Question about decentralized socialist economics

[G4b3n]

This question is obviously most relevant for Anarchists. I have seen a few suggestions about how this can be done but I wanting to see some more opinions.

How would the value of a resource be determined in the absence of a market driven monetary system? Assuming the economy is decentralized and controlled by worker's syndicates or councils.

[tuwix]

That's simple. The companies would be changed into cooperatives where each worker should have one vote. In bigger coopaeratives there should council of representatives or electronic shystem of voting.

And it doesn't require elimination of monetary system at the begining. Institution that print the money could be cooperative too.

Besides I think that introduction of full communism is only possible when civilisation achive such level of automation when money cease to be any incentive for vast mejority. And IMHO Marx suggests it in its phrase ending with "according to the needs".

[G4b3n]

That's simple. The companies would be changed into cooperatives where each worker should have one vote. In bigger coopaeratives there should council of representatives or electronic shystem of voting.

And it doesn't require elimination of monetary system at the begining. Institution that print the money could be cooperative too.

Besides I think that introduction of full communism is only possible when civilisation achive such level of automation when money cease to be any incentive for vast mejority. And IMHO Marx suggests it in its phrase ending with "according to the needs".

This still doesn't explain how a factory operating in a non market system will know which resources would be the most efficient.

[tuwix]

In non monetary system which is only non market system factory is automated an operating by itself.

[ckaihatsu]

This still doesn't explain how a factory operating in a non market system will know which resources would be the most efficient.





In non monetary system which is only non market system factory is automated an operating by itself.


You'll probably only get blank stares from anarchists by asking this, G4b3n, since the point of autonomous productive centers *wouldn't* be 'efficiency' in any sense of the term -- it would be autonomy.

'Efficiency' has two meanings, the first being whatever tends to extract as much profit as quickly as possible, and the other being about how production can best be done to provide for as many *people* as possible.

It's this latter, *utilitarian* version that we're concerned with, of course, and the best quick answer might be "don't worry about it", according to the anarchists. There's a strong case to be made for the use of the most-productive technologies, at the local level, so that basic needs are entirely a *local* concern, with certain humane standards for the same emerging and prevailing on a societal scale, as a matter of course (my formulation).

Over the long haul, though, I think that concerns for pro-active 'efficiency' *would* be valid, and could very well come to the fore as a necessary "technological" (logistical) measure. More large-scale efficiency frees up more people for higher-level things, away from menial and manual tasks, and enables a greater expression of humanity's humanity, ideally.

I developed a 'hybrid' approach to this issue of scale that may be of some interest here:


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

http://s6.postimage.org/ccfl07uy5/Multi_Tiered_System_of_Productive_and_Consumptiv.j pg (http://postimage.org/image/ccfl07uy5/)

[Skyhilist]

I'm a little confused by what you mean, OP, but I'll try to answer what I think you're asking.

You were asking about efficiency so I'm assuming you mean that under anarchy how would things be produce most efficiently.

Under anarchism, syndicates/workplaces are responsible for producing certain items according to society's need. If they do not do this or produce goods of the quality required, there may be consequences such as (democratically determined) sanctions against those syndicates (which I can describe in more detail if you'd like). So basically, every syndicate is compelled to work to produce what is needed.

So we know that they have to produce a certain amount. Now we need to consider that production often entails undesirable or menial work that people tend to want to avoid when they can. Efficiency, naturally decreases the amount of labor intensive work needed to complete a task. So efficiency will be rewarded in production in that more efficient syndicates will have to work less to produce things.

As far as what you're going on about with value, I'm not really certain what you mean. As far as I'm concerned there are only two important types of value: direct value in terms of how much people need something, and value in terms of the environmental purpose that something has.

The former I've already addressed, and the latter, in my opinion, should be voluntarily deferred by communities to the authorities of environmental scientists. I don't think it's a stretch to think people would voluntarily do this because successful revolution in my opinion would require a class conscious majority, and 'class conscious' people (basically socialists) tend to be most environmentally aware and generally want to live in a sustainable world.

[G4b3n]

I'm a little confused by what you mean, OP, but I'll try to answer what I think you're asking.

You were asking about efficiency so I'm assuming you mean that under anarchy how would things be produce most efficiently.

Under anarchism, syndicates/workplaces are responsible for producing certain items according to society's need. If they do not do this or produce goods of the quality required, there may be consequences such as (democratically determined) sanctions against those syndicates (which I can describe in more detail if you'd like). So basically, every syndicate is compelled to work to produce what is needed.

So we know that they have to produce a certain amount. Now we need to consider that production often entails undesirable or menial work that people tend to want to avoid when they can. Efficiency, naturally decreases the amount of labor intensive work needed to complete a task. So efficiency will be rewarded in production in that more efficient syndicates will have to work less to produce things.

As far as what you're going on about with value, I'm not really certain what you mean. As far as I'm concerned there are only two important types of value: direct value in terms of how much people need something, and value in terms of the environmental purpose that something has.

The former I've already addressed, and the latter, in my opinion, should be voluntarily deferred by communities to the authorities of environmental scientists. I don't think it's a stretch to think people would voluntarily do this because successful revolution in my opinion would require a class conscious majority, and 'class conscious' people (basically socialists) tend to be most environmentally aware and generally want to live in a sustainable world.

This is not really what I was referring to. I am primarily looking for a counter-argument for Ludwig von Mises's "calculation argument" of 1920, in which he claimed to have denounced socialism as economically impossible. The argument was that it is impossible to determine the value of goods without a market and therefore the socialist society would not make rational decisions in terms of production.

The argument has been proven false for quite some time, it is fallacious because he assumes that no information other than market transactions can be passed between producer and consumer. I am just curious to see what other anarchists have to say about it.

[Skyhilist]

"An Anarchist FAQ" actually has 2 specific sections on dispelling Mises's flawed "calculation argument". Perhaps you'll find them helpful.

http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionI1#seci11
http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionI1#seci12

[G4b3n]

"An Anarchist FAQ" actually has 2 specific sections on dispelling Mises's flawed "calculation argument". Perhaps you'll find them helpful.

http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionI1#seci11
http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionI1#seci12

I am actually looking for something with a little more theoretical basis.
Thank you though.

[RedLenin]

A decentralized, or democratic, socialist economy would be based on cooperative economic planning between workers and communities. Information technology makes this a very realistic possibility, as we already have the economic data necessary to scientifically coordinate the economy.

Production and allocation can be cybernetically planned, creating different planning proposals, which can then be approved democratically by workers and community councils. Over time we can track consumption and plan an artificial abundance, allowing for us to move beyond money entirely, which would allow for completely free consumption.

21st Century economic planning will be a whole new ball game compared to 20th century experiences, thanks to the proliferation of sophisticated information technology.

[MarxSchmarx]

Have a look at the stable marriage problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem

I'm not saying it's a panacea, but it does show how resources could be rationally allocated even in the absence of a market or an authoritarian bureacracy. I think something like a more deliberative/democratic facilitating process could be used, but on the whole I think this provides a mechanistic framework to match (consumer) preferences with (producer) abilities in a non-authoritarian, decentralized fashion.

Also read up on parecon, which hasn't been suggested in the thread and tried to deal with the issues others have raised. Personally I find it a useful start, but just that, a point of departure and not much more.