspiciously like "opportunity cost." Which is simply an evasion by capitalists for the explanation of cost and profit.

The early stages of socialism, as Marx predicted, will necessarily include many of the old features of capitalism, such as labor cost.

The real issue is that a worker builds a computer that is worth, 1. the cost of the worker's labor, and 2. the value added (surplus value) by the worker's labor. The capitalist pays the first in the wage of the labor, but does not pay anything for the value added. He then sells the computer for what it is worth and he takes the difference, the value added, for himself.

In socialism, the worker or the working class, society, will take that profit, and distribute it according to the needs of society, which includes, if necessary, the pay, benefits, health care, education of his children, of sanitation workers.

Believe it or not, Marx recognized that in the initial stages of socialism, some workers would be stronger, smarter, more skillful, than others. Later, would come the stage of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

If you are good at cleaning toilets then you can do that. if you have five more kids than a surgeon, then you will receive 5x more than a surgeon. If no one wants to do the dirty job, then everybody, doctors, engineers, truck drivers can share. Unfortunately, lawyers and derivatives dealers will be in re-education camps.

Prinskaj

8th October 2012, 06:34

Ok-- So when a workers job becomes "obsolete" that worker can either "focus on something else" (btw- why is this any different a problem that needs to be faced than what happens in capitalism with obsolete work), or that worker could have "more free time" (ie loaf around. But then here why is that option ONLY available to workers in "obsolete" industries and how does the community that in fact such an industry is "obsolete" or that the labor which the worker provides is no longer needed?)
Firstly, the difference is again ownership over the means of production, as stated earlier, if a worker under capitalism loses his job, then he will not be able to sustain his/her existence. This happens because the worker does not ripe the fruits of the technological advancements introduced into the workplace.
Secondly, how work will be delegated is better left to the people living under those conditions, just as the monk in the 13th century is not the best source for information about the workings of the financial markets in the 21th century.

Lither

8th October 2012, 07:18

Of course, one could simply resolve this problem by adopting capitalist methods. Why are re-inventing the wheel?

Because the capitalists invented a cube, that's why.

I think that best-case scenario the jobs nobody wants to do gets automated, and people are free to do what they want to do.

Blake's Baby

8th October 2012, 08:50

Ok-- So when a workers job becomes "obsolete" that worker can either "focus on something else" (btw- why is this any different a problem that needs to be faced than what happens in capitalism with obsolete work)...

In capitalism: job is unprofitable, worker loses livelihood.

In socialism: job is unnecessary, worker does not lose livelihood.

How can you not see the difference between these?

... or that worker could have "more free time" (ie loaf around...

Odd that you think of free time as 'loafing around' rather than having time to develop other interests. We don't live to work, no reason why a shorter working week should be seen as a bad thing. Socialism aims at the abolition of work, did you not know?

... But then here why is that option ONLY available to workers in "obsolete" industries...

It isn't. If society decides it no longer needs hand-made krundgles (maybe a new innovation can produce machine-krundgles at 1/20 of the labour input), all the krundglers will find that their skills are no longer necessary. 200 people in the community are now 'out of a job'. But as society still needs other things (including the new machine-krundgles) the krundglers can do other work.

This means that instead of 200 people working in the krundgle works for 30 hours a week (=6,000 hours making krungles), and 200 other people working in a variety of other jobs for 30 hours a week (=6,000 hours doing everything else), the amount of necessary work has fallen to 300 hours to make the same number of new machine-krundgles, and still 6,000 hours to do everything else, so the new total amount of work is 6,300 hours/400 people, rather than the previous 12,000 hours/400 people.

So the working week can fall from 30 hours to 15 hours 45 mins, for everyone.

... and how does the community that in fact such an industry is "obsolete" or that the labor which the worker provides is no longer needed?)

Assuming you meant to put the word 'decide' in that sentence, it's pretty simple.

'Do we need it it? YES/NO'

If we do need it, we organise doing it - eg, do we need krundgles? Yes we do. Do we need hand-made krundgles? No we don't, we can use machine-made krundgles, therefore the labour of making hand-made krundgles is not necessary.

Of course, in socialism, people could still make hand-made krundgles if they want to - if the work of making them is pleasant for instance, whereas the krundgle-machines are noisy. In capitalism that's 'less efficient' but in socialism that doesn't matter.

...Of course "cost of labor" will always be a factor- even in a socialist system. A worker builds computers at the cost, at that time, of building telephones, for example.

Apart from the fact that your example doesn't make sense, 'cost' is a pretty loaded term. What is the 'cost' of labour? The cost of replacing it with other labour? The price that labour would command on the open market? The price that labourer could command on the open market for the necessary time?

What is the 'cost of labour' of decorating a christmas tree? Is the cost of labour of (say) a dentist decorating his or her christmas tree greater or smaller than the cost of labour of a road-sweeper decorating his or hers? Are christmas trees decorated by dentists more valuable, because the dentist's labour is worth more, or less valuable, because the dentist is wasting more unnecessary training (ie social investment in them as a worker/replicator of labour power)?

Baseball

9th October 2012, 03:10

Odd that you think of free time as 'loafing around' rather than having time to develop other interests. We don't live to work, no reason why a shorter working week should be seen as a bad thing.

It would mean fewer people available to provide for wants and needs.

It isn't. If society decides it no longer needs hand-made krundgles (maybe a new innovation can produce machine-krundgles at 1/20 of the labour input), all the krundglers will find that their skills are no longer necessary. 200 people in the community are now 'out of a job'. But as society still needs other things (including the new machine-krundgles) the krundglers can do other work.

Yes. Its called unemployment-- its benefits are exactly as you describe- it allows for labor to be shifted from unproductive work to productive work.
You are on the road to "Reactionary" status, my friend.

This means that instead of 200 people working in the krundgle works for 30 hours a week (=6,000 hours making krungles), and 200 other people working in a variety of other jobs for 30 hours a week (=6,000 hours doing everything else), the amount of necessary work has fallen to 300 hours to make the same number of new machine-krundgles, and still 6,000 hours to do everything else, so the new total amount of work is 6,300 hours/400 people, rather than the previous 12,000 hours/400 people.

So the working week can fall from 30 hours to 15 hours 45 mins, for everyone.

Or it could mean more krungles could be made for the comunity.
Or it could mean those 200 workers can make Kanoodles locally- a product that is made far away.
Or thos e200 workers can be available to produce exoctic and new technologies.
The concept you are pushing remains a stationary society.
Your "revelft" remains in goodstanding.

'Do we need it it? YES/NO'

If we do need it, we organise doing it - eg, do we need krundgles? Yes we do. Do we need hand-made krundgles? No we don't, we can use machine-made krundgles, therefore the labour of making hand-made krundgles is not necessary.

Let me ask you something- do people in the northern USA need bananas? How would they organize its production if they so decide they need such a fruit- as per socialist "logic" of course.

Of course, in socialism, people could still make hand-made krundgles if they want to - if the work of making them is pleasant for instance, whereas the krundgle-machines are noisy. In capitalism that's 'less efficient' but in socialism that doesn't matter.

Actually, it does matter in socialism as well- it simply means those folks making krundgles by hand are not available to work making Canoodles-- or growing food and building houses.

Apart from the fact that your example doesn't make sense, 'cost' is a pretty loaded term. What is the 'cost' of labour? The cost of replacing it with other labour? The price that labour would command on the open market? The price that labourer could command on the open market for the necessary time?

Fairly basic "cost"-- a worker can only produce X quantity of a certain item during a work day. If he or she spends that workday producing computers, then that worker is not spending the workday producing telephones. His labor of producing computers is at the "cost" of his not producing telephones.

What is the 'cost of labour' of decorating a christmas tree? Is the cost of labour of (say) a dentist decorating his or her christmas tree greater or smaller than the cost of labour of a road-sweeper decorating his or hers? Are christmas trees decorated by dentists more valuable, because the dentist's labour is worth more, or less valuable, because the dentist is wasting more unnecessary training (ie social investment in them as a worker/replicator of labour power)?

Assuming it is equal, the value of a christmas tree decorated by a dentist and a ditchdigger is the same-- nobody cares WHO did the decorating- the value is the tree.
However, the cost to the community is that it lost the value of the work of the dentist and the ditchdigger while they were decorating the tree.

Blake's Baby

9th October 2012, 10:18

It would mean fewer people available to provide for wants and needs...

No, it means more people available to provide for wants and needs.

If everyone worked 30 hours, then a technological innovation meant everyone could do the same work in in 15 hours and 45 minutes, that means that there are now 14 hours and 15 minutes minutes more time to do other stuff, without increasing anyone's working week. Why do you not get this?

...

Yes. Its called unemployment-- its benefits are exactly as you describe- it allows for labor to be shifted from unproductive work to productive work.
You are on the road to "Reactionary" status, my friend...

If jobs aren't necessary, then ther's no reason to do them. I don't see that's a hard concept to grasp.

...

Or it could mean more krungles could be made for the comunity...

Why would we make more than are needed? We already know what the level of krundgle-use is. What's the point of overproducing useless krundgles?

...Or it could mean those 200 workers can make Kanoodles locally- a product that is made far away...

Yes, there's no reason why society can't put some of its excess productive capacity to work developing local kanoodle production, though where I live 'canoodle' doesn't suggest canned noodles, it means something like 'heavy petting', but that's just a minor cultural point that has no bearing on the argument.

Or thos e200 workers can be available to produce exoctic and new technologies...

See answer above, I don't think there's any particular difference in the possibiity of developing new forms of production here and researching novel forms of production, they both involve diverting resources (including labour time) into new things.

...
The concept you are pushing remains a stationary society.
Your "revelft" remains in goodstanding...

No, not getting why you think it's stationary.

If people want to divert their spare time and energy and resources into research they can; if they want to develop local production of something that is currently produced far away they can; if they want to take more time off they can; can't see a problem with that, nor can I see why it's 'stationary'.

...
Let me ask you something- do people in the northern USA need bananas? How would they organize its production if they so decide they need such a fruit- as per socialist "logic" of course...

They need fruit and veg, and bananas are very groovy fruit. So no, in one sense they don't physically 'need' bananas - it is possible as a human being to survive without eating bananas - but they may decide that bananas are a good source of the vitamins and minerals that they do need, and if there are sufficient bananas being produced there's no reason why they shouldn't have them. If there is a socially defined 'need' for bananas then society should endevour to fulfill that need.

The aggregate local plan for the Great Lakes region, let's say, says the 10 million inhabitants of the region are going to need x-tonnes of bananas in a given period. Assuming that the Caribbean/Central American regions have enough bananas to fulfill that request, they load them onto some big planes and fly them to O'Hare. From there, the bananas are loaded onto trucks/trains and taken to local distribution centres.

If they don't have enough (only y-tonnes are available), then the same thing happens only every community gets y/x tonnes - ie, if the proportion of the needed bananas that can be fulfilled, unless there's some special reason for proritising some banana consumption over other banana consumption - and alternative sources may need to be found, for instance in West Africa. Not as good, further to fly them, better to get them from the Caribbean if that's possible, but not impossible at all. Currently European bananas come from a mix of African and Caribbean sources, though I think North American ones come mostly from the Caribbean.

If in the end no more bananas can be found then maybe for a bit the inhabitants of the Great Lakes region will have to switch to mangoes, apples, pineapple and some other sorts of fruit.

...

Actually, it does matter in socialism as well- it simply means those folks making krundgles by hand are not available to work making Canoodles-- or growing food and building houses...

We've already established that the total work the community needs to do (producing krundgles by hand, and doing all the other things necessary eg growing food and building houses) is 30 hours x 400 people = 12,000 hours per week. The technical innovation that allows machine production of krundgles means the same necessary number of krundgles can be produced in less time, meaning that the total necessary labour time for the community including all the other things necessary eg growing food and building houses is now 15.75 hours x 400 people = 6,300 hours per week.

You are proposing that the 'spare' 5,700 hours that have been gained from improvements in production should now be dedicated to unnecessary tasks. I don't see the point of doing work that isn't necessary, but that just becomes a tautology - unnecessary thing is unnecessary. Why do you want people to 'work' even though it's pointless? What's the point of building houses if no-one wants to live in them? What's the point of growing food no-one's going to eat?

If some of the former-krundgle-makers want to make hand-made krundgles, what's the problem? If some of the former-krundgle-makers want to investigate the setting-up of a kanoodle-works, meaning that kanoodles no longer have to be imported from the Canukistan kanoodle-producing regions, what's the problem? If some of the former-krundgle-makers want to set up a research project to find uses for krungle-waste, to see if there are interesting possibilites from by-products, what's the problem? If some some of the former-krundgle-makers want to go into doing the other necesary stuff for the community that gets done by the other 200 people, meaning that everyone gets more free time, what's the problem? If some some of the former-krundgle-makers want to sit on their arses for a bit scratching themselves, what's the problem?

There's a whole bunch of free time that's been liberated from the provision of necessities into the provision of non-necessities, fun stuff, like pure research, loafing about, going down to the lake to watch the sunset, playing football and/or writing poetry. The same necessary stuff gets done in less time with less effort and less energy. That's a good thing.

...

Fairly basic "cost"-- a worker can only produce X quantity of a certain item during a work day. If he or she spends that workday producing computers, then that worker is not spending the workday producing telephones. His labor of producing computers is at the "cost" of his not producing telephones...

So the 'cost' of someone being a binman is them not being a dentist? Is that why binmen are paid shit wages then? Because the cost to society of them not being dentists is so huge? I'm surprised capitalism doesn't force all the binmen to become dentists to keep costs down. Doesn't seem a very efficient system if you ask me.

...
Assuming it is equal, the value of a christmas tree decorated by a dentist and a ditchdigger is the same-- nobody cares WHO did the decorating- the value is the tree.
However, the cost to the community is that it lost the value of the work of the dentist and the ditchdigger while they were decorating the tree.

So 'cost' is a concept totally unrelated to 'value'? What use is it then?

Jimmie Higgins

9th October 2012, 11:01

But why would people today want to live as people have mostly lived in history? You clearly don't-- you are using a computer.LOL. No, I'm not a primitivist. I don't even know how you concluded that. You asked what the basis of how we organize labor would be done, not about the level of technology. I mean how labor was organized before class rule is more similar: we produce what we need with the resources we have rather than producing for the market and a return on privite profits.

But why would socialist "logic" lead people to use more and more labor power on a particular task?It's about what priorities people set for their communities and so on. Today, capitalists might use techniques that are more labor intensive, but only if there is a niche market for, say, some kind of artisan baked goods or crafts - so again, based on the market. If workers decided to spend more energy doing something, it would because they decided it was worth the labor and effort - such as creating more products that people want, or whatnot.

Wouldn't such "logic" lead to a situation where there is less labor available to pursue other tasks? Why does this make any "sense" whatsoever, even in socialist terms?My only point was that things that are produced today are done for profit and so all considerations of how to organize labor are based out of this. The alternative is a society where production is determined by what people democratically decide to prioritize: use-vale over profits.

When might people decide to do things that require more labor - well the only example I can think of would be the original querstion about tasks no one wants to do for their main task all the time. Well, if that's the case, then if people decide it's a necissary task, rather than having a society where we force some people to always have to do this task, then we can potentially divide up the task so that the unpleaseness of it is minimized and spread out: communities organize cleaning drives rather than have one person always pick-up trash because some beurocrats force them to or because they live in a society where they need to work a crap-job or they will be homeless.

OK-- so technology advancement means 7 workers can do what 10 previously did- so in the capitalist community those those 3 are fired (their labor is no longer valuable to that task). You condemn this.Yes I condemn the organization of labor based on control of profits by the bosses. Labor saving technology is employed to save labor-costs, not the difficulty of the labor. If production was organized democratically and for use, then labor saving technology does just that - saves us some labor.

Yet what does the socialist "logic" state: well those three workers can work on other tasks (ie they are "fired"), or sit around, enjoy life and do nothing (which I am sure the the remaining 7 workers would be proud of not only producing that which they produce, but are allowing for those three people to fish all day), or they could stay and make work easier for the other seven (but why does that make equal "sense" to having those three workers "fired" (or whatever polite term you wish to use) and working at some other needed task?)Think about an amish community or a commune somewhere. They have tasks which need to be completed to meet their needs and wants. When these tasks are finished, do the town elders invent some busy work for them? Are the people in the community that help build houses "fired" when the barn is raised? No, work is organized differently in communal groups when use and not profit are the motive. If your own house, do you have a set time each day for doing dishes and so everyday you spend a hour at the sink irregardless if you have dirty dishes or not? Or do you do the work because it needs to be done?

Baseball

12th October 2012, 22:22

No, it means more people available to provide for wants and needs.

If everyone worked 30 hours, then a technological innovation meant everyone could do the same work in in 15 hours and 45 minutes, that means that there are now 14 hours and 15 minutes minutes more time to do other stuff, without increasing anyone's working week. Why do you not get this?

I see--- a technological allows for the electrician to cut his hours to 15 hours 45 min, then he spends the other 14 hrs 15 min practicing brain surgery...
But it would seem that such a scenario results in a situation where the worker is not terribly efficient or as well trained, as a worker who is completely focused on being an electrician OR a brain surgeon.

Or maybe it makes more sense that such progress means that the electrician can do MORE work in 30 hours, thus reducing the need for the numbers of electricians the community needs, thus allowing such unnecessary electricians to work in more needed fields, and to steer prospective elecricians away from such a career choice.

If jobs aren't necessary, then ther's no reason to do them. I don't see that's a hard concept to grasp.

Its a very simple concept to grasp...

Why would we make more than are needed? We already know what the level of krundgle-use is.

No. You know what they are today, and yesterday. You don't know about tomorrow.
Stationary.

Yes, there's no reason why society can't put some of its excess productive capacity to work developing local kanoodle production,

There could be plenty of reasons. One of which could be the available workers have chosen to work somewhere where they are able to reduce the total number of hours all are working.

No, not getting why you think it's stationary.

Because you are basing your thinking about future canoodle production upon present canoodle production. Things stay the same- stationary.

I
f people want to divert their spare time and energy and resources into research they can; if they want to develop local production of something that is currently produced far away they can; if they want to take more time off they can; can't see a problem with that, nor can I see why it's 'stationary'.

It isn't. But then such things impacts elsewhere

The aggregate local plan for the Great Lakes region, let's say, says the 10 million inhabitants of the region are going to need x-tonnes of bananas in a given period. Assuming that the Caribbean/Central American regions have enough bananas to fulfill that request, they load them onto some big planes and fly them to O'Hare. From there, the bananas are loaded onto trucks/trains and taken to local distribution centres.
If they don't have enough (only y-tonnes are available), then the same thing happens only every community gets y/x tonnes - ie, if the proportion of the needed bananas that can be fulfilled, unless there's some special reason for proritising some banana consumption over other banana consumption - and alternative sources may need to be found, for instance in West Africa. Not as good, further to fly them, better to get them from the Caribbean if that's possible, but not impossible at all. Currently European bananas come from a mix of African and Caribbean sources, though I think North American ones come mostly from the Caribbean.

And why are the folks in the carribean shipping those bananas there anyways?
Why continue, in North America, to use bananas from the Carribean and for Europe from Africa?

We've already established that the total work the community needs to do (producing krundgles by hand, and doing all the other things necessary eg growing food and building houses) is 30 hours x 400 people = 12,000 hours per week. The technical innovation that allows machine production of krundgles means the same necessary number of krundgles can be produced in less time, meaning that the total necessary labour time for the community including all the other things necessary eg growing food and building houses is now 15.75 hours x 400 people = 6,300 hours per week.

You are proposing that the 'spare' 5,700 hours that have been gained from improvements in production should now be dedicated to unnecessary tasks.

What I am suggesting is that, yes, in a stationary community such a view is plausible. But no such community has ever exist.

If some of the former-krundgle-makers want to make hand-made krundgles, what's the problem?

Nothing-- if its not unneccessary work. And how is that judged? easy-- whether people will prefer the added cost associated with such handheld krundgles as opposed to the factory ones, and purchase the former over the latter.
So how does the community know this and what does it do about it?

If some of the former-krundgle-makers want to investigate the setting-up of a kanoodle-works, meaning that kanoodles no longer have to be imported from the Canukistan kanoodle-producing regions, what's the problem?

Nothing--- if the community is able to judge whether the work involved is neccessary.

If some of the former-krundgle-makers want to set up a research project to find uses for krungle-waste, to see if there are interesting possibilites from by-products, what's the problem?

Nothing-- as above

If some some of the former-krundgle-makers want to go into doing the other necesary stuff for the community that gets done by the other 200 people, meaning that everyone gets more free time, what's the problem?

as already indicated-- it means those krundgle workers are not available to work elsewhere producing other needed goods.

If some some of the former-krundgle-makers want to sit on their arses for a bit scratching themselves, what's the problem?

Its ok NOT to work in a socialist community?

So the 'cost' of someone being a binman is them not being a dentist?

The cost is to the community. That is what we are talking about. As far as cost for the fellow who chose being a garbageman rather than a dentist... There is nothing to say one way or the other about it.

Because the cost to society of them not being dentists is so huge?

The cost to society to train a dentist is greater than for it to train a garageman. The community loses the value of that training, that skilled work of a dentist, when it requires that the dentist spend X numbers of hours collecting trash. Because again, while the dentist is collecting trash, he cannot being cleaning teeth.

Baseball

12th October 2012, 22:46

LOL. No, I'm not a primitivist. I don't even know how you concluded that. You asked what the basis of how we organize labor would be done, not about the level of technology. I mean how labor was organized before class rule is more similar: we produce what we need with the resources we have rather than producing for the market and a return on privite profits.

It's about what priorities people set for their communities and so on. Today, capitalists might use techniques that are more labor intensive, but only if there is a niche market for, say, some kind of artisan baked goods or crafts - so again, based on the market. If workers decided to spend more energy doing something, it would because they decided it was worth the labor and effort - such as creating more products that people want, or whatnot.

What is the basis for such workers drawing the conclusion that certain work is worthwhile?

My only point was that things that are produced today are done for profit and so all considerations of how to organize labor are based out of this. The alternative is a society where production is determined by what people democratically decide to prioritize: use-vale over profits.

Yes, now we are back to everyone calling in (emailing in??) to some council- bureaucracy somewhere when they need a nail clipper, and the community will decide, somehow, the extent of that use value to that person as opposed to someone else, and whether in fact the metal would have greater use value as part of a soup can than a nail clipper.

When might people decide to do things that require more labor - well the only example I can think of would be the original querstion about tasks no one wants to do for their main task all the time. Well, if that's the case, then if people decide it's a necissary task, rather than having a society where we force some people to always have to do this task, then we can potentially divide up the task so that the unpleaseness of it is minimized and spread out: communities organize cleaning drives rather than have one person always pick-up trash because some beurocrats force them to or because they live in a society where they need to work a crap-job or they will be homeless.

But isn't some bureaucrat going to "force" somebody, such a dentist, to do such work?
And doesn't this whole concept originates from an idea that the workers will set the terms and condiions of their own work, as opposed to the consumers of the products being produced setting the terms and conditions?

Yes I condemn the organization of labor based on control of profits by the bosses. Labor saving technology is employed to save labor-costs, not the difficulty of the labor. If production was organized democratically and for use, then labor saving technology does just that - saves us some labor.

But then where is the labor found to produce labor saving devices? I mean, if 10 people are kept employed on the theory that everyone's work is now easier, it meas three people won't be available in this other factory producing the very product creating the bonanza. Sort of a chicken or egg moment.

Think about an amish community or a commune somewhere. They have tasks which need to be completed to meet their needs and wants.

Yes- but the Amish or a commune are all basically he same- same interests, beliefs, ect. But people are vastly different, far more diverse. Te Amish are part of that diversity.

When these tasks are finished, do the town elders invent some busy work for them? Are the people in the community that help build houses "fired" when the barn is raised? No, work is organized differently in communal groups when use and not profit are the motive.

Do you believe the Amish are not interested in turning a profit on their goods? "barn-raisings" are done on the weekends, their days OFF from working on farms or in other endeavors

If your own house, do you have a set time each day for doing dishes and so everyday you spend a hour at the sink irregardless if you have dirty dishes or not? Or do you do the work because it needs to be done?

Lots of things need to be done. In a primitive society, its pretty basic. Not so in a complex industrial society.

Prinskaj

14th October 2012, 23:57

I see--- a technological allows for the electrician to cut his hours to 15 hours 45 min, then he spends the other 14 hrs 15 min practicing brain surgery...
But it would seem that such a scenario results in a situation where the worker is not terribly efficient or as well trained, as a worker who is completely focused on being an electrician OR a brain surgeon.
1) Way to go, you completely misunderstood what was being said.
2) Are you proposing that less free time makes people more efficient? Because that is one hell of a slippery slope, my friend.

No. You know what they are today, and yesterday. You don't know about tomorrow.
Stationary. Come on.. Seriously?
The capitalist doesn't know this either, yet not mass starvation. But moreover, this problem is much easier to tackle under a socialist economy, since the consumers are the producer, they will know their needed in the future, to at least some degree.

Jimmie Higgins

15th October 2012, 10:24

No. You know what they (consumer demands) are today, and yesterday. You don't know about tomorrow.LOL, ever hear of the future's market? Projections? How do you think capitalists plan what to make and how much? They estimate and workers will have to do the same, use population data and requests from various points of distribution about demand. The difference is not what happens in the economy necissarily, but the basis for how and why these decisions are made. Capitalists decide how much to produce based on profit considerations, not absolute demand.

Most of this debate is like this. Capitalists don't have some monopoly on figuring out how to organize labor, they just organize it on the basis of profits. Workers will organize it based on "use" which means there's no reason to make people work long hours or work really fast since they are not trying to squeeze extra profit for the sake of it. Some things might be worth putting extra labor in, but people will just prioritize.

The cost to society to train a dentist is greater than for it to train a garageman. The community loses the value of that training, that skilled work of a dentist, when it requires that the dentist spend X numbers of hours collecting trash. Because again, while the dentist is collecting trash, he cannot being cleaning teeth.So anytime a dentist mow's his lawn, society is suffering! When a doctor pumps his own gas or has to walk the golf course people are dropping dead because of it?

Doctors also have to fill out their own paperwork and open their own mail - they have to pick up kids from school and go to the store to buy groceries. Is capitalism causing suffering by not requiring that there are personal assistants for every doctor, shouldn't all workers be given maids so that they are using their skills just for that task?

Blake's Baby

15th October 2012, 16:42

Sorry Jimmy, you're talking a language baseball doesn't understand.

... How do you think capitalists plan what to make and how much? They estimate and workers will have to do the same, use population data and requests from various points of distribution about demand... Capitalists decide how much to produce based on profit considerations, not absolute demand.

... Capitalists don't have some monopoly on figuring out how to organize labor, they just organize it on the basis of profits...

Because comrade baseball has enlightened us, now we know that capitalists don't organise or plan anything at all. Everything is left to a sentient machine called 'The Market'. 'The Market' is so all-knowing and wise that it tells workers what to do without capitalists doing anything (one wonders what they're getting paid for). It knows that people in Mozambique and Ethiopia want to starve to death, it knows that people in Bangladesh want to catch cholera, it knows that people in Brazil want to live in shanty towns and it knows that people in Turkey want their homes to collapse in earthquakes, just so I can (maybe) have a better phone in a couple of years. Isn't 'The Market' clever?

It absolutely hasn't got anything to do with people called capitalists who are trying to make a profit oh dear me cor blimey no absolutely not that.

...So anytime a dentist mow's his lawn, society is suffering! When a doctor pumps his own gas or has to walk the golf course people are dropping dead because of it?

Doctors also have to fill out their own paperwork and open their own mail - they have to pick up kids from school and go to the store to buy groceries. Is capitalism causing suffering by not requiring that there are personal assistants for every doctor, shouldn't all workers be given maids so that they are using their skills just for that task?

Well, yes, obviously. Damned inefficiencies of capitalism again. Maybe 'The Market' isn't quite so clever as comrade baseball told me.

Baseball

19th October 2012, 21:24

1) Way to go, you completely misunderstood what was being said.
2) Are you proposing that less free time makes people more efficient? Because that is one hell of a slippery slope, my friend.

I understood what was being said. The correct response, even for the socialist community, remains this:

That if labor is being used where it is not needed, even for the purpose of making the work done easier for those workers, it means that there are fewer workers available to work elsewhere.
So if you have 10 electricians working a 30 hrs week, and a result of some innovation are able to complete their work in 15 hrs, the false argument being made is that those workers are better off as they are now working less.
But the real problem is simply that 5 electricians are not available to work elsewhere where needed, thus the community is deprived of the labor of five electricians. That isn't a benefit to the community- and those electricians do not really benefit at all since such "logic" will be true in all aspects of production- workers not available to produce goods and services which those electricians may want themselves.

Baseball

19th October 2012, 21:33

LOL, ever hear of the future's market? Projections? How do you think capitalists plan what to make and how much? They estimate and workers will have to do the same, use population data and requests from various points of distribution about demand.

Yes. Capitalists make such projections based upon the "logic" of capitalism.

Most of this debate is like this. Capitalists don't have some monopoly on figuring out how to organize labor, they just organize it on the basis of profits. Workers will organize it based on "use" which means there's no reason to make people work long hours or work really fast since they are not trying to squeeze extra profit for the sake of it. Some things might be worth putting extra labor in, but people will just prioritize.

Yes. Priorities, That is always going to be true. But it remains not enough simply to simply respond to a demand for a good. What has to be determined is as compared to demands for other goods. Saying "people will prioritize" says nothing.

So anytime a dentist mow's his lawn, society is suffering! When a doctor pumps his own gas or has to walk the golf course people are dropping dead because of it?

Talk about theories about "live to work!" Holy Smoke!
if a doctor would rather mow his own lawn after spending 15 arduous hours practicing medicine and before spending 15 cleaning up the trash on the corner Main and Elm, so be it. But that isn't the argument.

Baseball

19th October 2012, 21:36

Because comrade baseball has enlightened us, now we know that capitalists don't organise or plan anything at all. Everything is left to a sentient machine called 'The Market'.

Yes-- they respond to the market-- what people want as opposed to what they say people should want.

Prinskaj

19th October 2012, 23:52

I understood what was being said. The correct response, even for the socialist community, remains this:

That if labor is being used where it is not needed, even for the purpose of making the work done easier for those workers, it means that there are fewer workers available to work elsewhere.
So if you have 10 electricians working a 30 hrs week, and a result of some innovation are able to complete their work in 15 hrs, the false argument being made is that those workers are better off as they are now working less.
But the real problem is simply that 5 electricians are not available to work elsewhere where needed, thus the community is deprived of the labor of five electricians. That isn't a benefit to the community- and those electricians do not really benefit at all since such "logic" will be true in all aspects of production- workers not available to produce goods and services which those electricians may want themselves.
In your scenario the amount of labour hours needed to satisfy the needs of the community is 30 hours, which is the product of 10 electricians, then comes along a new mechanical development which allows for productivity to double, allowing the the socially necessary labour time to be cut in half.
Your argument, that society now has lost the abilities of 5 electricians, lacks consistency in two ways.
1) If 30 hours where enough to satisfy the needs of the community, then what would you have these 5 electricians do? Stand around picking their noses?
2) When estimating these sorts of matters, then the amount of work is not the only factor to be included, as you clearly did:
30 hours = 10 electricians therefore 15 hours = 5 electricians
But this does not compute with the output of the labour process, because your calculation does not account for the productivity, that comes about from the technological development.
First we that the working hours needed to satisfy the community is the Socially Necessary Labour Time (SNLT), and that orignal amount of labour (L) is affected by the technological development since the start (T).
Then we can construct the following: SNLT = L / T
In our case, L would be 30 and T would be 2, so what would lead us to the answer that the socially necessary labour time is now 15 hours, meaning that these 15 hours are as productive as the previous 30.
Therefore to finally conclude, that when a socialist economy reaches a technological development that reduces SNLT, then there will be no loss in matters of productivity (P), and it will certainly not be cut in half:
P(10 electricians) / T = P(5 electricians)

Baseball

20th October 2012, 23:32

In your scenario the amount of labour hours needed to satisfy the needs of the community is 30 hours, which is the product of 10 electricians, then comes along a new mechanical development which allows for productivity to double, allowing the the socially necessary labour time to be cut in half.
Your argument, that society now has lost the abilities of 5 electricians,

No. The argument is that those electricians can do other needed work, rather than simply all work fewer hours. Otherwise, the community is losing that labor.

1) If 30 hours where enough to satisfy the needs of the community, then what would you have these 5 electricians do? Stand around picking their noses?

Whatever that which the community needs that it could not/did not because they needed labor in electrical areas more. Or perhaps, additional needed electrical work in areas that were not as high a priority.

In our case, L would be 30 and T would be 2, so what would lead us to the answer that the socially necessary labour time is now 15 hours, meaning that these 15 hours are as productive as the previous 30.

While I reject the LTV, I certainly would not dispute the assertion that the technological progress allowed the electricians to have greater productivity.

Blake's Baby

21st October 2012, 11:59

No. The argument is that those electricians can do other needed work, rather than simply all work fewer hours. Otherwise, the community is losing that labor...

If that labour is not necessary, then it is not losing that labour at all. Just think what society is losing every time you don't nail jelly to the ceiling, staple water to a tree or build a tower to the moon by taking bricks from the bottom of a pile to add them to the top. Poor society! Why do you want things to fail so badly, baseball? Do unnecessary things, it makes sense (do not worry that they are not necessary, such concepts apparently have no meaning).

...

Whatever that which the community needs that it could not/did not because they needed labor in electrical areas more...

You don't get it, do you? You complained earlier that we'd force doctors to clean sewers, now you're insisting that electricians do other work rather than have time for themselves. Consistency, please.

...Or perhaps, additional needed electrical work in areas that were not as high a priority...

You don't get it do you? 'The work that needs to be done' = 'the work that needs to be done'. What you seem to be talking about is 'work that does not need to be done', which =/= 'the work that needs to be done'.

But maybe you're not explaining yourself very well.

If the necessary amount of electrical work is 300 hours, then any other electrical work by definition is unnecessary.

Now, if what you meant in your original setting out of the scenario was that the top-priority electrical work was 300 hours total, and there was necessary but lower-priority work totaling say another 150 hours, then we'd say that the necessary work was 450 hours.

If however you mean that the necessary work was 300 hours, and some of that is high-priority and some lower-priority, there is no more necessary work beyond the 300 hours.

Do you understand why you were asked if you would spend half-an-hour washing dishes, even if the dishes were clean? This is precisely what you're advocating here. Electricians, you are saying, should be forced to do work that doesn't need to be done.

Baseball

26th October 2012, 19:28

You don't get it, do you? You complained earlier that we'd force doctors to clean sewers, now you're insisting that electricians do other work rather than have time for themselves. Consistency, please.

The reason why you find it to be inconsistent is because you continue, no matter how much you otherwise deny it, to perceive the economy, the community, as stationary.
So yes, if the community does not need the work of X number of electricians, they should be doing something else which the community needs. Otherwise, the community does not have enough labor available to it, to do those other needed things.

Blake's Baby

26th October 2012, 21:33

You fail to see that there would be constant feedback in planning. There is no necessity for electricians to do unnecessary work (tautology: unnecessary thing is unnecessary). If it's necessary work and the electricians are not doing other necessary work, sure, why not? It's not stationary. Why would people be so stupid as to say 'this is what we will need for ever and all time, even if things change, which they can't, lalalala'?

Baseball

27th October 2012, 01:04

You fail to see that there would be constant feedback in planning.

Then i guess we have completed the circle.

There is no necessity for electricians to do unnecessary work (tautology: unnecessary thing is unnecessary). If it's necessary work and the electricians are not doing other necessary work, sure, why not? It's not stationary. Why would people be so stupid as to say 'this is what we will need for ever and all time, even if things change, which they can't, lalalala'?

Unemployment-- but the socialists would just deny it.

Prinskaj

27th October 2012, 10:21

Then i guess we have completed the circle. Does this mean that you understand and concede that it is possible? Or are you just throwing out random words?

Unemployment-- but the socialists would just deny it. What are you talking about? As we have been saying since the START of the discussion, employment is not a feature of a socialist economy!

Blake's Baby

27th October 2012, 14:55

Baseball

28th October 2012, 15:27

Does this mean that you understand and concede that it is possible? Or are you just throwing out random words?

I have always understood that argument. And I have said it is in an incomplete argument-- the description and nature of "planning" the "logic" behind it is what I have asked for. The best offered has been along the lines of 'whatever floats their boat' which is not an answer. Hence, the circle...

What are you talking about? As we have been saying since the START of the discussion, employment is not a feature of a socialist economy!

And I have said since the start that such a claim by socialists about socialism is absurd. That socialists choose to use a different term than "employment" changes nothing about that feature.

Baseball

28th October 2012, 15:30

Capitalism starts from: what makes money?

Socialism starts from: what needs doing?

In capitalism, completing your work means you are denied the opportunity to acquire the necessities of life.

In socialism, completing your work means have you acquired the necessities of life.

See the difference?

I see claims as to the objective of socialism. I see very little into analysis of how socialism attempts to obtain those objectives.

Trap Queen Voxxy

28th October 2012, 15:42

Then who will do the job of the janitor and the like?

Aspiring custodial engineers? Duh.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

28th October 2012, 21:19

I have always understood that argument. And I have said it is in an incomplete argument-- the description and nature of "planning" the "logic" behind it is what I have asked for. The best offered has been along the lines of 'whatever floats their boat' which is not an answer.

Yes it is, you're just having trouble comprehending it, either because you don't want to, or because you literally cannot conceive of things happening outside of a profit-making framework.

If the workers have seized control of the means of production as we advocate, then what they say goes. Since there would be a unity of consumers and producers, resource limits and their ability to maintain that hegemony would be the only boundaries.

Baseball

3rd November 2012, 19:04

Yes it is, you're just having trouble comprehending it, either because you don't want to, or because you literally cannot conceive of things happening outside of a profit-making framework.

If the workers have seized control of the means of production as we advocate, then what they say goes. Since there would be a unity of consumers and producers, resource limits and their ability to maintain that hegemony would be the only boundaries.

I would certainly agree that "resource limits" (otherwise known as "scarcity") would be no less a challenge to the workers in a socialist community as they are to capitalists in a present community. But saying that the solutions to that problem the socialist community would advocate is not the same way as how a capitalist might advocate doesn't really answer anything. It has nothing to do with me not being able to conceive how things might function outside a profit making framework.
But, que sera sera.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

4th November 2012, 01:03

I would certainly agree that "resource limits" (otherwise known as "scarcity") would be no less a challenge to the workers in a socialist community as they are to capitalists in a present community.

Except that under socialism they would be genuine limits, not the artificial one's imposed by markets.

But saying that the solutions to that problem the socialist community would advocate is not the same way as how a capitalist might advocate doesn't really answer anything.

Because we've already said, and you have refused to listen. In a socialist economy, things would be produced for use, not for profit. But such a concept seems to utterly blow your tiny capitalist mind.

It has nothing to do with me not being able to conceive how things might function outside a profit making framework.

Yes, it does. You've been told, again and again and in different ways, of how more than one model of how a socialist economy might work, but with you it just seems to go in one ear and out the other. I can only conclude that either you are terminally dense, or you're doing it on purpose. If it's the latter, please stop.

If it's the former, then maybe I should try smaller sentences so that you don't get your little brain overheated and confused:

Socialism: Workers. Together. Make. Stuff. For. Use.

Capitalism: Bosses. Order. Workers. Make. Stuff. For. Profit.

Is any of this sinking in yet? Or are you too fucking stupid or stubbornly ignorant to work out the implications?

Baseball

4th November 2012, 12:37

Except that under socialism they would be genuine limits, not the artificial one's imposed by markets.

Which means what, exactly?

Because we've already said, and you have refused to listen. In a socialist economy, things would be produced for use, not for profit. But such a concept seems to utterly blow your tiny capitalist mind.

And I have asked how such a community might function. The above might be a start in explaining it.

Yes, it does. You've been told, again and again and in different ways, of how more than one model of how a socialist economy might work

No, there have been various versions of 'what the workers says, goes.' That says nothing. What are the "implications" of "resource limitations" for the workers in such a situations?
Those are the types of things I am asking about.

Blake's Baby

4th November 2012, 16:45

... What are the "implications" of "resource limitations" for the workers in such a situations?
Those are the types of things I am asking about.

If you can't do something, you don't do it.

So you try to find alternatives, or do without.

Is that the answer you're after?

Or, if you give us something more specific then perhaps we can give a less general answer.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

4th November 2012, 21:39

Which means what, exactly?

The availability of things like say, sugar, would be subject to material circumstances (Good/bad harvest etc) rather than the whims of commodity speculators, who to this day contribute a whole bunch of fucking misery to the world in their quest to manipulate food prices for their own gain. They should be fucking hanged.

And I have asked how such a community might function. The above might be a start in explaining it.

In a socialist economy stuff gets produced because people need or want it, not because it will sell well. People will know what to produce and how to produce it because the producers and the consumers would be the same people, and thus there would be a unity of interests unlike today. Hence it would be more efficient in a variety of ways.

No, there have been various versions of 'what the workers says, goes.' That says nothing.

Why? Do you think workers never need/want anything? Just how thick are you? And what makes you think the workers are as stupid as you are?

What are the "implications" of "resource limitations" for the workers in such a situations?
Those are the types of things I am asking about.

An awful lot of scarcity today has nothing to do with a lack of materials or labour. Basically any software you pay for is a form of artificial scarcity, since you're being made to pay money for something that costs next to nothing to reproduce.

Baseball

5th November 2012, 01:22

The availability of things like say, sugar, would be subject to material circumstances (Good/bad harvest etc) rather than the whims of commodity speculators, who to this day contribute a whole bunch of fucking misery to the world in their quest to manipulate food prices for their own gain. They should be fucking hanged.

The availability of sugar in the capitalist community is also dependent upon the harvest.
Commodity speculators perform a function which would need to exist in the socialist community-- they assume the risk of the sugar production from the sugar workers onto themselves

In a socialist economy stuff gets produced because people need or want it, not because it will sell well.

Yeah-- but again as I once went through with Blake baby its not just about wanting and needing certain items. Its about wanting and needing certain as opposed to wanting and needing other items. It would be rather silly for a capitalist community to produce goods which "sell well" behind of, or equal with, goods which do not "sell well." However, the same holds true for the socialist community.

People will know what to produce and how to produce it because the producers and the consumers would be the same people,

How many automobiles will he auto workers buy? Who says an auto worker would even have to drive a car?
They are not the same people.

Why? Do you think workers never need/want anything? Just how thick are you? And what makes you think the workers are as stupid as you are?

What a strawman argument. The question isn't whether the workers can figure things out. The question is how they figure things out within the confines of a socialist system. So when you say something like what the workers say, goes, it doesn't do anything to explain what that means. All it does is reinforce the notion, the stereotype perhaps, that socialism is a system where orders are issued and obeyed.

An awful lot of scarcity today has nothing to do with a lack of materials or labour. Basically any software you pay for is a form of artificial scarcity, since you're being made to pay money for something that costs next to nothing to reproduce.

Labor costs of developing that technology s worth nothing? The thinking involved costs nothing?

Volderbeek

5th November 2012, 09:26

I don't get this question. I mean, in the sense that work can ever be voluntary, it already basically is. And now, janitors certainly aren't lured by high wages. The real question is how to get people to do highly skilled/difficult jobs without a wage incentive, but people that do those jobs just for the money are usually the shittiest at them anyway.

Jimmie Higgins

5th November 2012, 10:40

The availability of sugar in the capitalist community is also dependent upon the harvest.
Commodity speculators perform a function which would need to exist in the socialist community-- they assume the risk of the sugar production from the sugar workers onto themselves.Why is that form of organization necissary? A collective group of producers would be taking a risk in terms of effort and time - therefore they would have an incentive to produce enough and not overproduce. The incentive for speculators to not have any overporduction is so the price won't fall. In capitalist relations, meeting actual demand is secondary (if considered at all) to maximizing returns.

What a strawman argument. The question isn't whether the workers can figure things out. The question is how they figure things out within the confines of a socialist system. So when you say something like what the workers say, goes, it doesn't do anything to explain what that means. All it does is reinforce the notion, the stereotype perhaps, that socialism is a system where orders are issued and obeyed.Ok, well there are workers who run a community food center/dipensery or communal kitchen/resturant. What is the use-value of that task: meeting the needs of people in the area to eat. There is also a cannary run by workers: what is the use-value of this task: to make cans of food for mixing into meals. So repersenatives from the food communes negotiate with shipping representatives and the cannery repersentatives.

The same basic process has to happen now except the difference is that it's done through dictate in the interests of profits. An alternative way to organize this process would be through use-values rather than profit: people working cooperativly to accomplish a common task rather than a handful of owners scrambling to undermine eachother and amass profits like a zombie going for a fresh headwound.

And as for cooperative tasks - well I think democratic processes work well enough, but it would be up to people at that time to figure out what is the best way to organize the specifics of these things.

Labor costs of developing that technology s worth nothing? The thinking involved costs nothing?LOL. It is. But the price of MP3s or games bought online really don't go to the musician or programmer in the vast majority of cases outside of some bedroom produced things that don't have the access to significant distribution and advertising anyway.

Bakunin Knight

7th November 2012, 21:22

As I see it, those living within small decentralized communes have the incentive to work for their own well-being and that of their community. The ties between the members of the collective are such that each knows that by playing his part he is working for his own benefit as well as for that of the group. Incentive problems disappear due to the small scale of the commune and the personal relations between its members.

Baseball

8th November 2012, 01:39

A collective group of producers would be taking a risk in terms of effort and time - therefore they would have an incentive to produce enough and not overproduce.

Which is what incentive?

Ok, well there are workers who run a community food center/dipensery or communal kitchen/resturant. What is the use-value of that task: meeting the needs of people in the area to eat. There is also a cannary run by workers: what is the use-value of this task: to make cans of food for mixing into meals. So repersenatives from the food communes negotiate with shipping representatives and the cannery repersentatives.

Negotiate according to what "logic?"

The same basic process has to happen now except the difference is that it's done through dictate in the interests of profits. An alternative way to organize this process would be through use-values rather than profit: people working cooperativly to accomplish a common task rather than a handful of owners scrambling to undermine eachother and amass profits like a zombie going for a fresh headwound.

Define "cooperatively." Illustrate it.
In the capitalist system, the restaurant and providers negotiate on a price, it can be accepted or rejected. That, too, is "cooperation." I suspect it is not the type of "cooperation" that you are thinking of. Fine. Therefore, my question is...

And as for cooperative tasks - well I think democratic processes work well enough, but it would be up to people at that time to figure out what is the best way to organize the specifics of these things.

That isn't a good enough answer. Because remember-- the workers have to do certain things in order to maintain their hegemony (somebody around here used that word recently) in the society; its not automatic (recall all those theories about "deformed worker states" that float around explaining the USSR).

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

8th November 2012, 01:59

Which is what incentive?

Not wasting one's time and energy, duh.

Negotiate according to what "logic?"

The logic of meeting the requirements of everyone involved, duh.

Define "cooperatively." Illustrate it.

"Hey Cannery, we need tins of tomatoes"

"Sure thing Eatery, how many?"

"X tins a week"

"That's a bit more than our current capacity can provide at the moment. We can expand our operations but that will take a little time. However, to top up the shortfall in the meantime, I can put you in touch with another Cannery that's currently running a surplus of tinned tomatoes. Here are their contact details..."

Bam. Illustrated.

Baseball

10th November 2012, 20:13

Not wasting one's time and energy, duh.

So why would it be a waste of time and energy for workers to produce goods and services when they have democratically voted to do so? I thought that was an OBJECTIVE of socialism? What are circumstances when their democratic vote to produce certain goods and services would be a waste of time and energy? Upon what standard are these determinations made?

"Hey Cannery, we need tins of tomatoes"

"Sure thing Eatery, how many?"

"X tins a week"

"That's a bit more than our current capacity can provide at the moment. We can expand our operations but that will take a little time. However, to top up the shortfall in the meantime, I can put you in touch with another Cannery that's currently running a surplus of tinned tomatoes. Here are their contact details..."

Bam. Illustrated.

Actually, you have described capitalism as well.

Why would that cannery wish to expand its operations if there is another cannery around that overproduces canned tomatoes? What is the advantage for the former to do so? Disadvantage?
Why are those canneries sending canned tomatoes to other restaurants? Why would they send them to the new one as opposed to continuing sending them to the original ones? Advantages? Disadvantages? Why is it considered an advantage/disadvantage?

Blake's Baby

10th November 2012, 21:11

Lardlad95

10th November 2012, 21:23

This question operates on the assumption that careers in a theoretical communist society would operate the same way that they do now.

Low skill, community oriented work could be done by those who aren't yet ready to pursue further employment opportunities. Teenagers for example. Even in today's society, young people often do low skilled, somewhat mundane work as a way to gain experience.

Baseball

11th November 2012, 16:34

If it fullfils a need - if someone down the supply chaain requests something because they need it, or if consumers request things - then it's an advantage to fullfil it. If they haven't, and you fullfill it anyway (ie produce unwanted things) or if they have but you don't (don't produce wanted things) then that's a disadvantage.

Is that hard to understand? Can't think why it would be.

Why is it an advantage, and to whom, for the cannery that does not have capacity to supply the complete order to that restaurant, to expand its capacity when there is a cannery which is presently operating below its full capacity?
Is the answer truly because "it fulfills a need"?

The Garbage Disposal Unit

11th November 2012, 18:29

I would totally give up bananas for communism.
Just sayin'.

Blake's Baby

11th November 2012, 19:49

Why is it an advantage, and to whom, for the cannery that does not have capacity to supply the complete order to that restaurant, to expand its capacity when there is a cannery which is presently operating below its full capacity?
Is the answer truly because "it fulfills a need"?

Not sure of the analogy being used, so I'll try to break it down.

Tomatoes are being grown by one production unit - called 'Toamto Farm' for the sake of clarity - and put in tins, along with produce from other agricultural production units, by another production unit - called 'Canning Plant 1' for the sake of even more clarity - which is a centralised point for putting agricultural produce from the whole area - called for the sake of argument 'West Valley' - into containers for storage and transport.

So, Tomato Farm says 'we've got a bumper tomato crop this season, we need more tins than we estimated'.

Canning Plant 1 replies 'sorry we're running at our maximum for tins at the moment, we can only do the 5,000 we promised, how many more do you need?'

Tomato Farm: 'we may need an extra 2,000 tins'.

Canning Plant 2: 'look, I'll email Canning Plant 2 over in South valley, maybe they've got some spare capacity - or, if you give us a month, we can re-jig things here and we can try to get you your extra 2,000 tins. We might be able to re-assign jobs, or we could perhaps get some more canning machines'.

If the tomato harvest all happens at the same time, and the tins are all needed at the same time, and that time is soon, then option 2 (changing production schedules or expanding the production line) is not a viable solution, so the tomato farmers have to hope that Canning Plant 2 (or Canning Plant 3 or .... etc) has spare capacity. If the harvest takes place over a period, it may be that the first batch can go in the tins already ordered and the extra can go in the extra tins a month later.

If it's thought likely that Tomato Farm and the other agricultural suppliers in West valley are going to be hitting their targets often, then it might make sense for a permanent expansion of Cannery Plant 1. if it's just a one-off, and otherwise Cannery Plant 1 is perfectly capable of handling the work it's getting, then it makes more sense to shift around job priorities and/or try to find some spare capacity at Cannery Plant 2 (or 3, or 4 over on North Plain, or whatever).

It's a pity that the Tomato Farm didn't let Cannery Plant 1 know when they began to think they might have a larger-than-expected harvest, but I'm sure these things will sometimes happen, even in socialism.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

12th November 2012, 05:35

If I were a worker at the Tomato Farm, I would suggest keeping a number of empty jars, herbs, pickling vinegar etc lying around, so that any tomato surpluses that can't be dealt with in the ways Blake's Baby described can at least be turned into jars of tomato relish.

Properly made relish (like properly made jam) has a long shelf-life, and there are a number of other foods which have their origins in dealing with farming surpluses.

Blake's Baby

12th November 2012, 10:04

No, that doesn't work - you're just transfering the question from the relationship between Tomato Farm and Canning Plant 1 to another problematic relationship between pickers of tomatoes in Tomato Farm and managers of the storecupboard in Tomato Farm. It doesn't matter whether it's the relationship between one productive unit and another, or betweeen different actors inside one productive unit, the question is the same.

Inside the farm, the question would be 'do we make the storecupboard temporarily bigger, ask another farm if we can borrow things from their storcupboard, make the storecupborad permaently bigger, or do we work harder to recycle the community's storage vessels and turn them round back into use faster?'

So it doesn't solve the problem, I think, that baseball's driving at, which is about how the production unit solves problems, what is the decision-making process.

Strannik

12th November 2012, 12:22

Management has two basic concepts: "inventory" and "order queue". Inventory contains all our material wealth - tomatoes, cans, tin and factories. Order queue contains all ordered tasks in prioritized manner. Everything else follows from relationships of these basic concepts.

It is common sense that we'll select in every case the order that wastes least resources and uses least time. A communist society delivers usership rights to means of production automatically to anyone who has an order. This means that when we have three workers who offer three different solutions to a production problem, order should go automatically to one who wastes least time and resources - and they would automatically become factory manager for as long as the order is completed. Unless there are other considerations in play and tomato can orderes prefer someone else's solution.

The difference between capitalism and communism in prioritizing labour orders is that communistic economic environment is symmetrical - every actor has all the economic information about any other actor. And secondly, all decisions are based on concrete information: concrete costs of resources and time, labour orders compared directly to each other.

Capitalist economy, by contrast, contains a lot of bullshit - it prioritizes tasks based on individual abstract evaluations made in asymmetrical information environment. Based on these decisions it assignes usership rights to means of production not on need basis but for all time. This is what causes the accumulation and causes the "social calculation problem" - situation where a minority holds abstract right to both the social inventory and the labour order prioritzing system and has neither motivation nor information to utilize them in social interest.

Baseball

21st November 2012, 01:28

Not sure of the analogy being used, so I'll try to break it down.

Tomatoes are being grown by one production unit - called 'Toamto Farm' for the sake of clarity - and put in tins, along with produce from other agricultural production units, by another production unit - called 'Canning Plant 1' for the sake of even more clarity - which is a centralised point for putting agricultural produce from the whole area - called for the sake of argument 'West Valley' - into containers for storage and transport.

So, Tomato Farm says 'we've got a bumper tomato crop this season, we need more tins than we estimated'.

Canning Plant 1 replies 'sorry we're running at our maximum for tins at the moment, we can only do the 5,000 we promised, how many more do you need?'

Tomato Farm: 'we may need an extra 2,000 tins'.

Canning Plant 2: 'look, I'll email Canning Plant 2 over in South valley, maybe they've got some spare capacity - or, if you give us a month, we can re-jig things here and we can try to get you your extra 2,000 tins. We might be able to re-assign jobs, or we could perhaps get some more canning machines'.

If the tomato harvest all happens at the same time, and the tins are all needed at the same time, and that time is soon, then option 2 (changing production schedules or expanding the production line) is not a viable solution, so the tomato farmers have to hope that Canning Plant 2 (or Canning Plant 3 or .... etc) has spare capacity. If the harvest takes place over a period, it may be that the first batch can go in the tins already ordered and the extra can go in the extra tins a month later.

If it's thought likely that Tomato Farm and the other agricultural suppliers in West valley are going to be hitting their targets often, then it might make sense for a permanent expansion of Cannery Plant 1. if it's just a one-off, and otherwise Cannery Plant 1 is perfectly capable of handling the work it's getting, then it makes more sense to shift around job priorities and/or try to find some spare capacity at Cannery Plant 2 (or 3, or 4 over on North Plain, or whatever).

It's a pity that the Tomato Farm didn't let Cannery Plant 1 know when they began to think they might have a larger-than-expected harvest, but I'm sure these things will sometimes happen, even in socialism.

None of this solves the problems--or even answers the question- because for the cannery to get additional tins, additional machines, expansion, shifting jobs around ect ect. all involves at a cost for other goods and items.
Just because the cannery is able to provide cans for the tomato folks, why should it? Why not for the fellows growing olives?

Baseball

21st November 2012, 01:38

It is common sense that we'll select in every case the order that wastes least resources and uses least time.

That would indeed be comonsense.

A communist society delivers usership rights to means of production automatically to anyone who has an order. This means that when we have three workers who offer three different solutions to a production problem, order should go automatically to one who wastes least time and resources -

measured how?

and they would automatically become factory manager for as long as the order is completed. Unless there are other considerations in play and tomato can orderes prefer someone else's solution.

OK. So production is based upon what the consumer wants. The opinions of those three workers in the factory are of secondary importance.

The difference between capitalism and communism in prioritizing labour orders is that communistic economic environment is symmetrical - every actor has all the economic information about any other actor.

And what is that type of information?

And secondly, all decisions are based on concrete information: concrete costs of resources and time, labour orders compared directly to each other.

Great-- information about production is based upon costs ect.
So what does that information mean when making decisions? How does "cost" iimpact production decisions which are supposedly based upon need, for example?

Blake's Baby

21st November 2012, 10:01

None of this solves the problems--or even answers the question- because for the cannery to get additional tins, additional machines, expansion, shifting jobs around ect ect. all involves at a cost for other goods and items...

Because you're not being explicit about what you're asking. We can only answer questions if you ask them. Otherwise, we kinda talk generally about stuff, and then you say we're not answering the question.

Make your question explicit.

I agree that putting tomatoes in tins means that the people who do that work cannot simultaneously be putting olives in glass jars. I also agree that diverting resources into expanding can production means those resources can't be used to make razorblades, helicopters or x-ray machines. They can't under capitalism or feudalism or any other system either, so that's not a failure of socialism. So what's your point?

...Just because the cannery is able to provide cans for the tomato folks, why should it? Why not for the fellows growing olives?

You're then one that keeps insisting that 'the customer is always right' and you think this is a plus-point of capitalism, in which you believe that 'the customers' through the mystical power of 'the market' tell the 'the producers' what to do, when in fact of course 'the producers' are told what to do by 'the owners' who then take the product and put it on the market, whether there is a demand or not.

The cannery exists to serve needs. Society as a whole needs food and that food is often put into containers for transportation and storage. So society needs canneries. If it wasn't serving a social need, it wouldn't exist. There's no point going to work if what you do is pointless. That's why the cannery should provide cans. Because they're needed. That's why any 'job' exists in socialism.

The cannery will get 'orders' - requests for jobs - and it will try to fulfill them. If it gets more orders than it can handle (1,000 tomato tins and 1,000 olive jars, and it can only do half) it will negotiate with the producers to see what's most important. What will spoil faster (ie what needs putting in containers first)? What will take longest to pick (ie, what containers can be downgraded in priority)? Can the producers take 500 tins and 500 jars in the short term, and the rest later? Can some of the foodstuffs be processed in a different way that won't need as many containers?

If both agricultural production units need all the containers at the same time, then it's going to be necesaary to get some more containers from somewhere else.

Dominant Species

22nd November 2012, 17:48

Simple answer: everyone would be on a rotor for such a role, and this in turn will mean people will not litter etc. as they will have to spend 1 hour of their work cleaning it up possibly. The job is destroyed at the source.

Furthermore; many jobs nowadays would not exist, machines can do many jobs we do today- however a machine is not worth making as labour is much cheaper. In a ideal socialist society without money; people will be the most valuable asset and machine will do jobs which we cannot do today. We will achieve great things in such a regime.

WORLD REVOLUTION.
(If not, the workers can control flow of money to import things until other places begin to change.)

anarchomedia

23rd November 2012, 18:18

If a job is unpleasent to the doer of the job but valued by those that benefit from it being done you would expect a market based reward system to pay such jobs better than say a pleasent job that isn't valued by those that benefit from it being done. That is if the market participants are all able to freely choose what they buy and what they sell. Coercion mucks it up artificially distorting the market such that many if not most market participants are not able to freely choose what they buy and what they sell. The chief source of coercion is the state. Surely absent the state the market will simply reward cleaners more than say art historians. How is this wrong?

Baseball

1st December 2012, 04:44

I agree that putting tomatoes in tins means that the people who do that work cannot simultaneously be putting olives in glass jars. I also agree that diverting resources into expanding can production means those resources can't be used to make razorblades, helicopters or x-ray machines. They can't under capitalism or feudalism or any other system either, so that's not a failure of socialism. So what's your point?

The point being that systems and methods need to exist which prove that putting tomatoes in tins is more important at that time than putting olives in jars ect. A "democratic vote" is not proof.

You're then one that keeps insisting that 'the customer is always right' and you think this is a plus-point of capitalism, in which you believe that 'the customers' through the mystical power of 'the market' tell the 'the producers' what to do, when in fact of course 'the producers' are told what to do by 'the owners' who then take the product and put it on the market, whether there is a demand or not.

If there is no demand then nobody buys the product and the capitalist goes out of business. Counter-intuitive, is it not?

Society as a whole needs food and that food is often put into containers for transportation and storage.

Correct. But people also benefit from varied food. Subsets.

The cannery will get 'orders' - requests for jobs - and it will try to fulfill them. If it gets more orders than it can handle (1,000 tomato tins and 1,000 olive jars, and it can only do half) it will negotiate with the producers to see what's most important. What will spoil faster (ie what needs putting in containers first)? What will take longest to pick (ie, what containers can be downgraded in priority)?

Obviously, to the tomato producer, canned tomatoes are most important.
To the olive producer, that would be canned olives.
So how does the cannery decide? Based upon what? Because one rots quicker than the other? But why would the cannery care? Tomato and olive growers are not the center of the universe, all decisions in the community do not emanate from their actions.

Doesn't the tomato growers do so because their is demand for that product-- the same being true for the olive folks? Yes, of course.
Well, that's true for the cannery folks as well. They are going to choose to can (to produce) that which t can produce a greater value, because that would mean that that product is in greater need. So what if tomatoes rot quicker than olives; if olives are more valuable to the community, are more in demand, then those will be canned first. Naturally, the value of those olives canned should be accrued to the cannery and to the olive folks, since the cannery is providing something of value to the community. It is also the way to determine that in fact the work of the olive folks are in fact valuable to the community; it is better they deal with olives at that time than with tomatoes.
So all that needs to be measured. And the best measurement remains "profit."

Can the producers take 500 tins and 500 jars in the short term, and the rest later? Can some of the foodstuffs be processed in a different way that won't need as many containers?

These are all reasonable concerns. But they are only reasonable if the value of changing processes, aquiring more cans ect. exceed the costs involved.

If both agricultural production units need all the containers at the same time, then it's going to be necesaary to get some more containers from somewhere else.

Yep, which requires the container folks to labor to provide it, which requires rationalizations and justifications to why they are making containers for vegetables than say containers to store gasoline or orange juice.

Blake's Baby

1st December 2012, 11:04

...

Obviously, to the tomato producer, canned tomatoes are most important.
To the olive producer, that would be canned olives.
So how does the cannery decide? Based upon what? Because one rots quicker than the other? But why would the cannery care? Tomato and olive growers are not the center of the universe, all decisions in the community do not emanate from their actions...

1 - you still don't get that the opposite situation applies in socialism; there is no compulsion to overproduce in search of profit, so in some senses, for the tomato producers, canned olives are more important (toamto producers get more holiday) and for the olive producers canned tomatoes are more important;
2 - the cannery would care because no-one at the cannery wants to work doing unnecessary stuff. But the problem you outline will be solved by 'common sense'. It's not like work prioritisation is a unique problem to socialism after all. If a factory has two competing orders to fulfill, there are a host of strategies it could adopt. Whether that factory is owned by one person and getting money for fulfilling contracts or owned by the community and not getting money really makes no difference.

...Doesn't the tomato growers do so because their is demand for that product-- the same being true for the olive folks? Yes, of course.
Well, that's true for the cannery folks as well. They are going to choose to can (to produce) that which t can produce a greater value, because that would mean that that product is in greater need. So what if tomatoes rot quicker than olives; if olives are more valuable to the community, are more in demand, then those will be canned first. Naturally, the value of those olives canned should be accrued to the cannery and to the olive folks, since the cannery is providing something of value to the community. It is also the way to determine that in fact the work of the olive folks are in fact valuable to the community; it is better they deal with olives at that time than with tomatoes...

The 'value' should acrue to the cannery? Do you mean, there should be a reward that the cannery gets, beyond the fact that all of its workers get the olives that they prize? Why? As 'the community' that prizes the olives (rather than tomatoes) is substantially made up of tomato farmers, olive farmers and cannery workers (many of whom may actually be the same people) then it's likely there will be an agreement that olive bottling will be prioritised over tomatoe canning, and the 'reward' the community gets is not spoiling the olive harvest.

...
So all that needs to be measured. And the best measurement remains "profit."...

No, the best measure is 'do people want it to happen'.

...

Yep, which requires the container folks to labor to provide it, which requires rationalizations and justifications to why they are making containers for vegetables than say containers to store gasoline or orange juice.

If they've been asked to make containers for gasoline or orange juice, that is presumably because someone wants containers for gasoline or orange juice.

Multiplying the terms of the problem doesn't change the dynamic. You ask, 'what happens if the cannery needs to put tomatoes in tins, and put olives in jars?' and I give you an answer - 'a compromise position is found'. You then ask 'ah, but, what if the cannery needs to put tomatoes in tins, and put olives in jars, and put gasoline in cans, and put ornage juice in cartons?' ... err, same answer as before, a compromise position is found. The cannery looks at the requests made to it, and tries to prioritise its workload based on the information it has. Why would anything else ever happen in any economic system that could ever be devised?

Baseball

6th December 2012, 15:36

1 - you still don't get that the opposite situation applies in socialism; there is no compulsion to overproduce in search of profit, so in some senses, for the tomato producers, canned olives are more important (toamto producers get more holiday) and for the olive producers canned tomatoes are more important;
2 - the cannery would care because no-one at the cannery wants to work doing unnecessary stuff. But the problem you outline will be solved by 'common sense'. It's not like work prioritisation is a unique problem to socialism after all. If a factory has two competing orders to fulfill, there are a host of strategies it could adopt. Whether that factory is owned by one person and getting money for fulfilling contracts or owned by the community and not getting money really makes no difference.

The 'value' should acrue to the cannery? Do you mean, there should be a reward that the cannery gets, beyond the fact that all of its workers get the olives that they prize? Why? As 'the community' that prizes the olives (rather than tomatoes) is substantially made up of tomato farmers, olive farmers and cannery workers (many of whom may actually be the same people) then it's likely there will be an agreement that olive bottling will be prioritised over tomatoe canning, and the 'reward' the community gets is not spoiling the olive harvest.

No, the best measure is 'do people want it to happen'.

If they've been asked to make containers for gasoline or orange juice, that is presumably because someone wants containers for gasoline or orange juice.

Multiplying the terms of the problem doesn't change the dynamic. You ask, 'what happens if the cannery needs to put tomatoes in tins, and put olives in jars?' and I give you an answer - 'a compromise position is found'. You then ask 'ah, but, what if the cannery needs to put tomatoes in tins, and put olives in jars, and put gasoline in cans, and put ornage juice in cartons?' ... err, same answer as before, a compromise position is found. The cannery looks at the requests made to it, and tries to prioritise its workload based on the information it has. Why would anything else ever happen in any economic system that could ever be devised?

You continue to concede that production is based upon what people actually want. Fine. But when one starts looking at the nuts and bolts of things, you go back to insisting that production decisions are based upon decisions by the producers.

Blake's Baby

6th December 2012, 15:50

People want to eat tomatoes.

People (some of them the same people) grow tomatoes to fulfill those wants, because if no-one grows tomatoes, no-one gets to eat tomatoes.

Problem?

The Garbage Disposal Unit

6th December 2012, 15:51

What's disturbing about all this talk about efficiency and whatnot is its deeply subjective component - what do we understand the value of a given resource, a certain amount of time spent by a particular person, etc. in relation to?
Right now, these things are all understood vis-a-vis capital. Assuming that we want a society in which there is no general equivalency (which presupposes the alienation of labour insofar as it does away with the labourer-as-such an active subject, making their labour an object of whatever measure), how can we measure "efficiency"?
My own suspicion is that it's better not to, and my lived experience within collectives, though I recognize the limits of my experience as a general model, basically supports this suspicion.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

6th December 2012, 16:01

What's disturbing about all this talk about efficiency and whatnot is its deeply subjective component - what do we understand the value of a given resource, a certain amount of time spent by a particular person, etc. in relation to?
Right now, these things are all understood vis-a-vis capital. Assuming that we want a society in which there is no general equivalency (which presupposes the alienation of labour insofar as it does away with the labourer-as-such an active subject, making their labour an object of whatever measure), how can we measure "efficiency"?

Energy, materials and labour. The more that can be done with the less of those things, the more efficient things are in general terms. Seems fairly obvious to me, and would appear to apply to pretty much any post-capitalist arrangement.

My own suspicion is that it's better not to, and my lived experience within collectives, though I recognize the limits of my experience as a general model, basically supports this suspicion.

But surely your experiences tell you that being able to use less resources (whether materials, energy, labour) for one thing allows one to devote more resources on other things?

The Garbage Disposal Unit

8th December 2012, 06:06

Energy, materials and labour. The more that can be done with the less of those things, the more efficient things are in general terms. Seems fairly obvious to me, and would appear to apply to pretty much any post-capitalist arrangement.

Sure, but the problem is precisely general terms. For example, at the collective kitchen where I'm a collective member, I can do many of the tasks more efficiently than many of our volunteers (often first-year university students who know shit-all about kitchens, let alone preparing 150-portion servings of vegan food), but, for pedagogical reasons, it's crucial to let them do it. Our labour isn't equivalent under the specific circumstances. Similarly, there are other members of the collective, which is mostly women, who may clean more effectively than me, but in the context of patriarchy (where they are expected to clean up all the freakin' time), it's incumbent on me to step up and do the dishes.

But surely your experiences tell you that being able to use less resources (whether materials, energy, labour) for one thing allows one to devote more resources on other things?

Again, this is very true in the abstract, but saving oranges won't help me make an apple crisp; when all of the specificities are taken in to consideration, everything is apples and oranges.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

8th December 2012, 20:25

Sure, but the problem is precisely general terms. For example, at the collective kitchen where I'm a collective member, I can do many of the tasks more efficiently than many of our volunteers (often first-year university students who know shit-all about kitchens, let alone preparing 150-portion servings of vegan food), but, for pedagogical reasons, it's crucial to let them do it.

If the purpose of the kitchen is pedagogical as well as gustatory, then it falls on the more skilled workers to transfer their knowledge and experience to those less skilled. Seems rather obvious to me.

Our labour isn't equivalent under the specific circumstances.

True, however there is only so much you can teach and only so much they can learn every hour. So when it comes to labour I think time should be the metric used.

Similarly, there are other members of the collective, which is mostly women, who may clean more effectively than me, but in the context of patriarchy (where they are expected to clean up all the freakin' time), it's incumbent on me to step up and do the dishes.

Are women really better at cleaning? Here's me thinking that was a sexist stereotype. I've met plenty of messy women. Or maybe the women who are rubbish at cleaning don't go for kitchen-related work.

Again, this is very true in the abstract, but saving oranges won't help me make an apple crisp; when all of the specificities are taken in to consideration, everything is apples and oranges.

Saving oranges does help make more dishes with oranges in them, though. And if the oranges are getting a little too ripe to save, then surely it's better not to let the labour/energy/materials that went into those oranges go to waste by allowing them to become inedible, and instead put them to use ASAP?

Specifications may vary for a given product, but the relations of those specifications can form nested sets. Apples and oranges are not the same in all respects (indeed, is anything?) but nonetheless for culinary purposes they are both fruits. Potatoes are vegetables not fruits, but like apples and oranges they are vegan/vegetarian ingredients. And so on.

Czcibor

9th December 2012, 18:51

Here is a RL issue that I faced a few weeks ago. I like both apples and pears. If there was no price mechanism, I'd say that I want them both, in equal proportions. However, on a tiny market that I bought it the price per kg of apples was 2 PLN, while cost of pears was 4.5 PLN/kg. In consequence I think I bought 3 times more apples than pears.

How do you intended to allow to express preference in planned economy such kind of preference, except of price mechanism?

I mean if knew no price mechanism I'd say that I want to eat comparable amount of both fruits. How do you want me to vote on that?

EDIT: I'm somewhat surprised that no-one bothered to simply say how the mentioned problems were actually solved in real life commanded economy. In Polish People's Republic:
- unpleasant jobs - succeeded - miners were simply paid better ("paid" means also: separate shops in which deficit goods could be bought). This simple mechanism was effective enough both to convince them to move to Silesia from their home villages and to work in hard and not very safe conditions underground.
- satisfying consumers needs - failed - there was huge amount of steel and chemicals produced, (which looked wonderfully in statistics) but actually conversion of that in to consumer goods was terribly ineffective. Moreover, from political reasons it was often too unpopular to raise prices, thus the shops were often empty in the last decade of communism, and where any goods were sent to shop a queue immediately appeared.
- moving workers from place where they were no longer needed to place where their input was more useful - failed - there was so called hidden unemployment - the people were theoretically employed, but were not useful for anything. After system change quite often it was possible to fire half of them and no consumer was able to see the difference.

Blake's Baby

9th December 2012, 19:04

Czcibor

9th December 2012, 20:19

The community (say, there's 150 people in our community) would requisition 50kg of each a week.

After a week, when people said, 'hmm, we've run out fruit a bit sooner then we thought we would', we'd vote to requisition 75 kilos a week.

In a month, we might go back to 50kg, or we might find out that we eat 75kg of apples, but only 50kg of pears. So we requisition those.

Assuming that I didn't know about the fact that apples are cheaper to produce than apples, I would eat them in equal proportion. So in this case, without a kind of at least semi market way of allocation of resources, I would presumably consume fruits requiring higher amount of work, than otherwise. (I shall warn you, that I also like raspberries, which have to be hand picked...)

I would presumably show enough modesty and good manners not to vote that as community we need a few yachts. :D (or such wish could be easily hunted by any kind of supervisory) However, I doubt that in a voting we would show some terrible amount of self-restraint or miserliness. We would be voting on our own consumption... In real life I bought a second hand mobile phone (slightly damaged but still working) Do you think that I would vote myself such a thing? Or the majority of 149 remaining members of the community would agree that some other community should make me a new one? ;)

You know, in company, that I work in, we have been ordering ourselves office supplies. (keep in mind that all our needs had to be approved by our boss, so we can't exaggerate to much) I'm curious how many of that we would order if we were spending our own cash. (if let's say we were given some additional cash, but informed that from now we would have to buy office supplies on our own) My guess is that we wouldn't have in company so many calendars or rechargeable batteries. So far that were small money, so no-one would really care. But you want to implement this mechanism on much bigger scale... And I think that in such a bit utopian scenario you don't have my boss that said that we don't need a redundant mouse.

By occasion - here was mentioned a scenario of surplus of tomatoes. How would you convince the people to work over hours to deal with them? Assume that they can politely point out that they already worked enough hours per week comparable with other communities.

Blake's Baby

9th December 2012, 20:45

I don't like pears, I don't care if they're more difficult to produce. Why would you think I should eat them just because they're more difficult to produce? Are either of us stupid?

I don't see what's wrong with us voting ourselves some yachts. Can you build yachts? If you can't, you might have to wait for them. Unlike apples, yachts don't grow on trees.

We are 'spending our own cash'. We produce the social wealth that we distribute. Frankly, if we want to vote that we all have work 90-hour weeks so we can all generate enough social wealth that we can have personal jet-packs, then... so what? That's what we've decided to do. Or, if we all decide we'll have a 5-hour week, and sit about in the sunshine a lot, so what? That's what we've decided to do.

What we can't do is sit about for 85 hours a week, and still have jet-packs. It's pretty simple really, if we want stuff, we have to work for it, because yachts don't build/jet-packs don't invent themelves. If we don't want it... we don't have to work for it.

Lowtech

9th December 2012, 21:12

I love this garbage argument. Keeps rearing its ugly head. firstly most jobs we find today that are menial are a product of the fact that the most jobs available are those that increase in profitablity as positions increase in volume. Therefore "janitor" is a horrible example to make the argument that no one would do certain things if work is "optional." Work is not optional in communism, the kind of work is optional and skill sets are designed around infrastructure. So the largest workforces will be in permaculture, housing, education etc. and who would need to be a janitor if we are simply cleaner people because we'd simply be an all around better society without artifical scarcity?

Czcibor

9th December 2012, 21:43

I don't like pears, I don't care if they're more difficult to produce. Why would you think I should eat them just because they're more difficult to produce? Are either of us stupid? If I were shown trade offs, I would accept cheaper apples, but instead - some other good or more leisure time. In voting all such nuances are going to be lost.

I don't see what's wrong with us voting ourselves some yachts. Can you build yachts? If you can't, you might have to wait for them. Unlike apples, yachts don't grow on trees. But as you said we're in 150 people community and I assumed that we produce something different. So what we do?
a) We vote that some other guys shall provide us with such yachts? (I think a few posts ago it was all right to ask some people in Africa/South America for bananas)
b) We work over hours, trade what we produce, and finally buy them? (but in that case we're merely a profit maximizing cooperative, that's engaged in barter)
c) We disregard machines, skills and tasks we have and order equipment that would allow us to work as shipyard? (can be interesting, but if I'm involved in construction process we should really remember about life jackets)

Or maybe we can have all yachts that we want, however, according to schedule in computer system the first one would be produced in 2401? ;) (under assumption that a nearby shipyard wouldn't have any more urgent orders in the meantime)

Geiseric

9th December 2012, 22:56

People fail to realize that ayn rand was a sociopath, and I laugh in my head at anybody who takes that kind of philosophy seriously.

Blake's Baby

9th December 2012, 23:52

If I were shown trade offs, I would accept cheaper apples, but instead - some other good or more leisure time. In voting all such nuances are going to be lost. ...

I don't understand what you're trying to say here, sorry.

You seemed to be saying that everybody would prefer pears because they're harder to produce (I don't even know what 'cheaper' means here, no one is 'paying' for anything). I think the idea that we would all prefer pears because they're harder to produce, is stupid. Some people prefer pears, some prefer apples, some like both, some like neither. Whether we like apples or pears has little to do with how easy they are to produce.

...But as you said we're in 150 people community and I assumed that we produce something different. So what we do?...

I assume that we do something else too. I also assume that between the 150 of us, we might have some tools, access to a workshop, woodworking skills, access to theoretical knowledge, the ability to source raw materials, and some free time, so we could begin building a boat.

...a) We vote that some other guys shall provide us with such yachts? (I think a few posts ago it was all right to ask some people in Africa/South America for bananas)...

We could request a boat from a community that was orientated towards boatbuilding, yes. Unlike bananas, however, which are generally produced by the hundreds of tonnes a year, very few boats are generally made by boatbuilders, so we may not find that we get it very quickly.

...b) We work over hours, trade what we produce, and finally buy them? (but in that case we're merely a profit maximizing cooperative, that's engaged in barter)...

Yeah, I'd not be in favour of this, as indeed it looks like commodity production to me. Even if we just produce a kilotonne of watever we produce and swap it directly with the boatbuilding community rather than the intermediate trading you're suggesting, that still looks like a market to me.

...c) We disregard machines, skills and tasks we have and order equipment that would allow us to work as shipyard? (can be interesting, but if I'm involved in construction process we should really remember about life jackets)...

Not sure whether you mean we should stop doing whatever it is we do as a productive community, but I think a better idea is if we as a community decide we want a yacht (or 3 yachts or whatever) we could work on it or them in our spare time. In general, I would favour option a) - put in a request for a boat from someone who builds boats, but we may find we have to wait, so we may want to try to build our own. What of it?

...Or maybe we can have all yachts that we want, however, according to schedule in computer system the first one would be produced in 2401? ;) (under assumption that a nearby shipyard wouldn't have any more urgent orders in the meantime)

Well, this to me just looks like option a) again, and I think this is actually quite likely. That we can have something made by someone else, at some point when we reach the front of the queue, or we can have it from stock, if there is one at the moment, but we may decide that it's worthwhile building our own. I don't see what the problem is.

Lowtech

10th December 2012, 07:39

What's disturbing about all this talk about efficiency and whatnot is its deeply subjective component - what do we understand the value of a given resource, a certain amount of time spent by a particular person, etc. in relation to? "subjective" is a capitalist bullshit catchall word

Right now, these things are all understood vis-a-vis capital. a market economy does not concern itself with actual value of anything, if it did, it would not do all that it could to hide artificial scarcity and pass it off as a practical component to economics. In other words, selling above production cost is bogus; selling at a profit has no pupouse other than to retain value for a plutocratic class

Assuming that we want a society in which there is no general equivalency (which presupposes the alienation of labour insofar as it does away with the labourer-as-such an active subject, making their labour an object of whatever measure), how can we measure "efficiency"?
My own suspicion is that it's better not to, and my lived experience within collectives, though I recognize the limits of my experience as a general model, basically supports this suspicion. the only measurement of value that is pertinent to anything is the question: does this commodity meet a need without a wasteful production process that would negate the benefit of the specific commodity?

If not, you redesign the commodity or discard it all together.

the only efficiency of concern is the efficiency of meeting a need.

And if there are people that want to rant on about wants/choices/ etc, get a 3D printer, don't let your irratic "wants" dictate the movement of resources on large scales