Tech with Communism

[Stalker]

I'm curious as to how things like the internet and general I would be maintained in a communist society, like would it be regarded as a labour job? Surely it would develop some kind of us and them with us being the farmers, miners etc. And them being the tech guys, surely it would be seen as an easy way out of work?

Thoughts?

[tuwix]

In such threads, there is a few meaning of a word of communism. Pure Marxists mean it as synonym of socialism - the first stage where private property is replaced by workers' ownership. For anarchists and Leninists it's what pure Marxists call a higher phase, where money disappear.

For sure in socialism there won't be a wage labor. During the existence of money, probably it will be run in similar way. But without money there must be much greater automation.

[Stalker]

I mean when the state starts to wither away, some time after the transition stage, because Tech is focused on making things easier right? With the invention of things like automated assembly lines and stuff, things that replace humans as workers. Surely it would be condoned, as you're taking away someones living essentially.:crying:

[Brutus]

I mean when the state starts to wither away, some time after the transition stage, because Tech is focused on making things easier right? With the invention of things like automated assembly lines and stuff, things that replace humans as workers. Surely it would be condoned, as you're taking away someones living essentially.:crying:

No, it just means that humans need to put in less labour to run society, meaning working hours for everyone can be reduced whilst the quality of life remains the same.

[Stalker]

No, it just means that humans need to put in less labour to run society, meaning working hours for everyone can be reduced whilst the quality of life remains the same.
But what of industries that can't be advanced through tech, and still require lots of manual labour, won't that create a divide between industries that can be made easier? Seeing as one worker doesn't need to put in as much time as another?

[ckaihatsu]

I find it almost *tragic* that "mainstream" culture isn't as optimistic in this direction as it once was. That was a generation before my time -- the baby boomers, of course, in the national afterglow of WWII war profiteering.... (sigh) (grin)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/59/Jetsonslogo640x480.jpg/220px-Jetsonslogo640x480.jpg

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

[ckaihatsu]

No, it just means that humans need to put in less labour to run society, meaning working hours for everyone can be reduced whilst the quality of life remains the same.


Yes, but...





But what of industries that can't be advanced through tech, and still require lots of manual labour, won't that create a divide between industries that can be made easier? Seeing as one worker doesn't need to put in as much time as another?


Yup.

Here's from my proposed framework:





Determination of material values

labor [supply] -- Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived




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




Infrastructure / overhead

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




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

[Stalker]

So, correct me if i'm wrong, but you're saying that someone with more labor based work ethics is going to be payed more due to hazard? Then how will people that have no "practical" skills keep up at the same financial level? If i'm really weak but a computer wizard, does that mean that i should be payed more, or he should be payed more? I don't understand why your theory tries to re-introduce wage labor, just calling it credits instead of cash...

[ckaihatsu]

So, correct me if i'm wrong, but you're saying that someone with more labor based work ethics is going to be payed more due to hazard?


Yes, the per-hour rate would be relatively more if the work role is deemed to be more hazardous and/or difficult, according to mass exit surveys from people who have been in those respective work positions.





Then how will people that have no "practical" skills keep up at the same financial level?


There's no 'keeping up', because there's no finance -- labor credits can only be applied to mobilizing liberated labor, and do not function as money. (The production of non-commodity goods would ultimately be at the discretion of liberated labor, and would be free-access.)





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

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




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





If i'm really weak but a computer wizard, does that mean that i should be payed more, or he should be payed more? I don't understand why your theory tries to re-introduce wage labor, just calling it credits instead of cash...


It's *not* wage labor -- liberated labor is in no way commodified here, because it's never valuated in terms of an abstract currency or in terms of exchangeability for material goods, unlike other purported post-capitalist economic frameworks.

And while communism might be able to function entirely *without* these labor credits, by being a 'gift economy' everywhere, I'm introducing this 'labor credits' framework so as to 'fill in the edges' at the *limits* of the gift economy, since not all work roles would be equivalent in terms of hazard and difficulty. (The 'labor credits' also addresses specialty production.)

For your example, computer-based skills would be *socially* valued, on a scale of 1 to 10, by averaging all of the surveys' ratings submitted by those who have worked at those specific computer-based roles, for a composite index value of 1 to 10, for each specific role.

This work-role survey ratings index, then, would serve as a *general guide* to determine the per-hour rate of labor credits for any given work role.





I'd imagine that there would be some 'wiggle room' over the indexed multiplier rate, per the given actual situation -- if liberated-labor (supply) was more anxious to tend to blueberry bushes than there was demand for such, the multiplier rate would probably be lowered somewhat for the finalization of that policy package. And, obversely, if there was much demand for steel cars and trains, then the multiplier rate for labor hours spent in dangerous and dirty steel mills would probably be upped somewhat, as an incentive for liberated labor to take up the work.

[Monkey Queen]

Stalker wrote:
I'm curious as to how things like the internet and general I would be maintained in a communist society, like would it be regarded as a labour job? Surely it would develop some kind of us and them with us being the farmers, miners etc. And them being the tech guys, surely it would be seen as an easy way out of work?

Thoughts?

In my opinion, the Internet will BE communist society!

What many people don't realize is that the thing we commonly refer to as simply "the Internet" is actually only one of a few different Internets that exist right now: the Communications Internet. But there has also emerged an Energy Internet and a Logistics Internet in recent years, for example, and the trend is toward them all merging into one gigantic Internet of Things wherein the production and distribution of stuff in general takes place through this social medium. And there may be more Internets that emerge in the future as well! Such is the revolutionary nature of the information age that we live in. And this process appears to be leading us into a protracted takeover of the global economy by non-profits. That's the beginning of the process by which I can foresee a future communist society emerging. That's the 21st century form of socialism that we've all been looking for, IMO.

A distinguishing feature of this newly (if slowly) emerging kind of communism is that unlike earlier varieties of communism, it's fundamental dynamic is equalization most essentially through reproducing things in nigh unlimited quantities (thus eliminating their exchange value and rendering things either nearly or absolutely free) instead of equalization through formal redistribution of finite resources: this is in essence reproductive communism, as contrasted with the less efficient redistributive communism of the past. And it's being made possible precisely by the Internet(s).

[Sea]

In such threads, there is a few meaning of a word of communism. Pure Marxists mean it as synonym of socialism - the first stage where private property is replaced by workers' ownership. For anarchists and Leninists it's what pure Marxists call a higher phase, where money disappear.

For sure in socialism there won't be a wage labor. During the existence of money, probably it will be run in similar way. But without money there must be much greater automation.You can't just make these things up as you go along.

[ckaihatsu]

In my opinion, the Internet will BE communist society!

What many people don't realize is that the thing we commonly refer to as simply "the Internet" is actually only one of a few different Internets that exist right now: the Communications Internet. But there has also emerged an Energy Internet and a Logistics Internet in recent years, for example, and the trend is toward them all merging into one gigantic Internet of Things wherein the production and distribution of stuff in general takes place through this social medium.


Okay, but what would the economics and/or *mode of production* be for all of this -- ?





And there may be more Internets that emerge in the future as well! Such is the revolutionary nature of the information age that we live in. And this process appears to be leading us into a protracted takeover of the global economy by non-profits.


That's quite a stretch -- as though the private sector is shrinking....





That's the beginning of the process by which I can foresee a future communist society emerging. That's the 21st century form of socialism that we've all been looking for, IMO.


No, no it isn't -- this *wouldn't* be how most revolutionary leftists would define 'socialism'.





A distinguishing feature of this newly (if slowly) emerging kind of communism is that unlike earlier varieties of communism, it's fundamental dynamic is equalization most essentially through reproducing things in nigh unlimited quantities (thus eliminating their exchange value and rendering things either nearly or absolutely free)


You're saying that current for-profit businesses would be content to do business *for free* instead of for profit -- ?





instead of equalization through formal redistribution of finite resources: this is in essence reproductive communism, as contrasted with the less efficient redistributive communism of the past. And it's being made possible precisely by the Internet(s).


You're side-stepping the issue of private ownership -- proprietary infrastructure like oil wells isn't simply going to be forfeited by those who currently own such assets.