What is your preferred method of production and distribution? [Archive]

View Full Version : What is your preferred method of production and distribution?

Always Curious J

24th April 2014, 00:37

tuwix

24th April 2014, 06:02

Well, the answer to your question can't be unambiguous. Because there are different stages of economic development due to scientific development. In 19th century, you couldn't order something by computer and internet because both didn't existed.
Market will dominate a way of distributions as long as money will exist. With money, market can only be regulated but it can't be replaced. I lived in a country where it was tried to replace market with central planning. And it collapsed 25 year ago.
However, due to automation we will achieve such level of production when money won't be needed. And there can be possible my favorite system of distribution by automatic centers.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

24th April 2014, 10:59

I realize this may be a tired topic or too broad of one, but honestly I am very interested in hearing a variety of views in order to help shape my own. I really just want a general rundown of how the economy would function in your view of the future. I am not looking for debate, but obviously discussion is a great thing! In order to at least make this a little bit more specific, I will give a few conditions, as I am sure your answers will differ based on many different variables, such as how far the revolution has progressed, the material conditions, etc.

I am thinking not directly after the revolution, as extreme measures may need to be taken to safeguard it at that point, but not quite a robot utopia where all hard labor other than for fun is rendered superfluous either. Somewhere in between. Maybe 50 or so years after the revolution? Assume popular support for the revolution is high and sabotage is highly unlikely. Productive capabilities are slightly higher than they are now, and resources, while not at a post-scarcity level, are abundant enough to provide the basics for all people (that is actually quite possible today). I am sure there are other variables that are important, but I want to hear a broad array of answers, and therefore I don't want to place too many constraints. Anyways, with these conditions in mind, I'd love a general rundown of how you personally would like to see goods produced and distributed in your ideal future society. Some specifics I'd appreciate would be

1) What would production be based on? Social plans, markets (for market socialists), spontaneous human activity, voluntary arrangements, or some variance of those? Along with your idea on which one, an explanation of why you like it would be awesome. To piggyback off of this, how do you believe labor should be apportioned?

Socialism is the social control of the means of production - so a social plan is the only possibility. Anything else would result in small groups of people assuming de facto control over one portion of the means of production, resulting in a reinstatement of private property. Labour can't really be apportioned - the composition of the workforce would be an input for the planning bodies. People would, presumably, be able to voluntarily decide their occupation, and whether they want to work at all.

2) If there is a social plan that production is based on, how is it created? Democratically and decentralized? More centralized and expertly designed? A mix? Differing methods for differing sectors and levels of the economy? Again, why is your method best?

I think it is important to distinguish three stages here - the data-collection and monitoring stage, which would presumably be coordinated by a special organ of society, but most of which would be carried out by the workers at the point of production, the proposal stage, where presumably bodies composed at least in part of experts (non-expert participation is also important - both in the planning bodies, and in their dialogue with the rest of society), since planning involves things like running simulations, assessing risks etc. (and note that in this case, "expert" pretty much means "someone who is interested in economic planning" - there will be no special stratum of experts and engineers), and the decision stage, in which the final decision (accepting any of the proposed plans, modifying them, or sending them all back to the planning bodies with a stern look), would presumably be made by the central organs of society - the central soviet etc.

3) How is this plan carried out, or production otherwise incentivized? Is it based on the conscious realization of the necessity of the work? A currency? Labor vouchers distributed for work done and the difficulty of work? The human pursuit of expressing creativity and gaining recognition? Some other idea I haven't thought of? And again, why is your method to incentive production best. (I know that some may believe that technology will rid of the need for an incentive program, or that communism is only possible in post-scarcity when incentives will be foolish and unnecessary, and I am open to hear those ideas as well.)

The output from the planning bodies would include a set of targets for production in the various factories, the best method of apportioning those targets (i.e. requiring factory A to produce X units of object 279 etc.), and this in turn would be communicated to the factories. The workers in the factories would in turn monitor the actual process of production and communicate with the central bodies to notify them of their progress. Unforeseen circumstances could also be handled in this manner - i.e. let's assume that factory B has burned down or the workers have become bored and quit - then their targets would be divided among the remaining factories, and this would be communicated to them. In fact a good portion of this could be automated.

I don't think incentives are necessary - people have to do something with their lives, after all, and they will understand that e.g. if they want their laptops, someone has to work in the circuit-board factory (and factory work will both lose its social stigma and its dull, repetitive, dangerous nature, as most workers will probably oversee machines).

4) On to distribution. Do you see exchanges taking place? State-owned distribution centers? Community owned facilities for distribution? Communal storehouses? Cooperatively owned and managed stores? Markets? Something else? Why? To piggyback off of this, how would the actual taking of a product be done?

In socialism, society controls the means of production, and the social product. That means any member of society is to have full access to the social product. The best way to enable this access, as far as I can tell, is to have distribution centres, who would receive products according to a central plan (this plan, in turn, would be based on the previous operation of the centres - i.e. how many people wanted bread type A, bread type B, etc., and forecasts about the future habits of the workers), and give these products out free of any charge.

Presumably you would walk into the distribution centre, pick up a loaf of bread, and leave. Maybe have a "cashier" to take note of the things you've taken so that the future operation of the centre can be planned more effectively.

5) How would you have services distributed or otherwise dealt with?

Certain services would be organised by the central authorities - e.g. all the services connected to the militia etc. As for the rest, an informal system would probably develop where people would agree to provide a service, advertise this, and people who need the service could contact them. There could be an officially-compiled directory of services - or several of them. If services are missing in a particular area, the central authorities could try to convince people who would be interested in providing the service to move into the area - e.g. "Hinamizawa village needs a photographer - apply now".

Providers of services would probably order the tools they need for the job directly from central or regional authorities, and their projected number would have to be taken into account during planning.

ckaihatsu

24th April 2014, 18:29

1) What would production be based on? Social plans, markets (for market socialists), spontaneous human activity, voluntary arrangements, or some variance of those? Along with your idea on which one, an explanation of why you like it would be awesome. To piggyback off of this, how do you believe labor should be apportioned?

Production can take place on a wide variety of scales, from hobbyist one-off works of art to multi-stage mass-scale industrial production for goods that are commonly used by all -- any approach should be flexible for *all* magnitudes of liberated production, including spontaneous human activity, (small-scale) voluntary arrangements, and (large-scale) social plans.

The existence and acceptance of markets, though, would indicate a *failure* of cooperative social planning -- a fully robust post-capitalist political economy would have to be cohesive enough to handle any and all issues regarding 'luxury goods', as illustrated in the following thought experiment:

My favorite illustrative scenario for this -- if you'll entertain it -- is that of a landscape artist in such a post-commodity world.

They make public their artistic endeavor to drape a prominent extended length of cliffs with their creation, and they'll require a custom-made fabric that is enormous and must be made with a blending of precious and rare metals formed as long threads.

Who is to deny them? (Or, how exactly would be this treated, politically?)

The initial *basics* for human health and well-being could be realized immediately with revolutionary efforts on the liberated means of mass production, known as a 'gift economy':

[A] 'gift economy' [is] where all liberated labor is strictly *voluntarist* / donated, with no system of currency *or* economics. A gift economy would *not require* the use of labor credits whatsoever, since people could just freely produce at-will from the fully de-privatized world commons, with the material proceeds going towards the common good. (Any social coordination here would only increase the potentials of complexity / sophistication of that production, as with cascading supply chains.)

The *problem* with a gift economy, though, is that it depends on voluntarist individualism too much -- sure, it would be moneyless and entirely self-selected, but there may not be enough emergent social coordination to enable any decisive complex production techniques / processes, or to advance technological developments for the society as a whole, since production could very well remain in its default localist, patchwork state.

My 'communist supply & demand' model implements labor credits to *overcome* this gift-economy limitation. It formally recognizes that various kinds of labor inherently have varying levels of hazards and difficulty, and so the model allows higher rates of labor credits to be earned, per labor hour, for increasingly hazardous and/or difficult kinds of work.

Those who, from whatever efforts completed, earn labor credits, are thus empowered to select and activate liberated labor going-forward, in proportion to those labor credits in-hand. (So, for example, someone who has only worked a few weeks, but at a particularly hazardous role -- say, mining -- would be able to fund someone else's liberated labor, perhaps for *months*, if it's a much-less-difficult work role, since the per-hour rate would be much less. Or, alternatively, the amassed labor credits could possibly fund *several* workers at a much-less-difficult work role, for the same period of time that it took to earn the labor credits with the more-hazardous work of mining.)

The point of *budgeting* labor credits, as an integral part of any locality-backed project or production run, is so that liberated labor is never *exploited*, since the labor credits in possession are proof that a like-proportion of liberated labor has already been completed and serves as justification for coordinating and activating others' liberated labor going-forward.

The system of labor credits does not interfere with any potential gift-economy-type voluntarism or one-to-one-type arrangements regarding liberated labor.

2) If there is a social plan that production is based on, how is it created? Democratically and decentralized? More centralized and expertly designed? A mix? Differing methods for differing sectors and levels of the economy? Again, why is your method best?

Depending on actual real-world circumstances social planning may be relatively geographically limited, or it may take place on a worldwide scale -- but we shouldn't have to delay efforts at social planning to wait for a thoroughly global proletarian victory:

These days there are wiki pages, so there are no longer any *logistical* impediments to the workers at a location being able to hash-out the particulars of their labor-participation, including the use of that workplace's equipment / machinery / implements.

What we do here at RevLeft over matters of theory and practice should be done for *every* workplace issue at *every* workplace location in the world, by the respective workers there.

[A] pre-formulated top-down 'blueprint' [...] approach to planning would be too constraining and brittle. Rather, as soon as power was seized by the workers, at any given location(s), there should be as much *generalization* of worker-controlled production as possible, to confer logistical-production advantages (economies-of-scale, preventing duplication-of-effort).

Without a pre-formulated 'blueprint'-type plan it would be impossible to make up a grand roster of every person in the world who would be participating in (liberated) labor, as to include in such a grand plan.

But such a grand plan isn't necessary, since the initial self-organization of a post-capitalist liberated labor could be done on *various scales* all at once, while also generalizing efforts as much as possible over time, for successively greater, *emergent* degrees of centralization.

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/)

3) How is this plan carried out, or production otherwise incentivized?

Any *gift-economy*-based plan is going to be inherently limited in its scope of possibilities due to the simplistic way it treats varying kinds of work, and that it can't provide anything like an economy (as for valuating one kind of liberated labor in comparison to another kind of liberated labor, anywhere in the world):

[E]ven though it's moneyless, in practice [a gift economy] would tend to be too *inflexible* and *restrictive* for the participants since they would be "stuck" both economically and politically in it, due to the economic aspects and political aspects being *fused together* as one and the same.

(In other words, if everyone in the work-role rotation basically approved of its 'politics' -- what it's producing -- they may *not necessarily* like its *economics*, meaning what they're getting from that production, in regards to their own personal needs. And, obversely, if a participant happened to like the work-role rotation *economically*, meaning what they're getting personally from the group's collective production, they may not also like it *politically*, in terms of that same output for the greater public good. Either way they'd basically be stuck having to "like" the output both on a societal level *and* on a personal level, due to its inherent inflexibility.)

Is it based on the conscious realization of the necessity of the work? A currency? Labor vouchers distributed for work done and the difficulty of work? The human pursuit of expressing creativity and gaining recognition? Some other idea I haven't thought of? And again, why is your method to incentive production best. (I know that some may believe that technology will rid of the need for an incentive program, or that communism is only possible in post-scarcity when incentives will be foolish and unnecessary, and I am open to hear those ideas as well.)

The areas that are difficult for a fully cooperative mode of production are the varying kinds of labor needed, for production, and the varying kinds of ('luxury') goods demanded, for consumption.

Because of these very real complexities I do not support any kind of 'vouchers' or 'points' system, due to their incompleteness:

My standing critique, though, is that a 'points system' doesn't go far enough because the question of how points are issued in the first place is intractable:

How would points be assigned to individuals in the first place -- ?

If it's on a strictly across-the-board consistent basis -- say 100 points per person per month -- that would be very egalitarian, but it would be an overall (societal) *disincentive* towards new efforts at greater social coordination and experimental / speculative advancements in research and development.

And, conversely, if *increasing* rates of points could be obtained for increased amounts of work effort, *that* would be tantamount to the commodification of labor, since labor would be directly exchangeable for material rewards -- too close to a capitalistic market economy, in other words.

Part of the reason for using revleft so much is precisely for this question of a feasible political-logistical approach to a post-capitalist political economy, and why i've developed my own 'solution' for such, at my blog entry, blah blah blah....

Pies Must Line Up

http://s6.postimg.org/erqcsdyb1/140415_2_Pies_Must_Line_Up_xcf.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/erqcsdyb1/)

4) On to distribution. Do you see exchanges taking place?

'Exchanges' implies implicit material valuations -- exchange values -- relative to other, similar materials:

[L]ocal production that's open to being traded externally, is almost *synonymous* with commodity production. 'Trade' implies consumer-type shopping across a range of buying choices, which implies prices, which implies *markets* across geographic regions.

State-owned distribution centers?

Strictly speaking, there would be no state, but in practice, yeah, warehouse-type distribution centers would exist as destinations for all liberated production, and for all subsequent free-distribution.

Community owned facilities for distribution? Communal storehouses?

Sure, why not -- these could either be part of much-larger productive coordination, or not.

Cooperatively owned and managed stores? Markets?

No -- as mentioned above, a revolutionary ethos would be able to *supersede* exchange values altogether, or else it wouldn't be revolutionary in nature.

Something else? Why? To piggyback off of this, how would the actual taking of a product be done?

5) How would you have services distributed or otherwise dealt with?

Here's from my blog entry:

A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits

To clarify and simplify, the labor credits system is like a cash-only economy that only works for *services* (labor), while the world of material implements, resources, and products is open-access and non-abstractable. (No financial valuations.) Given the world's current capacity for an abundance of productivity for the most essential items, there should be no doubt about producing a ready surplus of anything that's important, to satisfy every single person's basic humane needs.

[I]t would only be fair that those who put in the actual (liberated) labor to produce anything should also be able to get 'first dibs' of anything they produce.

In practice [...] everything would be pre-planned, so the workers would just factor in their own personal requirements as part of the project or production run. (Nothing would be done on a speculative or open-ended basis, the way it's done now, so all recipients and orders would be pre-determined -- it would make for minimal waste.)

[...]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673

Always Curious J

24th April 2014, 21:29

[QUOTE=Vincent West;2743491]Socialism is the social control of the means of production - so a social plan is the only possibility. Anything else would result in small groups of people assuming de facto control over one portion of the means of production, resulting in a reinstatement of private property. Labour can't really be apportioned - the composition of the workforce would be an input for the planning bodies. People would, presumably, be able to voluntarily decide their occupation, and whether they want to work at all.

So the central plan would be more of a guideline, which takes into account popular occupations, rather than a "must-be-followed" type thing? I ask this because with jobs being completely voluntary (which I support for the most part), there is simply no way to know for sure if people will do the jobs necessary for the plan, or do the jobs according to the plan right?

[QUOTE=Vincent West;2743491]I think it is important to distinguish three stages here...

So basically the steps are 1) Figure out what is needed 2) Propose ways to meet those needs 3) Decide which proposal to use (this would then be communicated to workers who would then make the goods and send them off for distribution as you said before).

Could you elaborate a tad on how you see the needs being decided? Something along the lines of looking at past needs is obvious, but how would you go about addressing new or future needs? I see mathematical models and input from the consumers as probably ideal, but I want to hear your thoughts.

[QUOTE=Vincent West;2743491]I don't think incentives are necessary - people have to do something with their lives, after all, and they will understand that e.g. if they want their laptops, someone has to work in the circuit-board factory (and factory work will both lose its social stigma and its dull, repetitive, dangerous nature, as most workers will probably oversee machines).

Hmm. I totally agree that this someday may be possible, and that it should certainly be worked for (basically, if you want the fantastic society you are living in now to continue, you have to follow this plan). I also agree that with the oppressive and harmful aspects of work alleviated or even eliminated due to the abolition of capitalism, work won't be such a drag, and probably even be an enjoyable experience.

However, three things I would like to ask, at risk of sounding naiive. First off, for manual, dirty, or otherwise undesirable work, would the incentive be the same? Simply the fact that you'll have access to the social product, the understanding that without such work conditions will worsen, and the fact work is no longer alienating and oppressive? Second, if production targets were continuously being missed due to people simply not wanting to work, would you have something in mind as a solution? Thirdly, and probably most importantly, can you address this issue that I've heard brought up many times? It goes something like, "assuming everyone has equal access to the social product, wouldn't it be a disincentive to the productive worker if he knows that he will be able to receive the same amount of goods whether or not he works? Why would someone work if they know that a) they don't have to work and can still receive the same treatment and b) that at least a portion of their labor will be going towards those who don't work?"

[QUOTE=Vincent West;2743491]In socialism, society controls the means of production, and the social product. That means any member of society is to have full access to the social product. The best way to enable this access, as far as I can tell, is to have distribution centres, who would receive products according to a central plan (this plan, in turn, would be based on the previous operation of the centres - i.e. how many people wanted bread type A, bread type B, etc., and forecasts about the future habits of the workers), and give these products out free of any charge.

[QUOTE=Vincent West;2743491]Presumably you would walk into the distribution centre, pick up a loaf of bread, and leave. Maybe have a "cashier" to take note of the things you've taken so that the future operation of the centre can be planned more effectively.

With this method of free distribution, is there any way to ensure that no one takes an absurd or unnecessarily large amount of goods? I mean, unless society is post-scarcity, there will be a limited amount of goods, and with this system I could definitely see a "first come first serve" issue arising, as well as some people not getting what they need. How would you have the scarce goods distributed?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

25th April 2014, 01:43

This is probably a bit disjointed because painkillers.

So the central plan would be more of a guideline, which takes into account popular occupations, rather than a "must-be-followed" type thing? I ask this because with jobs being completely voluntary (which I support for the most part), there is simply no way to know for sure if people will do the jobs necessary for the plan, or do the jobs according to the plan right?

I wouldn't put it like that - if the central plan is a guideline, that sounds like people can go into the factories and do whatever they want - overproduce, burn up resources, dismantle machinery and so on. I don't think anyone has the "right" to do that - society would exercise control over the means of production and the manner in which they are employed. But as I said, the actual composition of the labour force is something that, necessarily, society has no direct control over - I mean, you can't put a gun to someone's head and force him to be a chef. Or rather, you can, but that would be a blatant instance of what Marx called "government over men", which has presumably been abolished.

So basically the steps are 1) Figure out what is needed 2) Propose ways to meet those needs 3) Decide which proposal to use (this would then be communicated to workers who would then make the goods and send them off for distribution as you said before).

Pretty much - I would like to emphasise, though, that the second stage isn't something that just happens within the confines of the planning and statistical bodies. In order to accurately assess future desires, these bodies need to be in constant communication with the broad masses of people.

Could you elaborate a tad on how you see the needs being decided? Something along the lines of looking at past needs is obvious, but how would you go about addressing new or future needs? I see mathematical models and input from the consumers as probably ideal, but I want to hear your thoughts.

Obviously you can take the data for the previous X years and use some model to extrapolate from there. The only problem is that small differences in models could result in massive differences in predicted consumption. Additionally, you could literally ask people what they think they will want in the next year, or five or seven years.

Something like this (this is just a sketch): divide products into a reasonable number of categories - chocolates, non-chocolate sweets, coffee and substitutes, sex toys, regular toys, regular toys that are also sex toys that would be horrible, rice and rice products, etc. etc. Then ask people to assess if their consumption of products in the various categories will stay at the current levels, rise, fall, by how much etc. Of course information gathered in this way is unreliable, but it can be combined with model predictions, naive extrapolation of trends, some common sense on part of the planners (e.g. the neo-Tamagochis aren't going to be popular forever), short-term consumer surveys etc.

Hmm. I totally agree that this someday may be possible, and that it should certainly be worked for (basically, if you want the fantastic society you are living in now to continue, you have to follow this plan). I also agree that with the oppressive and harmful aspects of work alleviated or even eliminated due to the abolition of capitalism, work won't be such a drag, and probably even be an enjoyable experience.

However, three things I would like to ask, at risk of sounding naiive. First off, for manual, dirty, or otherwise undesirable work, would the incentive be the same? Simply the fact that you'll have access to the social product, the understanding that without such work conditions will worsen, and the fact work is no longer alienating and oppressive?

Well, let me ask you this: why do you clean your toilet? It's dirty manual work, yet the fact that you want a clean toilet bowl is enough of a motivation. In the communist society, people will understand that society is in a very real sense "theirs" - so that public spaces and their workplaces are their concern, just as their toilet bowl is.

Second, if production targets were continuously being missed due to people simply not wanting to work, would you have something in mind as a solution?

I don't think this would happen, to be honest. If it does, presumably the workers themselves would start working more - since, again, all of this concerns them directly. They aren't working so that their bosses can live in luxury, they are literally working to produce everything that they need and want.

Thirdly, and probably most importantly, can you address this issue that I've heard brought up many times? It goes something like, "assuming everyone has equal access to the social product, wouldn't it be a disincentive to the productive worker if he knows that he will be able to receive the same amount of goods whether or not he works? Why would someone work if they know that a) they don't have to work and can still receive the same treatment and b) that at least a portion of their labor will be going towards those who don't work?"

This assumes that people would work for direct, individual material rewards, which isn't really completely true in the present mode of production, and it wouldn't be true in the socialist society. Workers would not compete with each other over the meager remains of the social product, as they do in capitalism - and they would work, mostly, because, well, what else are you going to do between being born and dying? And they would get direct, collective material benefits from work.

At most, there would probably be social pressure for people to work if there is a chronic shortage of labour power, but that's not a likely prospect, given the increase in automation etc. But if there is no such shortage, and if I work in e.g. the mines, why should I be upset if someone is taking a year or two off to relax? Obviously I don't like my job, and should probably quit it.

With this method of free distribution, is there any way to ensure that no one takes an absurd or unnecessarily large amount of goods? I mean, unless society is post-scarcity, there will be a limited amount of goods, and with this system I could definitely see a "first come first serve" issue arising, as well as some people not getting what they need. How would you have the scarce goods distributed?

But why would anyone take an unnecessarily large amount of goods? I mean, I can walk into the distribution centre and take a hundred bananas, but why? I can't eat a hundred bananas. In the capitalist society, people might do so to prove they have the money and status to pull it off, but there would be no money or status in the socialist society. If someone took a hundred bananas that they couldn't eat, most people would just think he's an idiot.

For truly scarce goods, some sort of rationing could be devised if the goods can only be consumed individually - but I'm not sure that it would ever come to that, to be perfectly honest. We're already capable of producing literal mountains of e.g. sugar. For things like paintings etc. communal access is probably the best solution.

Fegelnator

25th April 2014, 09:41

My favourite question!

1. My ideal is a commune utilizing participatory planning (everyone makes his own plan and negotiates it) with a parallel market economy for those that do not like it. Ideally, the commune would eventually shift to the best of these two as trial-and-error would show which would work best. I'm an anarchist of the leftist type and thus go for non-hierarchical coops and value self-management.

I like this moment particularily because it's a no-government economy and thus the coordinating body that will likely be the government (Union of egoists, mayhaps...) will have nothing to say on it. Government oversight in the economy revulses me.

2. Completely decentralized and spanning across the panarchic federation for all who participate in it. Everyone makes his own plan based on indicative prices pointing out the amount of labour needed to buy these products and consumer coops negotiote production with producer coops, finishing a broad production plan. Basically market shopping, but the consumer decides what the market's going to have. (The shops included in the plan will thus be owned communaly.)

The markets will be run by those that don't want to participate, like mutualists or AnCaps. The markets will thus be run on their terms, but at a price: they'll have to pay in labour for communal services, those won't be free. I guess people participating in planning will have to work a side job in a coop or AnCap company if they want to participate in their markets. Not necessary, but if they want to they should.

3. You incentivize yourself. If you don't want to participate, you can live in the Woods and fish for a leaving, if you do, you write down your plans yourself. You don't have to work anymore than you planned. In markets, the market incentivizes. In post-scarcity, the need for recognition will incentivize painters and carpenters and the like.

4. In the planned commune, no one actually owns the means of production. If you want to work in a store and the workers of said store will take you, you can. The planning process will allocate you your labour vouchers then.

5. In planning, an artificial market where you allocate a part of your plan to surplus services and give a broad estimate of what you might require (perhaps based on last year) to give the providers of these services something to negotiate about to estimate.

In the market, it'll be based on market mechanisms.

ckaihatsu

25th April 2014, 17:06

2. Completely decentralized and spanning across the panarchic federation for all who participate in it. Everyone makes his own plan based on indicative prices pointing out the amount of labour needed to buy these products

You've turned the idea of a 'planned economy' upside-down, ascribing 'planning' to the *individual* scale, while the markets are somehow supposed to resolve the question of prices all on their own. This is hardly any different than what exists now.

4. In the planned commune, no one actually owns the means of production. If you want to work in a store and the workers of said store will take you, you can. The planning process will allocate you your labour vouchers then.

This is exactly the kind of conception that I'm critical of, because of the vagueness surrounding how 'labor vouchers' would be used, and what they would mean -- this is covered in my 'Pies Must Line Up' graphic in post #4.

It's not enough for someone to say 'We'll just use labor vouchers and everything will work out.' What's *left out* is that "labor vouchers" is supposed to tie together what liberated labor is worth in relation to materials, and *also* in relation to other kinds of liberated labor -- this is simply too much for one instrument to handle, and that's why it needs to be dropped.

Always Curious J

25th April 2014, 21:49

In reply to ckaihatsu;

I will most likely reply fully to your entire post (for which I thank you btw), however, I am having trouble understanding some of the concepts you are describing, and some of the vocabulary you are using.

First off, can you define what you mean by liberated labor and product? (in layman's terms if at all possible)

Secondly, the graphics you've provided, while interesting, are simply not able to be completely understood by me. I feel like I am right on the edge of comprehending them, but I simply cannot unfortunately. So if you could just further explain them (again, in layman's terms) that would be much appreciated.

Lastly can you explain more in detail what you mean by the "Labor Credit system"? How would they be kept track of, administered, how exactly they would be used to obtain services, etc? Also, could these be possibly expanded to include scarce goods as well as services?

Thanks!

ckaihatsu

25th April 2014, 23:02

I will most likely reply fully to your entire post (for which I thank you btw),

No prob.

however, I am having trouble understanding some of the concepts you are describing, and some of the vocabulary you are using.

Okay.

First off, can you define what you mean by liberated labor and product? (in layman's terms if at all possible)

Sure -- 'liberated labor' is meant to reflect the entire context of a post-capitalist production environment. It means that social relations would be developed to the point where one's personal livelihood would not be dependent at all on one's work status, or work history -- it would be impossible and inconceivable that someone could be at all adversely affected by nature's elements or the workings of human society.

In this way everyone -- including in their capacities for performing labor -- would be absolutely free from material concerns over 'safety', 'health', and 'employment', for the entire span of one's life.

Anyone in this society would be under utterly *no* obligation to provide labor for any reason -- and it wouldn't matter, because there would be *enough* of a 'core group' of liberated laborers, always, to sufficently provide for the world's basic human needs, due to nothing but voluntaristic efforts using the world's fully de-privatized implements of mass production.

The 'product' -- material results -- of the efforts of liberated labor is 'liberated product', since it is post-commodity and will never have a price tag attached to it. Instead of it being primarily a tool for financial speculation, it will instead be directed directly at its intended destination, according to a generalized plan of production over whatever geographic expanse.

Secondly, the graphics you've provided, while interesting, are simply not able to be completely understood by me. I feel like I am right on the edge of comprehending them, but I simply cannot unfortunately. So if you could just further explain them (again, in layman's terms) that would be much appreciated.

The graphics are described in the context of the thread, plus they have their own text within them, so they're each self-contained.

Perhaps I could be more helpful if you directed queries at me about some *specifics* of either one....

Lastly can you explain more in detail what you mean by the "Labor Credit system"? How would they be kept track of, administered, how exactly they would be used to obtain services, etc? Also, could these be possibly expanded to include scarce goods as well as services?

Sure -- it's an integral part of my 'communist supply & demand' model / framework, which is here:

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

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

Lastly can you explain more in detail what you mean by the "Labor Credit system"? How would they be kept track of, administered, how exactly they would be used to obtain services, etc? Also, could these be possibly expanded to include scarce goods as well as services?

Sure -- the intro to the system, in my last post, mentions that the idea for labor credits is about only materially / socially recognizing *labor effort* in a formal-economy kind of way, but *not* materials, resources, or infrastructure, since they're supposed to always be 'open-access', anyway, by definition.

So by having a vehicle for the interchange of labor-hour-based considerations, we can see that the only economic variable remaining is liberated labor as a *service*, which initiates all production, as of goods.

But -- there is *no exchangeability* between labor credits and materials / resources / infrastructure, because it's a bad idea -- it's too much like commodification, only invites the use of exchange values, and is untenable, as in the well-known proposal of conventional 'labor vouchers'.

Scarce goods would have to be measured against a *new* consideration of 'social value' -- if you will -- that of who wants it badly enough:

This is a critical and crucial question for a revolutionary politics -- it can be generalized to the question of luxury goods / luxury inclinations / luxury production, overall.

I think the quick, administrative answer might be basically 'first come, first served' -- even if it has to measured to a microsecond-point accuracy. One possible option might be a calendar-year timesharing, if the requesters are open to that.

Thanks!

Yup -- that's why we're here! (heh)

Ritzy Cat

25th April 2014, 23:18

Always Curious J

25th April 2014, 23:22

I wouldn't put it like that - if the central plan is a guideline, that sounds like people can go into the factories and do whatever they want - overproduce, burn up resources, dismantle machinery and so on. I don't think anyone has the "right" to do that - society would exercise control over the means of production and the manner in which they are employed. But as I said, the actual composition of the labour force is something that, necessarily, society has no direct control over - I mean, you can't put a gun to someone's head and force him to be a chef. Or rather, you can, but that would be a blatant instance of what Marx called "government over men", which has presumably been abolished.

Fair enough. But how exactly would such things (overproduction, burning of resources, etc) be prevented?

And I would say that the central planners indeed should take into account the composition of the labor force and adjust accordingly in their plan, rather than than trying to change the composition of the labor force itself (of course "DOCTORS ARE THE BOMB!" posters or whatever could be used to try and draw people into the jobs that there are a shortage in). In other words, adjust the plan according to the composition of the labor force, not the composition of the labor force for the plan. Would you agree?

Pretty much - I would like to emphasise, though, that the second stage isn't something that just happens within the confines of the planning and statistical bodies. In order to accurately assess future desires, these bodies need to be in constant communication with the broad masses of people.

No doubt the broad masses of people must partake in the process of planning.

Obviously you can take the data for the previous X years and use some model to extrapolate from there. The only problem is that small differences in models could result in massive differences in predicted consumption. Additionally, you could literally ask people what they think they will want in the next year, or five or seven years.

I also think it would be wise to use predictive models in tandem with input from the masses. How do you personally believe the people in general could best be involved in planning? How do you see them getting their input in so to speak?

Something like this (this is just a sketch): divide products into a reasonable number of categories - chocolates, non-chocolate sweets, coffee and substitutes, sex toys, regular toys, regular toys that are also sex toys that would be horrible, rice and rice products, etc. etc. Then ask people to assess if their consumption of products in the various categories will stay at the current levels, rise, fall, by how much etc. Of course information gathered in this way is unreliable, but it can be combined with model predictions, naive extrapolation of trends, some common sense on part of the planners (e.g. the neo-Tamagochis aren't going to be popular forever), short-term consumer surveys etc.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Anyways, I like the idea of categories in production. Would you agree with splitting production into categories as broad as "heavy industry", "military", "means of production", "consumer goods" and so on? With more input from the masses in things like consumer goods, and less of it in things like heavy industrial goods.

Well, let me ask you this: why do you clean your toilet? It's dirty manual work, yet the fact that you want a clean toilet bowl is enough of a motivation. In the communist society, people will understand that society is in a very real sense "theirs" - so that public spaces and their workplaces are their concern, just as their toilet bowl is.

True. I guess my main concerns are these; a group of people being the ones expected to always do the dirty work/being the ones who do it all the time, and this seems like it would be really unreliable. Perhaps Jimmy was supposed to be on garbage duty this week but refused or forgot.

I don't think this would happen, to be honest. If it does, presumably the workers themselves would start working more - since, again, all of this concerns them directly. They aren't working so that their bosses can live in luxury, they are literally working to produce everything that they need and want.

This assumes that people would work for direct, individual material rewards, which isn't really completely true in the present mode of production, and it wouldn't be true in the socialist society. Workers would not compete with each other over the meager remains of the social product, as they do in capitalism - and they would work, mostly, because, well, what else are you going to do between being born and dying? And they would get direct, collective material benefits from work.

Again, I just feel this could be immensely unreliable. Sure, workers would probably do the work once they realize the necessity of it. However, isn't it conceivable that workers would just produce what they need and stop after that, leaving the rest of society without what they need?

At most, there would probably be social pressure for people to work if there is a chronic shortage of labour power, but that's not a likely prospect, given the increase in automation etc. But if there is no such shortage, and if I work in e.g. the mines, why should I be upset if someone is taking a year or two off to relax? Obviously I don't like my job, and should probably quit it.

The issue I see occurring with the breaks is the possibility of too many people taking a break at once so to speak.

But why would anyone take an unnecessarily large amount of goods? I mean, I can walk into the distribution centre and take a hundred bananas, but why? I can't eat a hundred bananas. In the capitalist society, people might do so to prove they have the money and status to pull it off, but there would be no money or status in the socialist society. If someone took a hundred bananas that they couldn't eat, most people would just think he's an idiot.

Why would people do that? Teenagers may do it to be mischievous, adults may do it because they are paranoid about scarcities, people may want to have a bunch for a party, people may take a lot in case there is none next week, people may take too many because they don't want to have to come back later etc etc.

For truly scarce goods, some sort of rationing could be devised if the goods can only be consumed individually - but I'm not sure that it would ever come to that, to be perfectly honest. We're already capable of producing literal mountains of e.g. sugar. For things like paintings etc. communal access is probably the best solution.

How do you think rationing could best be done?

Two more issues I would like to bring up. One, could you explain how you see services being taken care of? For example, if my toilet breaks, how do I get Bill the plumber to come fix it?

Second, one of the core ideas of many leftist movements is that laborers should own and control the fruits of their labor. Do you agree with that? Personally I believe that all products are social products, made by millions of interconnected processes and innumerable laborers across both time and space, and therefore should be owned and controlled by society itself.

ckaihatsu

26th April 2014, 15:43

I think of very localized production. Communities which will be set and bordered off, only for the sake of creating areasthat share a common resource pool. They will make as much as they can for themselves, and excess materials of any sort (food, computer chips, blankets, tootbrushes, anything) in a certain community will be sent to an area that has a lack of said resources.

I think this is probably what people normally have in mind when they think of surpassing capitalism -- one can readily conceive of it since it could very well be in one's own surroundings, with the buildings and physical environment that one is used to.

And, also conceivably, the immediate aim might be 'self-sufficiency' for one's own local area, as you're describing.

But -- the problem here is that the basic social unit is being defined as the local 'common resource pool'. You're even noting yourself that the communities would have to be 'bordered off', as a consequence of this group identity based on 'the community'. I'll even go so far as to say that *another* consequence of this grouping is a behavior that's basically liberal clientelism -- 'excess' products will be 'donated' to other communities, at the discretion of those within the community.

Multiplied by the thousands, each of these communities could very well *stay* self-sufficient, with no motivation or incentive to coordinate productive activity at larger scales -- we could realistically see something like a perpetual village mentality from everybody, for the rest of time.

It's for this reason that I think revolutionaries should be careful with what they see as the fundamental social unit in a post-capitalist social order -- a 'community' is not necessarily based on an independent liberated labor, so the results of the 'community' grouping would be what is logically implied by it: a kind of localist groupthink, undoubtedly.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

30th April 2014, 01:56

Apologies for responding late, I seem to have overlooked some of the responses.

Fair enough. But how exactly would such things (overproduction, burning of resources, etc) be prevented?

I take it you mean, what would happen to those workers who went into factories, ignoring the general social plan, and proceeded to overproduce (produce much more than the targets for that period), or use up resources in a frivolous way etc.? And how would this behaviour be detected?

Concerning the latter question, this is, I think, primarily an issue of meticulous record-keeping. Another thing to bear in mind is that most factories, as far as I am aware, can be outfitted with relatively simple control mechanisms - computers that record e.g. how many times a machine has been used, how many times the storage has been accessed etc. (I think these were used in some parts of Chile's Cybersyn project, but I am not sure - I will have to dig up the reference.)

Now, assuming that this sort of behaviour has been detected, and the appropriate authorities have been notified of the problem, what then? Ultimately, it is the prerogative of society to stop them, using the coercive arm of society, the militia. That said, it doesn't need to come to that - obviously it isn't very probable that a large amount of people would frivolously start to do something like this (but see e.g. the history of the VIKZheDor in the Russian Revolution), so this needs to be investigated etc. But, as I said, ultimately the factories and all of the means of production are society's to dispose of as the members of society see fit, and no lesser group can be given any sort of "autonomous" control of "their" means of production.

And I would say that the central planners indeed should take into account the composition of the labor force and adjust accordingly in their plan, rather than than trying to change the composition of the labor force itself (of course "DOCTORS ARE THE BOMB!" posters or whatever could be used to try and draw people into the jobs that there are a shortage in). In other words, adjust the plan according to the composition of the labor force, not the composition of the labor force for the plan. Would you agree?

Yes. However, propaganda is not to be conceived as merely posters etc. - this is passive propaganda, probably the least effective sort. Propaganda also means sending out propagandists to make the case of the central authorities in front of the workers directly etc.

I also think it would be wise to use predictive models in tandem with input from the masses. How do you personally believe the people in general could best be involved in planning? How do you see them getting their input in so to speak?

As I said, I see three possibilities, which would ideally be used in conjunction. First, the oversight role of central collegial bodies - the central soviet etc. Second, the sort of "estimation-by-category" that I outlined in my previous post. Third, automatic collection of purchasing data, plus in-store questionnaires, both written and unwritten.

Anyways, I like the idea of categories in production. Would you agree with splitting production into categories as broad as "heavy industry", "military", "means of production", "consumer goods" and so on? With more input from the masses in things like consumer goods, and less of it in things like heavy industrial goods.

Well - how many of us need cemented tungsten carbide saws, as individuals? Possibly there will exist a small demand for tools used in heavy industry, if they are useful for hobbies etc. (CNC machines, for example, are great when making metal sculptures, I'm told). But most of the demand will come from industry itself - so the number of CNC machines, heavy construction equipment etc. needs to be decided based on the demands of the industry (e.g. let us assume that the projected demand for sugar is X units - this in turn necessitates that Y plantations produce sugar to the full capacity - this in turn requires Z tonnes of fertilizer, A tractors, etc. etc.). Individual demands could probably be satisfied from the surplus, or could be made to order - obviously if someone wants a bucket-wheel excavator, they can wait for it a bit.

Likewise with military equipment - while handguns, knives, tins, jerrycans etc. and rifles might conceivably be treated as consumer items, the demand for things like main battle tanks will mostly (hopefully exclusively) come from the militia (if then), subject to democratic oversight by central bodies of course (I for one would be worried if, in a stateless society, the militia demanded dozens of tanks or artillery).

True. I guess my main concerns are these; a group of people being the ones expected to always do the dirty work/being the ones who do it all the time, and this seems like it would be really unreliable. Perhaps Jimmy was supposed to be on garbage duty this week but refused or forgot.

Perhaps, but if that happens to Jimmy a lot, people might want to talk to Jimmy, and probably tell him that he's a right imbecile. Generally, though, I don't think that would happen that much - things like garbage collection can be organised even in the capitalist society on a purely voluntary basis (e.g. in smaller places that don't have much in the way of garbage removal). Here, snow shoveling is organised voluntarily, building by building. It tends to be alright - people shovel the snow according to schedule - except those people from the Poljanice district, as my bruised arse might attest to. I hate them so much.

Again, I just feel this could be immensely unreliable. Sure, workers would probably do the work once they realize the necessity of it. However, isn't it conceivable that workers would just produce what they need and stop after that, leaving the rest of society without what they need?

How does that work, though? If the worker works in a tuna can factory, are they going to produce one can of tuna a day and be done with it? That doesn't make sense, unless that one can of tuna is all he needs. And, unless the items produced can be consumed at the point of production (which doesn't really hold for most things produced today - and even those things that technically could be consumed at the point of production, e.g. chocolates etc., people prefer to eat outside the factories), presumably the total output of the factory would go to some sort of clearing-house and then to distribution centres. So if the worker thinks that he only needs, I don't know, two cans of tuna, whereas the target is four per day per worker (I have no idea how tuna canning works - oddly enough, my aunt worked in a tuna can factory - and the numbers are probably ludicrously inaccurate), he doesn't really have a guarantee that he will be able to get the tuna he wants - perhaps those missing two cans of tuna mean that he would go home from the distribution centre empty-handed.

The issue I see occurring with the breaks is the possibility of too many people taking a break at once so to speak.

Well, that is a legitimate concern, but again, it really isn't in anyone's interest for the economy to collapse, so people would presumably reach some sort of agreement on breaks, just as workers do concerning vacations, sabbaticals, etc. in the present system.

Why would people do that? Teenagers may do it to be mischievous, adults may do it because they are paranoid about scarcities, people may want to have a bunch for a party, people may take a lot in case there is none next week, people may take too many because they don't want to have to come back later etc etc.

The last possibility doesn't really produce any long-term scarcities - at best it might inconvenience someone that the centre doesn't have any more bananas today, but will have some tomorrow. This isn't really worse than the profound disappointment many of us feel when our favourite chocolate has sold out.

Likewise, people taking a lot of products for parties is fine - it just means that instead of twenty people all taking three cans of beers, you have one fellow taking sixty.

As for the rest, again, there is a hard, physical limit on what can be consumed - people might take a hundred bananas, but they can't eat a hundred bananas before they go bad. So all they're getting out of the deal is a bunch of rotten bananas.

As for teenagers, I think most of them stop at things that are actively malicious. E.g. they will shoplift - most of them don't understand how this impacts store workers - but few are going to burn the store down. Generally, I don't see this as a big problem - it would be looked down upon, as obviously antisocial behaviour.

How do you think rationing could best be done?

That depends on the product in question - in some cases a flat number of items allowed to be given to a person per period of time might be sufficient (e.g. if there is a shortage of butter, it might be rationed so that each person can only take one stick per week). In other cases, some groups might be given preference over others. E.g. if there is a shortage of powdered milk, people who take care of small children might be given priority when it comes to rationing. If there is a shortage of meat, again certain more vulnerable groups might be given preference. Etc.

I think using rationing as an economic incentive would mean a partial return of the law of value, something that is inimical to a socialist society.

Two more issues I would like to bring up. One, could you explain how you see services being taken care of? For example, if my toilet breaks, how do I get Bill the plumber to come fix it?

Well, Bill would presumably have some sort of contact number that you could use to request his services, if he is in your local area. Then, presumably, some sort of table would be drawn up, with more urgent repairs (i.e. a leak in a pipe) taking precedence over less urgent ones (badly clogged toilet) etc.

Bill would have decided to be a plumber himself, and would probably be given an office and the tools to do his job by the relevant social organs. The need for services and the efficiency of each service would presumably be monitored as well - as would the honesty of the service provider.

Second, one of the core ideas of many leftist movements is that laborers should own and control the fruits of their labor. Do you agree with that? Personally I believe that all products are social products, made by millions of interconnected processes and innumerable laborers across both time and space, and therefore should be owned and controlled by society itself.

Right, it really isn't possible to sharply distinguish "how much" of a product was produced by any individual labourer - that is, what portion of the socially-necessary labour time needed to create the product has been expended by that labourer. This gets even more complicated when domestic, reproductive, affective labour etc. is taken into account - it all becomes a bit of a mess. Even determining what the socially-necessary labour time needed to create a product is finicky at best.

Note that Marx never meant to suggest that the contribution of individual labourers could be calculated, and that they should be remunerated according to that - he used to call these ideas "Ricardian socialism", and explicitly opposed similar proposals by Lassalleans in the Critique of the Gotha Programme.

Socialists call for workers' control of the means of production, but this doesn't mean some sort of cooperativist arrangement where groups of labourers control "their own" means of production (I think it is a shame that "cooperative" has come to stand for a particular type of capitalist firm - in a broad sense, of course, the socialist society is a cooperative society, since it is based on the cooperation of labourers freed from the strictures of class society). It means that workers, as a group (first as a class; later classes will be superseded), control the means of production, as a whole.

Socialism-as-cooperatives is really a species of utopian socialism (Ricardian, Owenite), reemerging as a minor component of the anarchist movement (with latter-day followers of Proudhon, who are, to be honest, questionably anarchists), and finally reintroduced into the "mainstream" of Marxist-socialist politics (well, "Marxist"-"socialists") by Tito, or rather Kardelj, Horvat and others, and the extreme bureaucratic faction of the Fourth International, around Pablo, Mandel and Frank - the former International Secretariat. Some of the Shachtmanites, I am sure, were also fans of socialism-as-cooperatives, but the Shachtmanite movement never had a unified conception of economics or, well, anything other than support for the US and opposition to the fSU.

ckaihatsu

30th April 2014, 16:07

[I] would say that the central planners indeed should take into account the composition of the labor force and adjust accordingly in their plan, rather than than trying to change the composition of the labor force itself (of course "DOCTORS ARE THE BOMB!" posters or whatever could be used to try and draw people into the jobs that there are a shortage in). In other words, adjust the plan according to the composition of the labor force, not the composition of the labor force for the plan. Would you agree?

I'd like to add that this would undoubtedly be a *dialectical* process, meaning there would be give-and-take between the *administration* of tasks (the 'plan'), and the liberated labor available and willing to work *for* the plan.

In the interests of avoiding specialization / bureaucratization we would want there to be as much *overlap* as possible between the liberated laborers, and their collective administration of work -- consider that the revolution, by definition, is about the 'self-emancipation' of the working class, so this implies that workers would have to have their *own* shit together if they're / we're going to be able to dismiss the rule of capitalist management once and for all.

Actually -- at this point I should point out that the components of a post-capitalist system would be *three*-parted, since, besides 'labor' and 'administration', there's also 'consumption'. Here's an excerpt from my blog entry:

A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits

What's called-for is a system that can match liberated-labor organizing ability, over mass-collectivized assets and resources, to the mass demand from below for collective production. If *liberated-labor* is too empowered it would probably lead to materialistic factionalism -- like a bad syndicalism -- and back into separatist claims of private property.

If *mass demand* is too empowered it would probably lead back to a clever system of exploitation, wherein labor would cease to retain control over the implements of mass production.

And, if the *administration* of it all is too specialized and detached we would have the phenomenon of Stalinism, or bureaucratic elitism and party favoritism.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673

[8] communist economy diagram

http://s6.postimage.org/mgmjarrot/8_communist_economy_diagram.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/mgmjarrot/)

In other words, adjust the plan according to the composition of the labor force, not the composition of the labor force for the plan. Would you agree?

Finally, generally speaking, we would want something in place where these three elements ('plan' / administration, workers, and consumers) would be *mutually reinforcing*, rather than *mutually dissonant* -- we're used to thinking of 'plan', 'labor', and 'consumer demand' as being mutually *divergent* interests, because of capitalist-based competition and the rule of exchange values, but this doesn't have to be the case once the world's working class has *overthrown* this fractured system.

(It would be a 'complex'-type problem wherein success could be seen in terms of *how well* the main components of a post-capitalist political economy could be aligned with the *least-available*, limiting factor, from the following: 'goods & services produced', 'world material', 'liberated human labor', 'labor vouchers earned', and 'consumption'.) (From the 'Pies Must Line Up' graphic at post #4.)

Always Curious J

2nd May 2014, 03:07

To user Vincent West

Thank you very very much. Your answers were precisely what I was looking for. They were both clear and satisfactory. I only have a few further questions if you don't mind.

1) Regarding the services issue (sorry if I am seeming redundant), just to be clear, if my pipes burst, I would call Bill the plumber, he'd say "whelp, looks like ACJ needs his pipes fixed," and then he'd come fix them?

2)With the rationing, central committees or what have you would be the ones making them right? (based on input by the masses and democratic decision of course)

3) So jobs such as garbage collection would be done on a purely voluntary basis? I think that would be ideal, but could definitely break down in larger areas especially. Perhaps those convicted with crimes could be assigned such duties as a solution to that? Or it could be a mandatory community service type deal? If you live here and enjoy the benefits you have to help contribute so to speak.

4) So with the distribution centers you envision (which I personally like the idea of) all people would have equal access to the goods there, and access to as many as they want and need right? Perhaps this is a capitalist outlook I just can't shake, but I feel like people who contribute nothing (I know a few people who'd be glad to sit home and drink beer all day) receiving the same access as someone who works diligently could lead to instability.

5) Lastly, a word on cooperatives. Personally I view them as a way to begin a transition. To show that capitalist organization isn't inherently necessary. To begin to radicalize people and make them realize the possibility and improvement of worker control rather than capitalist control. A way to at least begin transitioning some power and wealth away from the capitalist class to the working class. Do you disagree with my thoughts? If so I would greatly enjoy to hear why. You've been very interesting and convincing thus far.

Ritzy Cat

9th May 2014, 21:07

I think this is probably what people normally have in mind when they think of surpassing capitalism -- one can readily conceive of it since it could very well be in one's own surroundings, with the buildings and physical environment that one is used to.

And, also conceivably, the immediate aim might be 'self-sufficiency' for one's own local area, as you're describing.

But -- the problem here is that the basic social unit is being defined as the local 'common resource pool'. You're even noting yourself that the communities would have to be 'bordered off', as a consequence of this group identity based on 'the community'. I'll even go so far as to say that *another* consequence of this grouping is a behavior that's basically liberal clientelism -- 'excess' products will be 'donated' to other communities, at the discretion of those within the community.

Multiplied by the thousands, each of these communities could very well *stay* self-sufficient, with no motivation or incentive to coordinate productive activity at larger scales -- we could realistically see something like a perpetual village mentality from everybody, for the rest of time.

It's for this reason that I think revolutionaries should be careful with what they see as the fundamental social unit in a post-capitalist social order -- a 'community' is not necessarily based on an independent liberated labor, so the results of the 'community' grouping would be what is logically implied by it: a kind of localist groupthink, undoubtedly.

I agree with that. The issue here is, if we were to use the type of model I described, we would still need to have some sort of cooperative entity uniting all of these self-sufficient communities, that would be able to instill projects on much larger scales (scientific research, especially in health-related issues, defense, etc.), like you said.

Of course I'm starting to talk in the idealistic terms though. I think the ideal system will arise and develop as necessary as the revolution progresses.

ckaihatsu

9th May 2014, 21:50

I agree with that. The issue here is, if we were to use the type of model I described, we would still need to have some sort of cooperative entity uniting all of these self-sufficient communities, that would be able to instill projects on much larger scales (scientific research, especially in health-related issues, defense, etc.), like you said.

I'll less-than-humbly reference the illustration 'Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy' from post #4....

Ritzy Cat

9th May 2014, 22:01

I love your graphics man.
What do you mean by "less-than-humbly"?

ckaihatsu

9th May 2014, 22:11

I love your graphics man.

Thanks! 'ppreciate it.

What do you mean by "less-than-humbly"?

I mean to confer a certain forthrightness in my presentation of the material.