Currency in Communism

[Ritzy Cat]

As I am aware, currency is nonexistent in communism.

Thus, what are your personal thoughts on how a member of the community would get something he wanted? Although it is understandable everyone cannot have everything they want, suppose a man wanted to get a new car. What would be the process of getting anything?

I fear my question may appear to be "taking a stab" at one of the hundred tendencies I see on this website, but it is nothing of that sort. Please do not aim any aggression/disagreement towards me, I would just like to know the answer to this question.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

Everything is free. How are people rewarded when they work? By getting free stuff.

[Comrade Chernov]

If nothing else, I'd say the good old system of "I have something you want, you have something I want, let's trade".

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

As I see it, essentially everything that is produced in a communist society already belongs to everyone anyway. There is no need for an exchange of goods or money. If someone wants to use a car, then they will presumably find a car that is not in use and use that - the same applies to a lot of other things. Notions of private property as they currently exist will no longer be applicable, so to speak. This kind of system is often referred to as "free access" socialism or communism.

[consuming negativity]

As much as I'd like to think I know exactly how communism would work out, there are probably going to be variations on the theme based on where you are and what the needs of those people are. For example, an urban area might be organized radically differently from a rural area, and an area in what is now the US might be organized a lot differently from an area in what is now India, China, Sudan, or Chile, even though they're similarly (sub)urban or rural. What they all have in common is that the means of production are owned by the people producing and that goods are freely exchanged according to need. I personally subscribe to the idea of a gift economy, with stores that are probably a bit more similar to warehouses or a department store without cash registers. You could probably learn more on the subject by reading about how things were organized in anarchist Spain or the Paris commune - two historical periods that I wish I knew a lot more about than I currently do.

[Skyhilist]

It depends. When you say communism, are you implying post-scarcity? If so, supply exceeds demand for everything so workers can take anything they want for free.

If you won't mean to imply post-scarcity then there are a lot of different ideas but it's usually like this: things that are plentiful and sustainable are free, and things that are not are rationed or restricted or have their demand lowered in some way or another while prioritizing making those items post-scarce (and therefore free as well).

[Skyhilist]

As I see it, essentially everything that is produced in a communist society already belongs to everyone anyway. There is no need for an exchange of goods or money. If someone wants to use a car, then they will presumably find a car that is not in use and use that - the same applies to a lot of other things. Notions of private property as they currently exist will no longer be applicable, so to speak. This kind of system is often referred to as "free access" socialism or communism.

I imagine too that there will be much less use of cars given the fact that we have the technology to create high-speed monorail systems that are way more efficient and sustainable.

[reb]

Production is decided communally, or socially. If you wanted a car then it would need to decided upon, this is dependent on us not deciding on better ways to transport ourselves or even if cars should be individual property. Smaller things could be done in workshops probably more easily.


If nothing else, I'd say the good old system of "I have something you want, you have something I want, let's trade".

There can't be exchange in communism.

[Doomsday970]

I had always thought of it as someone produces something and others can come and take said product while the producer of that product can do the same for producys he/she needs.

[Sabot Cat]

I'm partial to labor vouchers as an alternative to currency. You can't utilize them as capital like money because they can't be transferred between people, nor can they be circulated, deposited or invested; merely used. After a person uses one, that particular labor voucher is destroyed, and the only way one can get another is by working more. Furthermore, you can't enrich another person by using a labor voucher, as you are simply verifying that society deems your particular contributions sufficient grounds to entitle you for some goods or services. An additional upside is that it would be useless to steal labor vouchers outright because they're only valid for one person each.

[tallguy]

As I am aware, currency is nonexistent in communism.

Thus, what are your personal thoughts on how a member of the community would get something he wanted? Although it is understandable everyone cannot have everything they want, suppose a man wanted to get a new car. What would be the process of getting anything?

I fear my question may appear to be "taking a stab" at one of the hundred tendencies I see on this website, but it is nothing of that sort. Please do not aim any aggression/disagreement towards me, I would just like to know the answer to this question.I cannot see how the adoption and utilisation of a universal unit of exchange can be avoidable in any complex industrial society where economic transactions are anything above the most basic. I'm happy to be shown otherwise, though.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Labor vouchers are the easy, short-term solution but I think one line to take is to at least create the conditions for a gift economy to emerge.



There can't be exchange in communism.

I agree but IMO "full" communism should make exchange obsolete. If not, then you will just create conditions for a black market to emerge.

[Bala Perdida]

Personally, I think Communism can be greatly reformed or assisted (I'm not sure what term to use) by technology that is usually suppressed in today's money dominated world. This will produce things more efficiently so that each member of a society could probably have a computer, tv, microwave, toaster, ect..., at home. Car's in my view would be almost completely replaced by public transportation, but will be reserved for times of emergency. This means pregnancies and injuries and ect... These cars will be self driving cars and will be easily accessible for each neighborhood, like maybe five cars on each end of the block.
For anything else an individual wants, I assume there would be a sort of library or rental house (again I'm not sure what to call it) where they can access digital cameras, megaphones, speaker systems, handheld gaming devices, alternative gaming devices, accordions, tools and other commodities an individual would want or may need. Being the kind of library or rent system it is, an individual would take what they want and then return it when it is just lying around.
I hope this helps answer your question, these are just some ideas.

[Comrade Chernov]

I'm not entirely sure that the concept of "free access" is pragmatic. It's certainly idealistic, but will it really work?

[reb]

Labor vouchers are the easy, short-term solution but I think one line to take is to at least create the conditions for a gift economy to emerge.



I agree but IMO "full" communism should make exchange obsolete. If not, then you will just create conditions for a black market to emerge.

The existence of a market implies that you haven't abolished capital and that you're not in communism.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm partial to labor vouchers as an alternative to currency. You can't utilize them as capital like money because they can't be transferred between people, nor can they be circulated, deposited or invested; merely used. After a person uses one, that particular labor voucher is destroyed, and the only way one can get another is by working more. Furthermore, you can't enrich another person by using a labor voucher, as you are simply verifying that society deems your particular contributions sufficient grounds to entitle you for some goods or services. An additional upside is that it would be useless to steal labor vouchers outright because they're only valid for one person each.


My criticism / argument against labor vouchers is that it would be too unwieldy to try to determine what each individual labor voucher unit would *represent* exactly, in terms of labor effort. I've never heard any mention as to how a reconciling of varying types of labor (coal mining vs. scholarly critique, for example) could be accomplished, for the labor-hour voucher unit.





I cannot see how the adoption and utilisation of a universal unit of exchange can be avoidable in any complex industrial society where economic transactions are anything above the most basic. I'm happy to be shown otherwise, though.


I'll put forth a 'negative-example' here, to reinforce your point....

The shortcoming of the following (localist) approach is that the economic would *have* to be the political, as well, due to constraints of physical proximity:


tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-concise-communism


Rotation system of work roles

http://s6.postimage.org/6pho0fbot/2403306060046342459_Gtc_Sd_P_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/6pho0fbot/)





I'm not entirely sure that the concept of "free access" is pragmatic. It's certainly idealistic, but will it really work?


Actually, it *has* to work, or else our entire revolutionary politics is bankrupt.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The existence of a market implies that you haven't abolished capital and that you're not in communism.

Yeah your point being? The existence of a black market is merely the existence of clandestine capital. Exchange not being obsolete and the existence of capital go together. Hence we know that the USSR was not a "communist society" because a black market (ergo Capital) existed.

So I don't think you added any content to what I said - it was implicit right there. All I'm saying is that you need to remove the social conditions that make the existence of private capital possible.

[ckaihatsu]

[W]hat are your personal thoughts on how a member of the community would get something he wanted? Although it is understandable everyone cannot have everything they want, suppose a man wanted to get a new car. What would be the process of getting anything?


Under present circumstances we're conditioned to think in terms of 'laws' and 'rights' within the bourgeois legal framework -- which, of course, doesn't deal with anything about workers' "rights" to what they produce, how it's used, etc.

At most we might be allowed to be active within the domain of 'civil society', but that's generally outside of what's actually being produced -- and the control of the same.

Since a post-capitalist society would feature the *collectivization* of all means of mass industrial production, we can take this as a given and extrapolate from there.

I developed a model / framework that speaks to this issue -- here are relevant excerpts:





Determination of material values

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination




Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174


Also, this topic has been discussed at length at a recent thread:


Economic calculation problem

http://www.revleft.com/vb/economic-calculation-problem-t185313/index.html

[reb]

Yeah your point being? The existence of a black market is merely the existence of clandestine capital. Exchange not being obsolete and the existence of capital go together. Hence we know that the USSR was not a "communist society" because a black market (ergo Capital) existed.

So I don't think you added any content to what I said - it was implicit right there. All I'm saying is that you need to remove the social conditions that make the existence of private capital possible.

That's a lazy way of working out that the soviet union was capitalist. Your post also felt like you were saying that labor vouchers would co-exist with the law of value. And going by this post, I think it's even more likely that's what you meant.

[Ocean Seal]

Honestly I'm in favor of a system of currency. You get labor credits: you use labor credits to get your needs. Done and done.

[reb]

Honestly I'm in favor of a system of currency. You get labor credits: you use labor credits to get your needs. Done and done.

Why not just keep capital altogether and just have a workers' state? It'll work itself out, I'm sure.

[Ocean Seal]

Why not just keep capital altogether and just have a workers' state? It'll work itself out, I'm sure.
I think you misunderstand what I mean by labor credits. Labor credits are distinct from capital in that accumulating them serves no purpose. Accumulating capital increases your economic and (on the aggregate level) political power. Credits are an efficient way to distribute basic needs items and I'm not advocating that anyone doesn't get their labor credits, but that labor credits exist as a means of exchange which makes this process smoother.

[reb]

I think you misunderstand what I mean by labor credits. Labor credits are distinct from capital in that accumulating them serves no purpose. Accumulating capital increases your economic and (on the aggregate level) political power. Credits are an efficient way to distribute basic needs items and I'm not advocating that anyone doesn't get their labor credits, but that labor credits exist as a means of exchange which makes this process smoother.

The problem is that you think exchange is possible in a post capital society.

[Ocean Seal]

The problem is that you think exchange is possible in a post capital society.
I'm sorry I don't think I understand what you mean by exchange. Do you mean to say that people should go around taking things without some kind of accountability? That doesn't seem feasible.
Do you agree that production has to be organized? Why does that end with the distribution of goods?

Plant A makes Good A.
No exchange:
All the workers travel to the plant and take good A.
Exchange:
Workers go to a distribution center and collect good A in an organized manner (exchange).

[ckaihatsu]

Labor vouchers are the easy, short-term solution but I think one line to take is to at least create the conditions for a gift economy to emerge.


Just as antagonists to revolution throw around 'scarcity' as a blanket term in order to cause anxiety, so too is 'gift economy' a blanket term -- not everything can be readily abundant, all the time, because -- for example -- new innovations take time to develop and mass-produce, so that in the meantime they're 'scarce'.

We should always consider conditions of 'scarcity' or 'abundance' on a specific, *per-item* basis.





[IMO] "full" communism should make exchange obsolete. If not, then you will just create conditions for a black market to emerge.


Agreed.

It occurred to me that the model I mentioned in post #18 provides for a kind of 'internal' black market of sorts, should historical material conditions go less-than-smoothly -- which could forestall *actual* black markets from becoming necessary and reappearing.





Propagation

labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174


Since *these* labor credits only account-for work effort on a labor-hours -times- hazard/difficulty basis, *and* allows groups of people (a 'locality') to go into simple (non-financial) debt for the same, this could be considered a 'black market' kind of mechanism should scarcity prevail under such social conditions -- *many* localities could conceivably issue ongoing 'IOUs' (debt-based labor credits), because of difficult conditions.

In other words, if conditions of general material privation prevailed, there might not be any point in attempting to reconcile an overwhelming number of localities' labor-credit debts since not enough liberated-labor might be required on an ongoing reciprocal basis. Yet we could still maintain a collectivized social order without sliding back to exchange-based (black) markets.

[Ele'ill]

as you are simply verifying that society deems your particular contributions sufficient grounds to entitle you for some goods or services.

what exactly is 'society' and how/why is 'it' determining what goods and services I have access to

[ckaihatsu]

Why not just keep capital altogether and just have a workers' state? It'll work itself out, I'm sure.


Because then it's only market socialism -- any currency- or point-based system implies *exchange*, as in labor-exchanged-for-material-goods. This is too commodity-like for comfort, and also cuts against free-access.





I think you misunderstand what I mean by labor credits. Labor credits are distinct from capital in that accumulating them serves no purpose. Accumulating capital increases your economic and (on the aggregate level) political power. Credits are an efficient way to distribute basic needs items and I'm not advocating that anyone doesn't get their labor credits, but that labor credits exist as a means of exchange which makes this process smoother.


This conception of labor credits -- as opposed to the kind I advocate (see my blog entry) -- allows *exchanges* between credits and materials, which is only market socialism, at best.

[Remus Bleys]

About these labor credits - although they would only exist in the first phase, would too eventually be nonexistent because the oversupply of society would allow for a higher abundance where you really could take whatever you wanted.

[robbo203]

. Hence we know that the USSR was not a "communist society" because a black market (ergo Capital) existed.
.

Not just a black market but a "white" market as well!

Consumer goods were openly bought and sold in "shops"

Producer goods were openly bought and sold between state enterprises and subject to legally binding contracts

Labour power was openly bought and sold for a price called a wage, proof positive of the workers' alienation from the means of production if ever proof was needed.

And all these things were officially sanctioned and approved by a predatory class of Red Bourgeosie who lived lives of immense privilege and power utterly removed from the poverty and oppression that was the lot of Russian workers

[robbo203]

I'm sorry I don't think I understand what you mean by exchange. Do you mean to say that people should go around taking things without some kind of accountability? That doesn't seem feasible.
Do you agree that production has to be organized? Why does that end with the distribution of goods?

Plant A makes Good A.
No exchange:
All the workers travel to the plant and take good A.
Exchange:
Workers go to a distribution center and collect good A in an organized manner (exchange).


No this is incorrect. By exchange is meant quid pro quoexchange - that is, I give you my apple on condition that you give me your orange. Relocating goods from A to B, from the plant to the distribution centre so that they can be appropriated at the latter rather than the former is not "exchange" - it is merely "distribution"

Exchange which always means in this context quid pro quo exchange, is fundamentally incompatible with, and inconceivable in, communism. If the means of production are owned in common the resulting products cannot logically be exchanged. It is not logical that you should have to buy something what you already own.

Exchange really amounts to an exchange in title ownership of the thing being exchanged and so could not exist in communism

[Slavic]

I think what a lot of people have a hard time grasping with regards to open access distribution is how accountability is maintained. What is not mentioned is that to reach a point in which open access distribution is feasible literally every member of society has to be on board for this kind of system to play out fairly. This can be possible but it would mostly likely take several generations post-revolution. Before society reaches the point where open access distribution is doable, I can see labor vouchers fulfilling the need for accountability.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm sorry I don't think I understand what you mean by exchange. Do you mean to say that people should go around taking things without some kind of accountability? That doesn't seem feasible.
Do you agree that production has to be organized? Why does that end with the distribution of goods?

Plant A makes Good A.
No exchange:
All the workers travel to the plant and take good A.
Exchange:
Workers go to a distribution center and collect good A in an organized manner (exchange).

That's not a question of exchange, that's a question of the distribution point, at the plant or at the distribution centre. Just because it's organised does not make it exchange. When a labour credit is spent, it disappears and is not pocketed by the production unit that produced the good in question, hence no exchange.

[argeiphontes]

That's not a question of exchange, that's a question of the distribution point, at the plant or at the distribution centre. Just because it's organised does not make it exchange. When a labour credit is spent, it disappears and is not pocketed by the production unit that produced the good in question, hence no exchange.

There is still exchange in the quid pro quo sense robbo203 stated. You aren't getting your items unless you give up enough labor credits. That sounds like exchange to me.

[ckaihatsu]

About these labor credits - although they would only exist in the first phase, would too eventually be nonexistent because the oversupply of society would allow for a higher abundance where you really could take whatever you wanted.


I've come to be critical of this common revolutionary conception of the 'higher phase' because it just sounds too damn religious. It's like an intellectual ceiling for the hard left -- the point at which thinking stops -- and it's indefensible.





[N]ot everything can be readily abundant, all the time, because -- for example -- new innovations take time to develop and mass-produce, so that in the meantime they're 'scarce'.





No this is incorrect. By exchange is meant quid pro quoexchange - that is, I give you my apple on condition that you give me your orange. Relocating goods from A to B, from the plant to the distribution centre so that they can be appropriated at the latter rather than the former is not "exchange" - it is merely "distribution"

Exchange which always means in this context quid pro quo exchange, is fundamentally incompatible with, and inconceivable in, communism. If the means of production are owned in common the resulting products cannot logically be exchanged. It is not logical that you should have to buy something what you already own.

Exchange really amounts to an exchange in title ownership of the thing being exchanged and so could not exist in communism


I've raised the following with you at another thread, Robbo, and I'd like to revisit it here:

If a post-capitalist system makes use of 'in kind' calculation, then that's essentially *exchange*, in a *syndicalist* kind of way, which is problematic....

My understanding is that 'in kind' *would* be a quid-pro-quo exchange, because it's meant as a replacement for abstract monetary-type valuations. Why should Plant A produce anything for Locality B unless Plant B likewise produces a roughly material-equivalent for Locality A -- ?

And while this method doesn't use currency or points of any kind, it implicitly values (liberated) labor in terms of *what it produces*, which is *very* commodity-like. (So, for example, wouldn't there be a competitive incentive for Plant A to provide more *stuff* to Locality B in an
'in kind' exchange because of *competition* from Plant *C* -- ?)

[A Psychological Symphony]

Working for "labor credits" that you need to use to gain access to the items you need to survive seems pretty damn similar to the wage slavery that's in place.

The concept that one has to prove his right to exist to whoever is distributing these credits is outdated, and in my eyes part of what we should be trying to do away with.

[argeiphontes]

There is still exchange in the quid pro quo sense robbo203 stated. You aren't getting your items unless you give up enough labor credits. That sounds like exchange to me.

And not only that. Labor credits are a form of money. They store value and are legal tender for claiming goods and services from the distribution point(s). There's just a monopoly on where they can be exchanged. Hence an argument could be made that they unnecessarily restrict freedom, since exchange exists anyway.

[Fourth Internationalist]

As I am aware, currency is nonexistent in communism.

Thus, what are your personal thoughts on how a member of the community would get something he wanted? Although it is understandable everyone cannot have everything they want, suppose a man wanted to get a new car. What would be the process of getting anything?

I fear my question may appear to be "taking a stab" at one of the hundred tendencies I see on this website, but it is nothing of that sort. Please do not aim any aggression/disagreement towards me, I would just like to know the answer to this question.

I imagine it'd be like buying goods now, except without money. "Stores" would exist where one could go get all their needs, like groceries, technology stuff, etc. Products would be produced and sent to stores based on the demand for those products (demand could be measured through a sort of check-out line, perhaps).

Simply, it's the same thing except based on what you want rather than what you can afford. Though, who are we to say what people will do in the future? We don't know. But I don't think it'd be much different than now, other than the money aspect.

[Remus Bleys]

Chris that's one of the reasons marx was so much more revolutionary than the utopian socialists, he showed that such a world is possible.

[ckaihatsu]

And not only that. Labor credits are a form of money. They store value and are legal tender for claiming goods and services from the distribution point(s). There's just a monopoly on where they can be exchanged. Hence an argument could be made that they unnecessarily restrict freedom, since exchange exists anyway.


The conventional conception of labor vouchers / labor credits allows them to be used in a monetary-like way, where they're *exchanged* for material goods and services. (My own model features a differently-functioning kind of 'labor credits' that only "bridges" from one type of liberated labor effort to another, going forward.)

Any system of *abstracted* valuations -- like orthodox labor vouchers or labor credits -- is entirely problematic because the approach allows -- and even invites -- *competition* over materials themselves, and their production. Competition over material production is on the borderline of commodity-production, which backslides right into strictly market-based relations of production.

So -- to conclude -- *any* attempt to use *any* abstracted valuations only leads to problems because such an approach implies *exchanges* of those valuations with materials. Exchangeability with materials is to be rejected because of the material-sourcing problem -- spelled-out very well at another thread:





[T]o take only one example. You grow some vegetables. To do so, you need a gardening trowel in order to dig the holes to put the seeds in. Did you make the trowel? No, it was assembled elsewhere, from some shaped metal and some shaped wood. Did you mine and smelt the metal that was used to make the trowel? Did you cut and shape the wood? Did you transport the wood and metal to the place where they could be put together? No; other people did these things.

They in turn were working with the results of other human interactions - the people that made the mining tools and the tools for cutting and shaping the wood, the people that made the roads on which they travelled to work, the people who prouced the food that kept them allive while they were doing the work that led to your trowel, the people who educated them in how to do their jobs; and the people that kept them alive and clothed them and educated them and kept them healthy, etc etc, in a huge expanding net of social relationships.

Now, multiply that network of relationships that go into the trowel, to everything that you would need to grow some vegetables. You got the seeds from somewhere - someone else provided them in other words. They were carried to 'your' garden. Did you make the device that carried them? Did you invent 'the packet'? No, the bag was invented about 2.5 million years ago (and a packet is just a closed bag). But in a slightly more modern context, you didn't even put 'your' seeds in the packet. Those seeds were taken (not by you) from another plant (not grown by you) from another location (not prepared by you) and transported (not by you) to another location where you collected them. The water you used to water the plants was piped to 'your' property in pipes not laid by you, not made by you, from a water-treatment plant not built or designed or staffed by you. The topsoil that you put down in 'your' yard to make a suitable growing medium was not collected by you, or packaged by you, or transported by you. The knowledge of how to grow the seeds was not invented or discovered by you, nor did you invent your own language to encode the information to your brain.

All of these things are the result of trillions of interactions between people. Your role in the whole affair is momentary. This is why production - even if one person is the 'last shaper' as it were - is always social production and any notion that 'I made this, it is mine' is ludicrous. There's always an infinitely complex regression of who made the things that went into the making and who made the things that made the things that went into the making.

[Tim Cornelis]

Working for "labor credits" that you need to use to gain access to the items you need to survive seems pretty damn similar to the wage slavery that's in place.

That's absolutely incomparable. The "wage slavery", or wage-labour social relationship, means that workers confront the objective conditions of their labour as alien property, and sell their labour-power to the owner. In communism using labour credits, the workers control the means of production collectively and own them in common with society. It's freely associated labour, worlds apart from


The concept that one has to prove his right to exist to whoever is distributing these credits is outdated, and in my eyes part of what we should be trying to do away with.

Even in a midway toward a higher phase of communism (which is near fully automated) this will apply. For instance, goods will be freely available to all (if there are enough resources) but only on the condition of membership of an association of sorts (a producers' association, senior's association, etc.). Since we are not in a world where all industrial production can be automated, some such system needs to remain in place. Labour credits are just a more efficient and effective means of regulating it.


And not only that. Labor credits are a form of money. They store value and are legal tender for claiming goods and services from the distribution point(s). There's just a monopoly on where they can be exchanged. Hence an argument could be made that they unnecessarily restrict freedom, since exchange exists anyway.

Then they are money, it's semantics. I wouldn't regard it as exchange because the supplier of a good or service does not receive them at the point of consumption, and hence would not be money. Call them labour money or labour credits, it doesn't matter. They cease being subject to market forces, which is the important thing. The implication of this is that they can be distributed on the basis of labour input (as opposed to market value), and hence poverty and unemployment can be eliminated. This is in contrast with your money-based market socialism which keep unemployment and poverty alive and kicking.


There is still exchange in the quid pro quo sense robbo203 stated. You aren't getting your items unless you give up enough labor credits. That sounds like exchange to me.

There's always 'exchange' in some sense in whatever system. You give according to abilities, and you receive according to needs, "exchange", "quid pro quo". A gift economy is based on reciprocity, "exchange" in social obligation to give when given.

[robbo203]

I've raised the following with you at another thread, Robbo, and I'd like to revisit it here:

If a post-capitalist system makes use of 'in kind' calculation, then that's essentially *exchange*, in a *syndicalist* kind of way, which is problematic....

My understanding is that 'in kind' *would* be a quid-pro-quo exchange, because it's meant as a replacement for abstract monetary-type valuations. Why should Plant A produce anything for Locality B unless Plant B likewise produces a roughly material-equivalent for Locality A -- ?

And while this method doesn't use currency or points of any kind, it implicitly values (liberated) labor in terms of *what it produces*, which is *very* commodity-like. (So, for example, wouldn't there be a competitive incentive for Plant A to provide more *stuff* to Locality B in an
'in kind' exchange because of *competition* from Plant *C* -- ?)


Ive dealt with this point of yours before on the thread in question and the answer again is quite simply - no. Calculation in kind does not entail exchange at all. You seem for some reason to be stuck on this point and I can't really understand why

Ill explain it again in straight forward terms. A distribution point stocks 10 oranges . Consumer A takes 4 of them , consumer B takes 5 of them so how orangees are left over for consumer C? Thats right - just one 1 orange.


In arriving at that answer what you have just done is to have engaged in a process of calculation in kind. No exchange whatsoever was involved and by "exchange", as I explained in an earlier post, is meant quid pro quo exchange - like me giving you my orange on condition that you hand over your apple to me

Calculation in kind means simply the process of adding or subtracting (or mutiplying or dividing) the same kind of thing throughout. You can't add 1 apple and 1 orange to arrive at a figure of 2. Thats meaningless. 2 of what? The sum of 2 is neither a sum of apples nor a sum of oranges but of a more inclusive category which we call "frui". So we can say 1 unit of fruit represented by an apple plus 1 unit of fruit represented by an orange comes to 2 units of fruit but not 2 units of apples or 2 units of orange..

You arer sticking to the same unit - in this case units of fruit - all along the line. This is what " in kind" accounting means. You base your calculations throughout on units of the same concrete objects in question - apples , oranges , tonnes of steel, hectares of land, litres of wine and so on and so forth.


Caculation in kind does not replace "money type valuations " because calculation in kind is not a process of valuation at all but rather one of counting. There is valuation in socialism which expresses itself in the form of consumer preferences and community decisions. Values are expressed, in other words through the ordinal ranking of things. But this is not to do with calculation in kind


However, there is no cardinal measurement or scale of values in socialism that assigns a particular numerical value to something - such as a money price (1 chicken equals $10.45 as opposed to 1 pig costing 24 dollars and 20 cents) or indeed even in terms of labour units( 1 chiocken equals 3.5 labour units) . I defy anyone to demonstrate how they can objectivenly and scientifically measure "social utility" in terms of cardinal values., Quite simply it cannot be done even if bourgeois economists pretend to themselves that it can be accomplished through the market. That is sheer bunkum

Cardinal measurement of values in terms of a single universal unit of accounting only becomes necessary in a social system in which there are quid pro quo exchanges. Socialism by definition in based on common ownership of the means of production which necessarily rules out quid pro quo exchanges and so by extension the cardinal measurement of value in terms of a single unit of accounting to replace money valuatuions

[argeiphontes]

They cease being subject to market forces, which is the important thing.


I'm not so sure about that. There is talk of variable payment for different work, for example. In which case, maybe inflation would result. Saving and debt would still exist, and hence some kind of banking, since you need lots of credits for large purchases. It would be much harder to go bankrupt or borrow enough to cause a marked decrease in living standards in the future, but not impossible. There would have to be some way to enforce repayment of debts, like labor credit garnishment.

If labor-credit "prices" of goods weren't allowed to float (i.e. they didn't reflect demand but only the labor time that went into production), political means of rationing them might have to be developed or else shelves could be emptied on a first-come, first-served basis, resulting in hoarding or black markets. Basically, all of those problems discussed in the other threads could surface, and much of the form of the market economy would be retained.



, and hence poverty and unemployment can be eliminated. This is in contrast with your money-based market socialism which keep unemployment and poverty alive and kicking.


You would still need guaranteed basic income in labor credits to prevent poverty and pay people who are moving between jobs. I don't see how that would be different from such a scheme in a money economy. Money itself doesn't cause poverty--lack of money does ;)

It also might not be a trivial problem that the state or collective maintains a monopoly on cashing in labor credits, which I'm not sure anarchists would or should support. A wide-enough collectivity can still be considered to be opposed to the individual. If a similar system went into effect in the United States (or Soviet Union), people would rightly criticize it on the grounds that it unnecessarily limited freedom. Black market currencies like Bitcoin would probably arise in that case to handle the demand for interpersonal exchange. Even if commodity goods were widely available and cheap in the collective stores, how would you buy art, artisan goods, or used items?

To have communism, you'd want markets not to be outlawed or made legally impossible, but to create conditions in which they were naturally marginalized, like they were under feudalism or other previous economic systems.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm not so sure about that. There is talk of variable payment for different work, for example. In which case, maybe inflation would result. Saving and debt would still exist, and hence some kind of banking, since you need lots of credits for large purchases. It would be much harder to go bankrupt or borrow enough to cause a marked decrease in living standards in the future, but not impossible. There would have to be some way to enforce repayment of debts, like labor credit garnishment.

Savings are registered automatically on a personal electronic account.

For houses we will apply the Marinaleda model where the occupants of houses pay a mere 15€ per month, so the number of labour credits for this 'large purchase' is negligible. Consumption on account would be available to goods with more consumption points.

I don't understand your point about inflation?


As long as the total number of vouchers issued matched the total amount of wealth set aside for individual consumption, society could adopt any criteria it chose for deciding how many vouchers particular individuals, or groups of individuals, should have; this need bear no relationship at all to how many hours an individual may or may not have worked


If labor-credit "prices" of goods weren't allowed to float (i.e. they didn't reflect demand but only the labor time that went into production), political means of rationing them might have to be developed or else shelves could be emptied on a first-come, first-served basis, resulting in hoarding or black markets. Basically, all of those problems discussed in the other threads could surface, and much of the form of the market economy would be retained.

All consumer goods will be marked with their labour value, then if a shortage results the consumption points (or prices) will be raised, if there's an abundance, the consumption points will be lowered, production scaled back or discontinued.


You would still need guaranteed basic income in labor credits to prevent poverty and pay people who are moving between jobs. I don't see how that would be different from such a scheme in a money economy. Money itself doesn't cause poverty--lack of money does ;)

Labour credits represent labour input, and not market value. Hence they can be created from 'thin air'. There's no labour market and hence no frictional unemployment. Every member of society will receive sufficient labour credits to guarantee material well-being, whether for labour, disability, study, or retirement. Therewith poverty is eliminated. In contrast, in your market socialist economy, distribution of income is still subject to market forces based on market value based on bargaining power, and skews income distribution in favour of high-skilled labour. Throughout Africa there are hundreds of workers' cooperatives, and because of profit sharing they are better of than private competitors but are still in poverty. In contrast, Nintendo earned 1 million dollars per employee. In your cooperative market economy, the coffee peasant cooperative in Burundi will remain poor while the employees of Nintendo Cooperative will be very wealthy.


It also might not be a trivial problem that the state or collective maintains a monopoly on cashing in labor credits, which I'm not sure anarchists would or should support. A wide-enough collectivity can still be considered to be opposed to the individual. If a similar system went into effect in the United States (or Soviet Union), people would rightly criticize it on the grounds that it unnecessarily limited freedom. Black market currencies like Bitcoin would probably arise in that case to handle the demand for interpersonal exchange. Even if commodity goods were widely available and cheap in the collective stores, how would you buy art, artisan goods, or used items?

An individual always enters into definite relations beyond his control, this is true for socialism as well. Distributive justice overrides the freedom to accumulate economic power (which accompanies commodity production), which in itself also limits freedom but more severely. That society (or the majority) has a 'monopoly' on labour credits is no unnecessary limit on freedom, and hardly a limit on freedom.

Incidentally, you talk of freedom as an anarchist. What if Nintendo offers to hire a Burundi labourer, as wage-labourer, for more than he earns as a member of a cooperative? Or hire any unemployed person? You will need to exert force as well to prevent the re-emergence of wage-labour.

Art will become freely available in the streets and museums. Artisan goods? I honestly don't care. If the choice is between a system that will eradicate poverty and starvation or a system in which the lucky few can buy expensive artisan goods, my choice is made.


To have communism, you'd want markets not to be outlawed or made legally impossible, but to create conditions in which they were naturally marginalized, like they were under feudalism or other previous economic systems.

Or by erecting a superior system based on labour credits, which will make markets obsolete to the vast majority who prefers social stability, predictability, and security over owning a Monet.

[ckaihatsu]

Ive dealt with this point of yours before on the thread in question and the answer again is quite simply - no. Calculation in kind does not entail exchange at all. You seem for some reason to be stuck on this point and I can't really understand why


Yeah, I've been more-focused on how matters of valuation might be handled in a post-capitalist context, so that's been coloring my participation in that direction.





Ill explain it again in straight forward terms. A distribution point stocks 10 oranges . Consumer A takes 4 of them , consumer B takes 5 of them so how orangees are left over for consumer C? Thats right - just one 1 orange.


In arriving at that answer what you have just done is to have engaged in a process of calculation in kind. No exchange whatsoever was involved and by "exchange", as I explained in an earlier post, is meant quid pro quo exchange - like me giving you my orange on condition that you hand over your apple to me

Calculation in kind means simply the process of adding or subtracting (or mutiplying or dividing) the same kind of thing throughout.




Caculation in kind does not replace "money type valuations " because calculation in kind is not a process of valuation at all but rather one of counting.


Okay -- got it. Thanks.





Cardinal measurement of values in terms of a single universal unit of accounting only becomes necessary in a social system in which there are quid pro quo exchanges. Socialism by definition in based on common ownership of the means of production which necessarily rules out quid pro quo exchanges and so by extension the cardinal measurement of value in terms of a single unit of accounting to replace money valuatuions


I guess I tend to take issue with this point, then, since -- to me -- it seems that mere coordination itself would benefit from some formalizations, even through to accounting for labor hours and the hazard/difficulty of different kinds of work.

Certainly I could see a socialism in which *no* accounting system is used whatsoever, but, on the flipside, I'd also imagine that simply dealing with the basic details of material quantities would lend the process to also taking quantities and qualities of liberated labor into consideration as well.

[Ele'ill]

what exactly is 'society' and how/why is 'it' determining what goods and services I have access to

what/who is going to keep me from obtaining goods when i refuse to work

[argeiphontes]

I don't understand your point about inflation?

....

All consumer goods will be marked with their labour value, then if a shortage results the consumption points (or prices) will be raised, if there's an abundance, the consumption points will be lowered, production scaled back or discontinued.


Well, since jobs will be incentivized with differential labor credit amounts (at least in ckaihatsu's conception of labor credits), and prices will float based on supply and demand, I was thinking that inflation could result. But I'm not an economist, so I could be wrong.



Labour credits represent labour input, and not market value. Hence they can be created from 'thin air'. There's no labour market and hence no frictional unemployment. Every member of society will receive sufficient labour credits to guarantee material well-being, whether for labour, disability, study, or retirement. Therewith poverty is eliminated.
Well, some of these systems incentivize harder or more skilled work with differential payment for time worked. If not, then how would incentives work? Redistribution of money also eliminates poverty. Material incentives for work have existed for all of human time; we evolved with them as primitive Cro-Magnons who were rewarded with sweet honey for climbing trees and risking bee stings. You need a good way of getting rid of them and still being able to produce a social surplus.

More generally though, why not just move to a system of rationing or some kind of socialized reciprocity? If there's not a lot of difference in how many credits people have, regardless of what they do, then what justifies them in the first place would be my question.



In contrast, in your market socialist economy, distribution of income is still subject to market forces based on market value based on bargaining power, and skews income distribution in favour of high-skilled labour. Throughout Africa there are hundreds of workers' cooperatives, and because of profit sharing they are better of than private competitors but are still in poverty. In contrast, Nintendo earned 1 million dollars per employee. In your cooperative market economy, the coffee peasant cooperative in Burundi will remain poor while the employees of Nintendo Cooperative will be very wealthy.
It's not a panacea, it's a workable system however. The goal isn't perfect equality, it's elimination of capitalist social relations of production. The dynamics of the system are different, too, favoring smaller firms and what not. Maybe the coffee growers will have to collude to raise prices. There is no requirement for markets to be free of social control.



Incidentally, you talk of freedom as an anarchist. What if Nintendo offers to hire a Burundi labourer, as wage-labourer, for more than he earns as a member of a cooperative? Or hire any unemployed person? You will need to exert force as well to prevent the re-emergence of wage-labour.
I'm not sure if an anarchist society can limit the economic form of other federations. Personally I'm willing to compromise on the 'libertarian' part of libertarian socialism but I'm not sure how much since I'm still exploring the whole thing.

In "my" economy though, there is no wage labor, since it's market socialism. The worker-owners of Nintendo will have to take on the worker as a member of the cooperative. Wage labor is undesirable compared to cooperative work, and there is no reason to assume that firms won't have some community control in a democratic rather than coercive way. This is already being theorized.



Art will become freely available in the streets and museums. Artisan goods? I honestly don't care. If the choice is between a system that will eradicate poverty and starvation or a system in which the lucky few can buy expensive artisan goods, my choice is made.
My point wasn't that they were expensive, but that they were produced by one person. I guess the answer is that the collective or state would buy and sell these item. That's all I was asking. There should also be a way to buy and sell used goods to prevent waste.



Or by erecting a superior system based on labour credits, which will make markets obsolete to the vast majority who prefers social stability, predictability, and security over owning a Monet.I'd like to see how well such a system would work in practice. I'm not philosophically opposed to it, but I think you'd have to have the social system in place first before playing around with eliminating the market, whether it's labor credits or some kind of coordination. Having a social basis, in terms of human consciousness and also social infrastructure, might be key to moving beyond market systems. If something has to be constantly coercive on a day to day basis just to function, then in what sense have you achieved anything? Freedom from poverty is important, but state capitalism and social democracy can give you that too. We should be judging the overall system if it's supposed to be the end of history. I'm not a market fetishist, so for me eliminating the capitalist relations is much more important than preventing somebody from selling hot dogs on the street corner. YMMV of course.

Just some things to think about...

[ckaihatsu]

what/who is going to keep me from obtaining goods when i refuse to work


I find this to be a valid point, and an "axiom" of the revolutionary direction -- for lack of a better term.

In other words, modern mass productivity is so great because labor effort is highly leveraged -- if someone doesn't mind running the machine / process for awhile, they can benefit hundreds and thousands of people with the output from the process. (And even better if that person *likes* what they do.)

But, on the whole, people may be disinclined from undertaking heavier efforts -- as in doing riskier or more-complex work -- if they only see a world of people *taking* goods from the efforts of the few, and not reciprocating at all. Such a society might simply stagnate indefinitely or even grind to a halt.

Hence my concern with some amount of formalism and material accounting.

[Ele'ill]

I find this to be a valid point, and an "axiom" of the revolutionary direction -- for lack of a better term.

In other words, modern mass productivity is so great because labor effort is highly leveraged -- if someone doesn't mind running the machine / process for awhile, they can benefit hundreds and thousands of people with the output from the process. (And even better if that person *likes* what they do.)

But, on the whole, people may be disinclined from undertaking heavier efforts -- as in doing riskier or more-complex work -- if they only see a world of people *taking* goods from the efforts of the few, and not reciprocating at all. Such a society might simply stagnate indefinitely or even grind to a halt.

Hence my concern with some amount of formalism and material accounting.

but this doesn't answer the question at all

[ckaihatsu]

Well, since jobs will be incentivized with differential labor credit amounts (at least in ckaihatsu's conception of labor credits), and prices will float based on supply and demand, I was thinking that inflation could result. But I'm not an economist, so I could be wrong.


I *like* to think that my conception / system of labor credits would *not* be prone to inflation because of their being non-financial (non-abstracted), but *mostly* because such a society would be very politically cooperative and would have all productive assets and natural resources at its disposal.

"Inflation" in such a social context would have to amount to a sudden and insatiable mass demand for one particular type of labor, probably in a constrained geographical area, thus driving up the rate of labor credits offered for it. From our discussions here we would call this 'scarcity' (of liberated labor), and would look towards finding a way to *automate* whatever process is being called-for.

[argeiphontes]

I *like* to think that my conception / system of labor credits would *not* be prone to inflation because of their being non-financial (non-abstracted), but *mostly* because such a society would be very politically cooperative and would have all productive assets and natural resources at its disposal.

"Inflation" in such a social context would have to amount to a sudden and insatiable mass demand for one particular type of labor, probably in a constrained geographical area, thus driving up the rate of labor credits offered for it. From our discussions here we would call this 'scarcity' (of liberated labor), and would look towards finding a way to *automate* whatever process is being called-for.

You're right, your system is too coordinated to experience inflation I would think. Also, it's tied to an objective quantity, labor time.

[Tim Cornelis]

Well, since jobs will be incentivized with differential labor credit amounts (at least in ckaihatsu's conception of labor credits), and prices will float based on supply and demand, I was thinking that inflation could result. But I'm not an economist, so I could be wrong.

As I quoted the SPGB, "As long as the total number of vouchers issued matched the total amount of wealth set aside for individual consumption, society could adopt any criteria it chose for deciding how many vouchers particular individuals, or groups of individuals, should have; this need bear no relationship at all to how many hours an individual may or may not have worked."

There's going to be inflation if it's decided that the producers in a particular industry will receive tenfold more labour credits than they do now without diminishing it elsewhere.


Well, some of these schemes incentivize harder or more skilled work with differential payment for time worked. If not, then how would incentives work? Redistribution of money also eliminates poverty. Material incentives for work have existed for all of human time; we evolved with them as primitive Cro-Magnons who were rewarded with sweet honey for climbing trees and risking bee stings. You need a good way of getting rid of them and still being able to produce a social surplus.

I don't advocate labour credits as an incentive, but to determine the distribution of goods through revealed preferences.


More generally though, why not just move to a system of rationing or some kind of socialized reciprocity? If there's not a lot of difference in how many credits people have, regardless of what they do, then what justifies them in the first place would be my question.

Idem ditto.


I'm not sure if an anarchist society can limit the economic form of other federations. Personally I'm willing to compromise on the 'libertarian' part of libertarian socialism but I'm not sure how much since I'm still exploring the whole thing.

In "my" economy though, there is no wage labor, since it's market socialism. The worker-owners of Nintendo will have to take on the worker as a member of the cooperative. Wage labor is undesirable compared to cooperative work, and there is no reason to assume that firms won't have some community control in a democratic rather than coercive way. This is already being theorized.

Then the community prevents an enterprise from freely conducting business, i.e. exert force.


My point wasn't that they were expensive, but that they were produced by one person. I guess the answer is that the collective or state would buy and sell these item. That's all I was asking. There should also be a way to buy and sell used goods to prevent waste.

I'd like to see how well such a system would work in practice. I'm not philosophically opposed to it, but I think you'd have to have the social system in place first before playing around with eliminating the market, whether it's labor credits or some kind of coordination. Having a social basis, in terms of human consciousness and also social infrastructure, might be key to moving beyond market systems. If something has to be constantly coercive on a day to day basis just to function, then in what sense have you achieved anything? Freedom from poverty is important, but state capitalism and social democracy can give you that too. We should be judging the overall system if it's supposed to be the end of history. I'm not a market fetishist, so for me eliminating the capitalist relations is much more important than prevented somebody from selling hot dogs on the street corner. YMMV of course.

Just some things to think about...

Obviously, you phase out markets, and don't abolish it by decree as with War Communism.

[ckaihatsu]

but this doesn't answer the question at all


Okay -- I have to parse this, first....





what/who is going to keep me from obtaining goods when i refuse to work


You can't literally mean *yourself* since you're / we're not actually living in such a society.

So what's meant is 'How would an individual obtain goods in a feasible post-capitalist social order, in a socially acceptable way, without having to work.'

As I mentioned, I take this formulation seriously, along with 'How would such a society treat different *types* of labor roles?', and other issues that also contain a *parameter*-based quality.

[Ele'ill]

Okay -- I have to parse this, first....





You can't literally mean *yourself* since you're / we're not actually living in such a society.

what yeah i'm aware


So what's meant is 'How would an individual obtain goods in a feasible post-capitalist social order, in a socially acceptable way, without having to work.'

not without having to work, but without having work as the carry over method of coercion used as leverage to make a specific type of society function


As I mentioned, I take this formulation seriously, along with 'How would such a society treat different *types* of labor roles?', and other issues that also contain a *parameter*-based quality.

yeah okay i don't know exactly what you're talking about here because i didn't read through the tedious lengthy discussion between you and other users in the last page or so but it is a fairly simple question that i am asking

will we have to work in order to live and by 'live' i mean fun full potential of life living

[argeiphontes]

Then the community prevents an enterprise from freely conducting business, i.e. exert force.


Yeah, I suppose that democracy is a type of force.

[ckaihatsu]

'How would an individual obtain goods in a feasible post-capitalist social order, in a socially acceptable way, without having to work.'


And, to address this, my conception of such a social order *would* readily allow individuals to receive goods *without* providing work themselves, *because of* the existence of machinery that doesn't require much work-effort input to produce mass quantities of manufactured goods.

Here's the "proof", in steps:





Material function

consumption [demand] -- All economic needs and desires are formally recorded as pre-planned consumer orders and are politically prioritized [demand]




Determination of material values

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination




Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only




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




Propagation

labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174


So, in brief, this means that any one person's demands would only be their own, but, depending on what's demanded, they may resonate with the same, or similar, demands of many others.

If the goods that someone wanted were commonly demanded and routinely produced then it would just be a matter of making sure that the number of units produced would be adequate to satisfy one's own personal requirements -- I'd imagine this would simply be an administrative matter of contacting those whose policy package it is that's actively in use, to have production bumped-up accordingly. I doubt that additional labor credits would have to be considered for this, since you're only one person, and the additional production to cover one person would be negligible.

So we can see that the key variable here is 'which goods'. If the request / demand can be satisfied with already-existing mass production, then there you have it -- no work needed on your part, and you get what you want, subject to the real-world political process.

The downside is that it *would* still require you to be part of a *social-political* process, since the context is a *political economy*, unless regular practices included producing significant surpluses of whatever, for those like yourself to just find and take from.

At *worst* you might have to deal in a more-involved way with those whose policy package is being used, to have it favorably amended, and/or to deal with the liberated laborers themselves, to ask them to run a larger batch, for your personal benefit.

[ckaihatsu]

not without having to work, but without having work as the carry over method of coercion used as leverage to make a specific type of society function


Okay, you're indicating a social authority that mandates either work or busywork be done in order for them to retain their privileged position, to ensure social order.

I think the world can certainly do better than this.





yeah okay i don't know exactly what you're talking about here because i didn't read through the tedious lengthy discussion between you and other users in the last page or so but it is a fairly simple question that i am asking




will we have to work in order to live and by 'live' i mean fun full potential of life living


I'd imagine *some* amount of work effort would be required -- and even after a mode of full automation, since the oversight of such would always remain.

I can't address "fun full potential of life living" since I don't know what the material requirements for that would be exactly, for you or anyone else -- that could vary greatly.

[Marshal of the People]

Working for "labor credits" that you need to use to gain access to the items you need to survive seems pretty damn similar to the wage slavery that's in place.

The concept that one has to prove his right to exist to whoever is distributing these credits is outdated, and in my eyes part of what we should be trying to do away with.

Well I think everyone shall be given everything they need e.g. housing, healthcare, education, food, clothes, utilities etc. while you would use the labour credits to purchase things you want like video games, computers and books etc.