Detailed Alternatives to ParEcon? [Archive]

View Full Version : Detailed Alternatives to ParEcon?

argeiphontes

18th October 2013, 02:57

Anybody know of any detailed work-ups of transitional and (especially) full communist economies? I know of ParEcon but no others.

Thanks.

Thirsty Crow

18th October 2013, 03:05

This is by no means a detailed alternative, but a historical document and text of the Group of Internationalist Communists (Holland, Germany) from the 30s that deals with the communist mode of production and distribution: http://www.marxists.org/subject/left-wing/gik/1930/index.htm

I also think that SPGB militants wrote on the subject at hand, but I wouldn't say that this represents a detailed alternative (indeed, the very question of that detailed character of the proposed plan is what drives the whole thing dangerous to some kind of utopian blueprint making; though I wholeheartedly agree that such a program, a plan of action, is necessary, or better yet, that it can become necessary at one point in class struggle). People from the party can refer you to texts much better than I could.

There's also a text by Andrew Kliman which isn't what you're looking for, but is useful in that insistence on the necessity I mentioned above, and going into that utopian-blueprinting problem. But for the love of dear god I can't find it right now. Will post it here when I finally manage to do so.

argeiphontes

18th October 2013, 03:12

the very question of that detailed character of the proposed plan is what drives the whole thing dangerous to some kind of utopian blueprint making

I understand, I'm just interested if there have been any detailed descriptions that are less bureaucratic than ParEcon but more realistic than a "gift economy." ParEcon's bureaucratic requirements seem to be a common criticism.

edit: On the other hand, we have computers now. In fact, I'm most interested in any recent work.

Thirsty Crow

18th October 2013, 03:21

I understand, I'm just interested if there have been any detailed descriptions that are less bureaucratic than ParEcon but more realistic than a "gift economy." ParEcon's bureaucratic requirements seem to be a common criticism.

edit: On the other hand, we have computers now. In fact, I'm most interested in any recent work.
Wouldn't know, honestly.

As I side note, what do you find unrealistic about generalized reciprocity in delivery of products and materials, and free access (sounds way cooler than "gift economy", eh? :lol:)?

argeiphontes

18th October 2013, 03:43

As I side note, what do you find unrealistic about generalized reciprocity in delivery of products and materials, and free access (sounds way cooler than "gift economy", eh? :lol:)?

Yeah, it does. I'll call it "generalized reciprocity" or "socialized reciprocity." :) Since we're trapped in the realm of necessity, just by virtue of being animals, I would probably agree that the basic necessities of life would still be produced. However, I'm not sure what the incentive would be to do more than that, and I don't want society to fall into some kind of stagnation or primitivism.

Another thing I think about a lot is spontaneity, which (IIRC) ParEcon doesn't handle very well if at all. In socialized reciprocity, at least I don't have order all my beer a year ahead of time.

Also, decentralization without market mechanisms I suppose.

It would be nice to have some ammo against people who claim communism isn't realistic (there's a thread in OI right now that sparked this thread). Usually I bring up ParEcon, and the fact that everything is already managed in capitalism, so complexity itself isn't really the problem.

Ledur

18th October 2013, 18:30

Peerconomy: http://peerconomy.org/text/peer-economy.pdf

Peerconomy vs. PARECON: http://www.zcommunications.org/peercommony-doubts-parecon-by-michael-albert.html

Possibility of central planning done by computers: Paul Cockshott has some modern approaches.
http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/index.html#econ
Here's an explanation: http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~greg/publications/ccm.IJUC07.pdf

Calculation in kind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculation_in_kind
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/depth-articles/socialism/why-we-dont-need-money

Also, you can look for works from Neurath, Kantorovich. Here's a brief synopsys: http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/standalonearticle.pdf

Market Socialism: google David Schweickart

Main points of his book "After Capitalism": http://ouleft.org/wp-content/themes/wpremix3/images/AfterCapitalism.pdf

David Schweickart vs. PARECON: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/zdebatealbertvsschweickart.htm

argeiphontes

19th October 2013, 00:30

David Schweickart

The devil himself! ;) Nice guy though. I've met him in person, just have to actually read his books.

In fact this is what I usually advocate as a transitional economy, particularly to the lay people. I envision this transitional period as lasting quite a while, and taking quite a while to achieve in the first place.

cyu

19th October 2013, 10:01

I would probably agree that the basic necessities of life would still be produced. However, I'm not sure what the incentive would be to do more than that, and I don't want society to fall into some kind of stagnation or primitivism.

Excerpts from http://cjyu.wordpress.com/article/equal-pay-for-unequal-work/

The Demotivation of External Rewards

There are plenty of psychological studies that show “rewarding” work results in people liking the work less, and focusing on only the reward as their goal:

There was an experiment documented in Elliot Aronson’s The Social Animal – some people were divided into two groups. In one group, the people were paid to do a certain activity. In the other group, the people were not paid to do the activity, but instead the organizers emphasized things like how much fun the activity was. At the end of the experiment, the people who were paid were much less likely to have found the activity enjoyable and would only do it again if they were paid again. The others were more likely to do the activity again of their own accord.

http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm also documents how giving someone a “reward” for work ultimately results in the person liking the job less and only going after the reward.

There is also this from http://bookoutlines.pbwiki.com/Predictably-Irrational

Ariely then ran another experiment. He read from “Leaves of Grass,” and then asked his students the following:

1/2 of the students were asked if they would be willing to pay Ariely $10 for a 10-minute poetry recitation

1/2 of the students were asked if they would be willing to listen to a 10-minute poetry recitation if Ariely paid them $10

The students who were asked if they were willing to pay offered $1 for a short reading, $2 for a medium reading, and $3 for a long reading.

The students who were asked if they’d accept pay demanded $1.30 for a short reading, $2.70 for a medium reading, and $4.80 for a long reading.

There isn’t a stigma against not going on a rollercoaster. Well actually, you might get some ribbing from your peers that you’re chicken. In any case, how do marketers get you to ride a rollercoaster? It’s just one activity among millions of others – why is this one so desirable that you’d actually want to pay to do it, instead of having to be paid to do it? The marketer is basically emphasizing how much fun the activity itself will be – not what result or reward you’d get afterwards.

There is a danger in promoting the process too much though. Let’s say you’ve basically been brainwashed to enjoy churning butter the traditional way. What if a new method comes along that is more efficient? Well, then those who are in charge of “marketing” in the butter industry will have to switch to promoting this new method instead, and leave the old method for you to do in your “leisure” (less important) time.

In today’s system, you convince people to work by offering them money. You convince them to want money by advertising goods they can buy. Without product advertising, would people still want those goods (or money) as much?

What then is the purpose of it all? To create a “desire” that wouldn’t have existed otherwise, so you can fill that desire – it seems to me to just be a system of creating unnecessary work.

Now before you make the argument that advertising isn’t all that effective in getting people to buy what they don’t want, consider this: why spend so much effort on advertising? It supports all of network television – million dollar salaries for the cast of Friends. Companies wouldn’t spend so much if it didn’t work. If advertising is just informative, then why spend all that money on slick ads? Why not just a simple, boring blurb about your product? The answer, of course, is that “boring” doesn’t sell.

I would imagine different people would give their support to many different organizations. Each of these organizations would be supporting advertising for different activities. The more people supporting one organization, the more advertising you’d see for the jobs supported by that organization.

If you’re “lazy” and don’t feel like doing anything, nobody forces you to work. You are free to stay at home and watch TV or surf the internet all day. However, instead of being constantly bombarded with ads trying to get you to want more stuff, you are instead bombarded with ads trying to get you to want to go out and do stuff that society thinks needs doing.

As long as people see value in doing something, they are free to support advertising for that kind of activity. Sports, for example, are good for people’s health, and, in cases like swimming, can save lives. However, if some other activity could not only provide exercise, but also help out other people at the same time (for example, building a wheelchair accessible trail along a scenic mountain path), then I could easily see more people gravitating toward promoting that other activity.

Tim Cornelis

19th October 2013, 11:36

Inclusive Democracy by Takis Fotopolous.
An overview of its model: http://www.democracynature.org/vol3/fotopoulos_outline.htm
A critique of Parecon and an attempt to show the superior desirability of Inclusive Democracy: http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/pdf%20files/pdf%20vol1/Parecon%20and%20Inclusive%20Democracy.pdf (PDF)

Incidentally, Paul Cockshott (revleft member by the way) has co-authored a book that's more accessible than the links provided, called Toward a New Socialism (free online).

I've been trying to figure out how a system of free access could work but I can't get around the issue of general equilibrium by prioritising the production of goods in such a manner as to maximimise utility.

ckaihatsu

19th October 2013, 19:32

[T]he whole thing [is] dangerous to some kind of utopian blueprint making; though I wholeheartedly agree that such a program, a plan of action, is necessary, or better yet, that it can become necessary at one point in class struggle).

I think revolutionaries are aware that too-detailed planmaking is entirely impractical when there are so many unknowns going into the future.

Here's from a recent, similar thread:

From the standpoint of politics we don't need to either *predict* future technologies or put forth a detailed *blueprint* of what would be best -- what we *can* do is to take known certainties about society, forward into a revolutionary social context and then posit some *parameters* about such a society.

Having a detailed vision of communism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/having-detailed-vision-p2663500/index.html#post2663500

---

Also, decentralization without market mechanisms I suppose.

It should also be obvious that there's an inherent trade-off between decentralization / localism, and effective productivity. A world of localities each producing their own grain on family-type farms would be cumbersome compared to modern industrial harvesting techniques that free millions from even having to touch soil.

However, I recognize that *flexibility* is needed so that more-localized options would be available, whether for agriculture or anything else.

From another thread:

[M]aterial items don't last indefinitely, and sooner or later *more* production is needed -- the question then returns to *how* should it be accomplished for the best results.

I will also include a kind of 'hybrid' model I developed that has the structural flexibility for these matters of scale to be done dynamically, to allow for more ad-hoc solutions, as you advocate, while also showing potentials for more-generalized production as well:

Question about Communism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2582402&postcount=12

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/)

So the above 'multi-tiered' illustration shows overall possibilities of *structure*, but the *political economy* remains unaddressed by it -- I developed a model for that, as well, for everyone's consideration:

communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://s6.postimage.org/nwiupxn8t/2526684770046342459_Rh_JMHF_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/nwiupxn8t/)

argeiphontes

20th October 2013, 00:22

Now before you make the argument that advertising isn’t all that effective in getting people to buy what they don’t want, consider this: why spend so much effort on advertising?

I would never make that argument :) Advertizing is a manipulation of the "free" market using appeals to human irrationality, and it works very well, or, as you said, nobody would do it.

For the record,

a) I don't believe that material incentives are the only ones that would work. (I'm aware of the study you mentioned.)

b) I don't fall into the trap of thinking that "I would do it, but others wouldn't." People are fundamentally the same.

Thanks for your reply.

Ledur

20th October 2013, 02:36

The devil himself! ;) Nice guy though. I've met him in person, just have to actually read his books.

In fact this is what I usually advocate as a transitional economy, particularly to the lay people. I envision this transitional period as lasting quite a while, and taking quite a while to achieve in the first place.

Yes, some of these guys are here...

BTW, I forgot this one: http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm

Distributed computer-aided economics, with calculation in kind and hierarchy of needs.

Popular Front of Judea

20th October 2013, 03:39

ckaihatsu

20th October 2013, 19:09

Yes, some of these guys are here...

BTW, I forgot this one: http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm

Distributed computer-aided economics, with calculation in kind and hierarchy of needs.

On a *finer* point of contention, I'll note that neither a 'self-regulating system of stock control', *nor* a 'calculation in kind' system directly addresses the *interface* between the realm of human efforts and that of the human-material realm.

A 'self-regulating system of stock control' is strictly about *logistics*, and to me, at least, seems entirely obvious for the tracking of quantities of anything and everything.

And 'calculation in kind' is basically a general argument for a *political economy* of some sort, though Cox leaves off on putting forth any *details* for that.

Stock or inventory control systems employing calculation in kind are, as was suggested earlier, absolutely indispensable to any kind of modern production system. While it is true that they operate within a price environment today, that is not the same thing as saying they need such an environment in order to operate. The key to good stock management is the stock turnover rate – how rapidly stock is removed from the shelves – and the point at which it may need to be re-ordered. This will also be affected by considerations such as lead times – how long it takes for fresh stock to arrive – and the need to anticipate possible changes in demand. These are considerations that do not depend on the existence of a market economy at all.

Buick and Crump speculate, not unreasonably, that some kind of “points system” might be used31 with which to evaluate a range of different projects facing such a society. This will certainly provide useful information to guide decision makers in resource allocation where choices have to be made between competing end uses. But the precise mechanism(s) to be used is something that will have to be decided upon by a socialist society itself.

The *problem* with either a vaguely indicated 'points system' and/or the putting-off of such a proposal, is that it *forfeits* any attempts to posit how a 'value point' might be arrived-at, or what such a point would materially represent.

I'll finish by noting that *any* exchangeability between 'points' and tangible objects will readily lend itself to, and invite, financialization based on that points system -- this is too much like commodity production, and should be disregarded as being fundamentally flawed in design.

From my blog entry:

I have developed a model that [...] uses a system of *circulating* labor credits that are *not* exchangeable for material items of any kind. In accordance with communism being synonymous with 'free-access', all material implements, resources, and products would be freely available and *not* quantifiable according to any abstract valuations. The labor credits would represent past labor hours completed, multiplied by the difficulty or hazard of the work role performed. The difficulty/hazard multiplier would be determined by a mass survey of all work roles, compiled into an index.

In this way all concerns for labor, large and small, could be reduced to the ready transfer of labor-hour credits. The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession, and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.

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

argeiphontes

20th October 2013, 19:18

Just wanted to say I appreciated everyone's posts. I can't really make any comments because I've just started reading through them and am unfortunately a slow reader. :)

Ledur

21st October 2013, 02:18

Paul Cockshott

21st October 2013, 14:40

You only start to say that inputs are cheap or expensive when you translate them into social labour time or in terms of proportional fulfillment of the final plan. The same with passing on costs, that only makes sense in terms of social labour used or the extent to which the resources used could potentially have been used differently to fulfill the plan. In kind calculations are necessary to ensure that the outputs of industries match up with inputs not just in terms of labour use, but in terms of the specific mix of use values.

To understand in kind calculation the best account is Kantorovich's book The Best Uses of Economic Resources

ckaihatsu

21st October 2013, 20:26

ckaihatsu,

There's one thing I can't understand about calculation in kind: suppose one industry that has on its inputs cheap materials, but the machines are complex, "expensive", and need specialized operators. For example, a semiconductors manufacturer.

Yeah, Paul addressed it really well -- once we're far past production for the sake of commodities and exchange values, all that *can* really be seen to have 'value' is people's liberated-labor time, and the usefulness of things.

It's for this reason that I'm very critical of any model that (whether intentionally or not) retains exchangeability between liberated-labor time and material objects.

So, to your question, 'cheap' materials would be those that can be accessed and gathered-up fairly easily, with a minimum of human effort and resource consumption. If the example is *sand*, for its resulting silicon, then that's not a problem -- it *is* a 'cheap' material, however one looks at it.

A post-capitalist society would have to see whether there are *enough* people willing to do electrical engineering and the like, for the sake of manufacturing semiconductors, for everyone's regular computational requirements.

It's difficult to try to predict how something like computation (and communications technology) might even be handled in the future, for a post-capitalist social context -- perhaps such a society might even be able to *collectivize* much computational power, to where its use isn't quite as individuating as it is today (with overkill processors in every device).

Which costs will be passed through the next industries that use these manufacturer's products?

I think you're retaining the concept of 'cost' as being a conventional 'dollar-value', which just doesn't translate into a post-commodity-production economic context.

For the sake of illustration, consider a world in which everyone *must* give their unused items to nearby thrift store locations, and, likewise, can readily *source* materials from such stores, or the natural environment -- with monetary 'cost' there being either negligible or minimal, it's *other* logistical considerations that come to the fore instead.

I can't access your blog entry :(

No prob, sorry to hear it -- it's just an introduction, anyway, for the models that are at post #10 in this thread.

Ledur

23rd October 2013, 05:13

Ok, thank you guys, that's close to what I've thought:

Nowadays, a thousand of Intel engineers earn US$ 10,000/month just to draw squares and rectangles in a CAD program, while cheap labour print them in Asia. In a communist commonwealth, fortunately knowledge will be public, and thousands of engineers worldwide shall cooperate in modular tasks, designing the best chips ever, most for the passion of doing that, while the consumer OR another industry will customize their chips, chosing the ideal one for their purposes, and will finally print it in a local or regional factory.

This "primitive" gift economy will be what, 10,000% more efficient than capitalism? :rolleyes:

ckaihatsu

23rd October 2013, 21:23

This "primitive" gift economy will be what, 10,000% more efficient than capitalism? :rolleyes:

Hmmmmm, I'm sensing a note of *dissonance* here.... (grin)

Ok, thank you guys, that's close to what I've thought:

Nowadays, a thousand of Intel engineers earn US$ 10,000/month just to draw squares and rectangles in a CAD program, while cheap labour print them in Asia.

In a communist commonwealth, fortunately knowledge will be public, and thousands of engineers worldwide shall cooperate in modular tasks, designing the best chips ever, most for the passion of doing that, while the consumer OR another industry will customize their chips, chosing the ideal one for their purposes, and will finally print it in a local or regional factory.

This "primitive" gift economy will be what, 10,000% more efficient than capitalism? :rolleyes:

Okay, so you seem to be saying that not much would change because the nature of engineering is very modular, and so the engineers / workers would lose out on the intent of their designs to consumers, or to repurposing.

I don't understand where your pessimism is coming from, then -- are you arguing for more beginning-to-end control over the whole product usage, for microchip engineers -- ? If so, then that's not much of a communistic attitude to begin with. Computer chips, by their nature, are very general purpose (unless specifically designed for a single-application). Do you really think that chip designers would somehow be personally upset if what they produced was used in wide-ranging ways -- ?

I'm of the mind that professions, careers, job positions, and personages would all be things of the past, once private control is done away with -- such formalistic fixtures would only *interfere* with the free flow of common knowledge and collective implementations.

Even today, our digital commons allows us to quickly reference almost any arbitrary portion of useful information, including a plethora of videos -- this *already* hints at what could be possible if capital-hoarding-based interests could finally, once and for all, be done away with.

Here's an introduction to a *locus*-centered topology of work efforts, from a dynamic discussion of a few years ago:

If cooperation prevails then formality -- formal work roles or job positions -- would be rendered *superfluous* (and extraneous) as everyone could instead freely decide whether their participation in something would really be constructive, or if perhaps they're not quite up to the requirements of the tasks. If someone had less-than-accurate judgment -- an overenthusiastic child, for example -- and decided to plunge into some work role that they weren't very helpful at, it would become apparent fairly quickly to that person's co-workers and they would probably mention it to each other and raise the point with the sub-par worker, all in an informal way.

I find that even the term 'work roles' sounds too formal to my ear in the context of a revolutionary workers' collective work environment. Conceptually I picture the array of work roles to be shaped more like a bull's eye, rather than an org. chart hierarchy -- the most critical roles would be at the very center of things and one could not just plop themselves down in the middle of it all. Less-critical and helper roles would be further out on the radius, with interns and students at the very fringes, in discretionary, more-observational roles.

In this way there could be as much fluidity as the situation might call for at any given moment -- the flatness of the distribution of work roles would allow for seamless overlapping and sharing of tasks, since everyone could be aware of what everyone else is doing, *how* it is they're doing it, and what the overall project requires. Without the complications of turf-battle politics there could be an optimal intermixing of laborers to cover any and all tasks within the project, reconfiguring themselves on-the-fly as the layout of the project changed through time.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1773333&postcount=392

Finally, I'll refer to excerpts from the model at post #10, to point out that people's abilities would *vary* depending on the specifics of any given project -- the model provides for per-project *planning* over work roles, with the actual selection of individual liberated laborers based on accumulated, pooled labor credits:

communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://tinyurl.com/ygybheg

Infrastructure / overhead

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

Material function

labor [supply] -- Work positions are created according to requirements of production runs and projects, by mass political prioritization

Infrastructure / overhead

labor [supply] -- All workers will be entirely liberated from all coercion and threats related to basic human living needs, regardless of work status -- any labor roles will be entirely self-selected and open to collective labor organizing efforts on the basis of accumulated labor credits

Ledur

24th October 2013, 10:14

ckaihatsu

24th October 2013, 18:37

^^ Hey, I wasn't being sarcastic, I just wrote what I desire to happen. The last smiley is there just because I'm tired to show to capitalism's lovers that a gift economy CAN indeed be superior and more efficient than our current system.

Oh, okay -- thanks for the clarification. Let me know if there's anything I can do....

Incidentally, I had an extended conversation awhile ago with someone on the 'finer points' of a gift economy:

Some sort of control in a Gift Economy?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/some-sort-control-t148847/index.html?t=148847

Ledur

25th October 2013, 00:54

Oh, okay -- thanks for the clarification. Let me know if there's anything I can do....

Incidentally, I had an extended conversation awhile ago with someone on the 'finer points' of a gift economy:

Some sort of control in a Gift Economy?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/some-sort-control-t148847/index.html?t=148847

I like your approach to productive and consumptive zones.

So far, I think the best approach is a gift economy, with Robbo203's views.

Decentralized decision-making, with calculation in kind, and helped by a parallel computer network, would be very effective.

ckaihatsu

25th October 2013, 20:57

So far, I think the best approach is a gift economy, with Robbo203's views.

Yeah, Robbo is good at delineating how a self-regulating system of stock control would be a key *logistical* component of a post-capitalist political economy (though maybe not in that particular thread that I referenced).

A 'gift economy' is a reliable 'go-to' term to encapsulate what we generally mean, but it also implies a sheerly *voluntary* (no-incentive) basis for everything productive. Cyu's psychological critique notwithstanding, I just find the sheerly voluntary (qualitative) approach to political economy to be too messy in "practice" -- necessitating a possibility of debates over every little logistical concern, and not providing any standard for the formalization of (quantitative) labor hours.

Just f.y.i., here's another past thread, which has an extended discussion about a gift economy and related tangential issues:

A world without money

http://www.revleft.com/vb/world-without-money-t119042/index.html

Also I'll note that many are correct in pointing out a lack of precision in what it is we stand for -- the following is from a current thread:

In his December 29, 2008, column for Truthdig, Hedges stated that "the inability to articulate a viable socialism has been our gravest mistake. It will ensure, if this does not soon change, a ruthless totalitarian capitalism."

---

Decentralized decision-making, with calculation in kind, and helped by a parallel computer network, would be very effective.

I'll respectfully disagree with your adoption of decentralism, in that a post-capitalist society shouldn't forfeit the benefits of large-scale production that capitalism has built-up for us.

From post #10:

Also, decentralization without market mechanisms I suppose.

It should also be obvious that there's an inherent trade-off between decentralization / localism, and effective productivity. A world of localities each producing their own grain on family-type farms would be cumbersome compared to modern industrial harvesting techniques that free millions from even having to touch soil.

However, I recognize that *flexibility* is needed so that more-localized options would be available, whether for agriculture or anything else.

From another thread:

[M]aterial items don't last indefinitely, and sooner or later *more* production is needed -- the question then returns to *how* should it be accomplished for the best results.

I will also include a kind of 'hybrid' model I developed that has the structural flexibility for these matters of scale to be done dynamically, to allow for more ad-hoc solutions, as you advocate, while also showing potentials for more-generalized production as well:

[GRAPHIC:] Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

And, from post #14:

And 'calculation in kind' is basically a general argument for a *political economy* of some sort, though Cox leaves off on putting forth any *details* for that.

Buick and Crump speculate, not unreasonably, that some kind of “points system” might be used31 with which to evaluate a range of different projects facing such a society. This will certainly provide useful information to guide decision makers in resource allocation where choices have to be made between competing end uses. But the precise mechanism(s) to be used is something that will have to be decided upon by a socialist society itself.

---

I like your approach to productive and consumptive zones.

Thanks -- I think the 'multi-tiered' illustration may be helpful in showing that any number of arbitrary productive and consumptive 'locuses' can be present in any number of arbitrary 'zones' across a geographical area, like a continent. This re-orients us away from the existing bourgeois-founded categories of nation, state, county, city, property, etc. (or whatever).

Please feel free to elaborate, of course.

ckaihatsu

25th October 2013, 21:05

Also, on a technical note, just wanted to add:

helped by a parallel computer network

[W]ith contemporary computer technology all of the computational processes required -- for conducting the exit surveys, the sorting and mass-prioritizing of cumulative demands, the tracking of labor credits in circulation, the maintaining of informational wikis about each factory and workplace, the rank-and-file discussions and decision-making, etc. -- could be fully transparent from the source code onward, enabling full public oversight of all of society's political mechanics in realtime.

The 'central authority', or mass co-administration, could realistically be synonymous with full public oversight of these computational processes, thus relieving society of any ambiguities over political procedure.

argeiphontes

28th October 2013, 18:42

I'm not really sure why ParEcon and PeerConomy aren't just really inefficient planned markets, the PeerConomy being a coordinated barter system that eliminates money for no good reason, resulting in inflexibility.

In any case, Schweickart's critique of ParEcon has convinced me to ditch ParEcon. Unfortunately, that was my only defense against market socialism. Given the other advantages of market socialism, I think it's the only reasonable thing to push for in the next "iteration" of social change.

Popular Front of Judea

28th October 2013, 19:44

Die Neue Zeit

5th November 2013, 13:56

Anybody know of any detailed work-ups of transitional and (especially) full communist economies? I know of ParEcon but no others.

Thanks.

This isn't a detailed workup, but it's quite a comprehensive framework: http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/

As already noted, comrade Cockshott is a poster here and has posted in this very discussion. Another framework, though more insightful on functional vs. social division of labour rather than Participatory Planning, is Pat Devine's.

Ledur

1st December 2013, 02:30

I'll respectfully disagree with your adoption of decentralism, in that a post-capitalist society shouldn't forfeit the benefits of large-scale production that capitalism has built-up for us.

Well I think if automation and 3D printing technologies take a big role in the future, the most effective way will be to produce locally, without the need of transportation across the globe some raw materials from Brazil, then a manufactured product from China, then a high tech product from Germany, then a brazilian buys the end product, that's sick.

A complete industrial zone near highly populated areas could simplify the whole process, because only raw materials would need to be transported. You see, it is indeed a physically decentralised mode of production, but also it still is mass production.

All industrial processes will be open to anyone, no matter if someone is in USA or Africa.

Of course some very specialised products would be produced only by a handful producers, like climate-depending crops, or some small components not worthy to have a whole production line everywhere.

Besides, raw materials accounting would be easy to measure, I think it fits well the in-natura approach.

Skyhilist

1st December 2013, 04:38

I made a post awhile ago basically detailing what I see as the best idea for transition. It pretty long - I'm on my iPod now but I can link it later if you want.

Basically to sum it up though I think things should be done like this:

Take all the things that people need (actually need, as in basic necessities) give them out preferably immediately to those who need them, but when nevessary ration them while simultaneously making it a top priority to making production of these things more efficient both economically and environmentally.

Take all the items that people don't need but want (e.g. a TV) and place them in a new category. If supply exceeds demand an there are no environmental issues with production, let workers take things freely. For everything else, assign a price based on supply vs demand and based on environmental impact. Make it a secondary priority to achieve post-scarcity with these items (and additionally a top priority to make these items sustainable). Give workers (or people incapable of work) a sort of pre-paid debit card with non-transferable funds to buy things on according to the agreed upon price set by economists and environmentalists based on the product's current sustainability and availability (as opposed to having these things sold on a free market). No one receives monetary compensation when people buy things - it just depletes people's funds for arbitrary things that they want and thereby lowers demand to te appropriate level for things that aren't yet post-scarce.

Oh yeah, and workers. I believe that a point system should be used for various jobs. The point value of each job based on a combination of importance and desirability. Everyone should work at jobs that add up to a certain number of points and involve different point levels, thereby ensuring that the undesirable work gets done. The amount of work they have to put in should be hashed out democratically (or by consensus, or some other non-hierarchical decision-making strategy), and be based on ability.

It'd be nice also if these things that are assigned points or value could have some type of agreeable equations worked in so that computers could determine some of these things (not without question of course or recall if the populace feels they've made a mistake) instead of some economists and environmentalists getting together and making ultimately very subjective decisions each time.

I don't think this really fits under anyone's specific, already-existing transitional economic plan. I try to think critically and come up with these ideas myself - call it a DIY of theory if you like. I'm not a huge fan of just picking my favorite from a variety of pre-conceived ideas that may or may not contain the best option and may or may not contain both good and bad ideas.

ckaihatsu

1st December 2013, 19:35

Well I think if automation and 3D printing technologies take a big role in the future, the most effective way will be to produce locally, without the need of transportation across the globe some raw materials from Brazil, then a manufactured product from China, then a high tech product from Germany, then a brazilian buys the end product, that's sick.

I hear ya -- no disagreement on the wastefulness of current market-price-oriented supply chains.

I'll do you one better here, too -- building materials can now also be 3D printed:

The room with 260 million surfaces: 3D printed architecture is here

http://www.gizmag.com/swiss-architects-3dprint-a-room/29299/

A complete industrial zone near highly populated areas could simplify the whole process, because only raw materials would need to be transported. You see, it is indeed a physically decentralised mode of production, but also it still is mass production.

All industrial processes will be open to anyone, no matter if someone is in USA or Africa.

Of course some very specialised products would be produced only by a handful producers, like climate-depending crops, or some small components not worthy to have a whole production line everywhere.

Besides, raw materials accounting would be easy to measure, I think it fits well the in-natura approach.

Depending on what's needed, though, there may be plenty of uses for conventional mass-production industrial processes -- I don't know enough to give a complete rundown, off-hand, versus the nascent 3D printing method.

I can understand that the more-personal approach can also reduce the *politics* needed around any kind of necessary production / fabrication, too -- but until the technological leapfrogging that you're indicating is fully realized, there *will* be a need for politics around currently existing monolithic production and governmental practices.

ckaihatsu

2nd December 2013, 16:53

I made a post awhile ago basically detailing what I see as the best idea for transition. It pretty long - I'm on my iPod now but I can link it later if you want.

Basically to sum it up though I think things should be done like this:

Take all the things that people need (actually need, as in basic necessities) give them out preferably immediately to those who need them, but when nevessary ration them while simultaneously making it a top priority to making production of these things more efficient both economically and environmentally.

Take all the items that people don't need but want (e.g. a TV) and place them in a new category. If supply exceeds demand an there are no environmental issues with production, let workers take things freely. For everything else, assign a price based on supply vs demand and based on environmental impact. Make it a secondary priority to achieve post-scarcity with these items (and additionally a top priority to make these items sustainable).

Up to this point I'll suggest that your approach is similar to this one:

[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://s6.postimage.org/9rs8r3lkd/10_Supply_prioritization_in_a_socialist_transi.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/9rs8r3lkd/)

tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-concise-communism

Give workers (or people incapable of work) a sort of pre-paid debit card with non-transferable funds to buy things on according to the agreed upon price set by economists and environmentalists based on the product's current sustainability and availability (as opposed to having these things sold on a free market). No one receives monetary compensation when people buy things - it just depletes people's funds for arbitrary things that they want and thereby lowers demand to te appropriate level for things that aren't yet post-scarce.

Oh yeah, and workers. I believe that a point system should be used for various jobs. The point value of each job based on a combination of importance and desirability.

While I remain skeptical of any price- or point-based systems, I'd be interested to know how 'importance' and 'desirability' would be derived here.

Everyone should work at jobs that add up to a certain number of points and involve different point levels, thereby ensuring that the undesirable work gets done. The amount of work they have to put in should be hashed out democratically (or by consensus, or some other non-hierarchical decision-making strategy), and be based on ability.

Ditto -- how would 'ability' be determined?

It'd be nice also if these things that are assigned points or value could have some type of agreeable equations worked in so that computers could determine some of these things

(I have to note that you're edging onto the terrain of *replacing* human judgment and decision-making with that of algorithms. Please recall the 'GIGO' principle:

Garbage in, garbage out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out

(not without question of course or recall if the populace feels they've made a mistake) instead of some economists and environmentalists getting together and making ultimately very subjective decisions each time.

I don't think this really fits under anyone's specific, already-existing transitional economic plan. I try to think critically and come up with these ideas myself - call it a DIY of theory if you like. I'm not a huge fan of just picking my favorite from a variety of pre-conceived ideas that may or may not contain the best option and may or may not contain both good and bad ideas.

Ledur

2nd December 2013, 17:22

I hear ya -- no disagreement on the wastefulness of current market-price-oriented supply chains.

I'll do you one better here, too -- building materials can now also be 3D printed:

The room with 260 million surfaces: 3D printed architecture is here

http://www.gizmag.com/swiss-architects-3dprint-a-room/29299/

3D printing is indeed a communist revolution, just like mp3 and open-source software; unfortunately capitalists will profit out of it for a long time :mad:

I can understand that the more-personal approach can also reduce the *politics* needed around any kind of necessary production / fabrication, too -- but until the technological leapfrogging that you're indicating is fully realized, there *will* be a need for politics around currently existing monolithic production and governmental practices.

Yes, we need politics also to create abundance, an important step from here to there.

ckaihatsu

2nd December 2013, 17:35

3D printing is indeed a communist revolution, just like mp3 and open-source software; unfortunately capitalists will profit out of it for a long time :mad:

I don't see how profiteers could benefit from open-source software, and probably not extensively from mp3s since the advent of Napster and peer-to-peer. The Rep-Rap printer can build a copy of itself, though I don't know about the cost of the raw materials it uses.

The RepRap project is an initiative to develop a 3D printer that can print most of its own components. RepRap (short for replicating rapid prototyper) uses a variant of fused deposition modeling, an additive manufacturing technique. The project calls it Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) to avoid trademark issues around the "fused deposition modeling" term.

As an open design, all of the designs produced by the project are released under a free software license, the GNU General Public License.

Yes, we need politics also to create abundance, an important step from here to there.