Competition and personal incentive in a communist society

[SeaSpeck]

Delete

[Questionable]

First off all, when is this ever going to happen? Ever? This is such a complete abstraction that it has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

Secondly, why would anyone attack anybody in this scenario? I imagine a communist society would be growing a surplus of "apples" to distribute democratically as needed.

[subcp]

If everything is free (the law of value has been abolished), people communally operate the means of production internationally, communicate needs and desires (for those examples which only occur in specific parts of the Earth, or because capital has zoned international production of specific things to specific areas and we've since taken it), why would anyone 'need' to attack another for the specific purpose of acquiring goods and services?

[Blake's Baby]

But were people stupid enough to do this, the fact that the city of 30 has 30 people (three times more than city 10) might make the city of 10 stop and think 'how do I like them apples? Meh, not so much'.

[Blake's Baby]

You're not actually thinking about this question. Let's look at it another way.

Scarcity will always exist, we can't always have a surplus of everything because there is a finite amount of resources and a finite amount of labor...

Sorry, I don't accept the premises of the argument.

We currently produce about 5 times more food than we need. Where's the scarcity?

We could, with minimal investment, massively increase power generation through renewable energy sources. Where's the scarcity?

We could, by changing the way our agriculture works, save water green the deserts and increase our biofuel capacity significantly. Where's the scarcity?

'Labour' is a function of the existence of healthy people. How could that be in short supply? It's easy to make more people, I've made a couple in the last 15 years and I was hardly trying at all. Where's the scarcity?

You're asking about resource allocation.

The answer to the question 'how are resources allocated?' is 'democratically'.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

The 'scarcity' of contemporary capitalist society is a false scarcity resulting in the drive for profits. Tonnes of grain is left to rot in places such as India where some are living in poverty and starvation simply because the grain can't be sold for a profit. This isn't a democratic allocation of resources based upon need.

[Blake's Baby]

EDITTED: as there was little helpful in what I had previously posted.

[Althusser]

The arguments you make have a false premise. Are there any actual regions of the world you think would be exploited geopolitically because of an actual lack of resources in that area, or lack of ariable land, or because it's not a good area for any other kind of prodction? Because in communist society resources would be distributed according to need democratically.


as you bash your flippers on the keyboard; or fuck off.

Dear god, I haven't laughed this much in a long time.

http://warrierviews.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/dolphin_computer250.jpg
Thank you for this image.

[subcp]

The rock on which your premise rests in all of these questions is commodity production. Capitalism is efficient at the mass production of commodities- it is heavily inefficient at distributing commodities to fulfill needs and desires and the consumption of commodities (as Blake's Baby noted- international capital artificially creates food scarcity, throws away tons and tons of edible food, or lets it rot, or subsidizes not farming in agricultural areas- ex. after NAFTA, American grown corn was cheaper than locally grown corn in Mexico- is this an efficient use of food and resources?).

That is the premise of communism. That capitalism has created the general framework of an international system of production and distribution that allows for a society of abundance- the physical ability to provide for all humankind. If it is the market systems, the law of value, the profit motive (derived from exploitation-the extraction of surplus value) that make capitalism inherently unable to provide the material abundance to all people, but it is still able to develop the productive forces to a point where material abundance of necessary and desireable products and services are available in abundance, removal of the market, the law of value, private property and, the arbiter of it all, the state, root and branch- would allow distribution and consumption to equal (and merge with) the productive sphere. But all of this also means the end to the commodity form and everything associated with it. Since labor wouldn't be alienated from the laborers, production is directly tied to meeting needs and desires directly rather than through the mechanisms of value, exchange, property.

Therefore- if people in City A want more widgets, someone asks someone from City B if they'll help out, or share, or put them in touch with someone who can help or share. But if both have widget factories (or people have returned to cottage industry style artisan production/small scale production), there's little reason to think they can't continue to produce- what resources on Earth do you think are so rare and necessary for everyday life that, in a free economy, people will want to make war on eachother to get them? I can't think of any.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there won't be nuclear reactors for everyone under communism.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

What's the incentive not to use political or physical force to get what they want?

Now to actualy answer your question:

When communities are voting one against the other and both have different levels of population, a proportional system must be made. Imagine that city A has 100 people and city B has 10 people and the resources city A needs. City A creates a surfrage where there will be decided ammong the 2 communities wether city B will have to give away the resources or not.
Imagine the in City B all 10 people voted against, and that in city A 68 people voted in favour. In a first pass the post voting city A would win, but this would be unfair. A proportional system must be used. If we use a proportional system: 100% of city B voted against, 42% in city A also voted against, even though 68% of city A voted in favour they lose because their proportion is smaller than the one of city B. So the use of political force is not a problem.

We must not forget there is more than one community, when one needs something, another will surely have a surplus of that. If it trully was a disproportionate 2 community situation there could be problems, but it is not. Imagine the city A used to be the capital of the nation that once existed there, and city B is a small village nearby. Couldn't city B call other cities to its aid? Since the dawn of war there were alliances.

This isn't an issue you should be very worried about, but it is fun to think about these situations.

Excuse the other users' lack of patience.

[Manic Impressive]

OK, now you're dodging the question. So I'll pose it again.

City A has 10 people and 5 widgets. City B has 20 people and 10 widgets. We can't make any more widgets because we've run out of widget making metal. City A wants 10 widgets. What prevents them from acting in their own self interest and coming into conflict with City B. Democracy is not the answer because City A can just as easily decide to disregard the decision (because they are in the minority) and take the widgets by force. What's the incentive not to use political or physical force to get what they want?
Of course Blake is absolutely correct about scarcity and has answered that more than sufficiently. The thing that's missing from the answer is the second fallacy your question is built on.

You posit that there will be cities existing as separate social entities with different interests than the rest of the world. Much like different nations exist today. In fact you are right that if separate social entities existed there would have to be trade between them, which would also mean that there would need to be an agreed upon medium of exchange (money), which would mean that there was commodity production, profit and loss, exploitation of surplus value, accumulation of capital, etc, etc. To a lesser degree than we have now, perhaps, but these things would not have been abolished and could eventually lead to conflict. This would then not be socialism but a new style of capitalism or as some prefer a mercantilist society.

We advocate a world-wide social system where there are no distinctions between us and them, no barriers. If you're a specialized widget manufacturer and there's a shortage in widgets or the production facilities are moved (for some unknown reason) you can either follow the widgets or do something else. If you chose to do something else you would not experience a loss of any privileges as you would in capitalist society if your factory is closed down to outsource production to a country where labour is cheaper. As everyone would have the same entitlement to the same benefits of production you wouldn't be begging the non-existent state for hand outs. Your life would carry on as normal.

[Blake's Baby]

I'd like to apologise to everyone for losing my temper in my previous post. It was particularly unhelpful in a thread in the 'Learning' forum.

By the time I'd calmed down and come back to the computer, you'd answered the questions I should have answered before, so thanks for that.

[Oswy]

You're not actually thinking about this question. Let's look at it another way.

Scarcity will always exist, we can't always have a surplus of everything because there is a finite amount of resources and a finite amount of labor. If the city of 30 had 25 people's worth of medicine and the city of 10 people had 8 people's worth of medicine. However, the city of 10 believed they needed 10 people's worth of medicine. What stops them from acting in their own self interest and coming into conflict with the city of with more resources? What stops power being exercised over the allocation of resources?

Human technological and organisational advance is such that there need be no important scarcities; indeed under capitalism there are already overabundances (they just don't get distributed because it's not profitable).