Service Economy

[adipocere12]

Sorry if this has been done to death but I've been trying to think of how services would play in a moneyless society where people have free access to anything they like without private property.

Say, for example, the services of one particular hairdresser was in demand more than others. For whatever reason. Wouldn't they then be in a position where they would begin to barter or even producing credit slips for other services? I'm just wondering if a market and money would spring up again in trying to regulate access to scarce services.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

There would just be a long wait for their services, which might in turn spur others to provide similar services to reduce the wait or to come up with an alternative. The hair style itself might hold some sort of social significance due to scarcity but it's hard to imagine what that would be, it's just conjecture at this point. The real question is how you would even reintroduce money in a moneyless society. Money represents something today, what could it represent in a society that already has communist relations?

[adipocere12]

The hair style itself might hold some sort of social significance due to scarcity but it's hard to imagine what that would be, it's just conjecture at this point.

Well, for example, there might be some sporting superstar or the first person to go to mars, or whatever. People might look up to those heroes and want to do what they do. Go to their taylors or go to their barbers... that kind of thing. My thought is then perhaps vouchers to use these scarce resources end up as a new kind of currency

[Creative Destruction]

Using your example, there are a lot of reasons why a hairdresser (or any particular service) might be in style and some of them are important in terms of how they would relate to our society and a communist society.

Hair is often connected with status. Even if you get the same exact hairstyle elsewhere, but at a different shop, it is somehow seen as lesser. This has a lot to do with branding, which is fucking ridiculous, but it's connected to status. If you can afford a particular brand of thing, then you can show off your wealth. That shouldn't exist in a communist society, since there shouldn't be petty conditions like the amount of wealth you have is connected to your status as a human being in society.

If we take that to be the main reason for an in-demand hairdresser/hair style, there's no natural law saying that other hairdressers can't learn the style and fix people up with it. Maybe if it's an original hairstyle, it can be granted a name to credit the originator, like "The Adipocere" or something, but it's not like adipocere's hands are so magical that they would be the only one to do it. It can be done by others and maybe self-taught even. Etc.

[Creative Destruction]

Well, for example, there might be some sporting superstar or the first person to go to mars, or whatever. People might look up to those heroes and want to do what they do. Go to their taylors or go to their barbers... that kind of thing. My thought is then perhaps vouchers to use these scarce resources end up as a new kind of currency

Hero worship is a byproduct of a status-based society. So, ideally, some real irrational bullshit like this wouldn't exist. We would think of each other on an equal level, and praising our accomplishments, rather than the person. Because, really, the person isn't special. Anyone can be trained to do just about anything, if they want to be. What matters is what they accomplish.

I like Faulkner's take on this. I read him somewhere say that he wished for his name to vanish from the pages of history, and only have his works known.

[adipocere12]

Hero worship is a byproduct of a status-based society. So, ideally, some real irrational bullshit like this wouldn't exist. We would think of each other on an equal level, and praising our accomplishments, rather than the person. Because, really, the person isn't special. Anyone can be trained to do just about anything, if they want to be. What matters is what they accomplish.

I like Faulkner's take on this. I read him somewhere say that he wished for his name to vanish from the pages of history, and only have his works known.

Kids tend to look for role models though, don't you think? Perhaps they are taught to hero worship from a young age.. I'll need to give that some thought.

But I don't want to focus just on hairdressing in particular, just in demand services. Say I'm the best piano player for miles around, a gifted prodigy, and watching me live in a small, smoky jazz club is an experience that can't be missed. Wouldn't my ability to ration put me in a bartering position? I might be able to get better services elsewhere by giving away tickets and using them as a sort of labour credit..

[Creative Destruction]

If there's free access, there's no reason to be handing out labor credits or anything. There wouldn't be "labor credits" to hand out in the first place. What would they get you? You would play as you like and people will come to see you as they can or as the venue allows. (The "gifted prodigy" thing needs to be interrogated, as well. "Prodigies" tend to come from families that force this "talent" on their child or where children are in an economic circumstance that would allow them to devote time and mental energies to mastering a craft.) If they can't, then it's not the end of the world.

Also, having a role model is not the same as hero worship. Aspiring to do something substantial in the footsteps of someone else is a different thing from wanting to be just like them because of who they are, including going to get outfitted by their tailor, etc.

[adipocere12]

If there's free access, there's no reason to be handing out labor credits or anything. There wouldn't be "labor credits" to hand out in the first place. What would they get you? You would play as you like and people will come to see you as they can or as the venue allows. If they can't, then it's not the end of the world.


Well they would come if they had a ticket, that's my point. And I could use it to jump the queue for similarly scarce services by trading.

[Five Year Plan]

Sorry if this has been done to death but I've been trying to think of how services would play in a moneyless society where people have free access to anything they like without private property.

Say, for example, the services of one particular hairdresser was in demand more than others. For whatever reason. Wouldn't they then be in a position where they would begin to barter or even producing credit slips for other services? I'm just wondering if a market and money would spring up again in trying to regulate access to scarce services.

There would be planned rationing, unlike in the present, where there is unplanned rationing according to ability to pay.

[adipocere12]

There would be planned rationing, unlike in the present, where there is unplanned rationing according to ability to pay.


Yes I guess that's the main point isn't it. In a situation like I've described above the community can come together and figure out how it can be fairly rationed.

[tuwix]

Sorry if this has been done to death but I've been trying to think of how services would play in a moneyless society where people have free access to anything they like without private property.

Say, for example, the services of one particular hairdresser was in demand more than others. For whatever reason. Wouldn't they then be in a position where they would begin to barter or even producing credit slips for other services? I'm just wondering if a market and money would spring up again in trying to regulate access to scarce services.

The problem of hairdresser can be solved by appropriate machine. The lack of it existence now is caused by lack of capital concentration. Simply saying, there is no need to replace hairdresser now by machine because hairdressing is controlled by petite bourgeoisie. If they would be centralized in big networks like McDonalds, StarBucks, etc. there would be hairdressing machines that would be replacing hairdressers slowly.

The other services can be done in similar way. The rest can be solved by booking as form of rationing.

[adipocere12]

The problem of hairdresser can be solved by appropriate machine. The lack of it existence now is caused by lack of capital concentration. Simply saying, there is no need to replace hairdresser now by machine because hairdressing is controlled by petite bourgeoisie. If they would be centralized in big networks like McDonalds, StarBucks, etc. there would be hairdressing machines that would be replacing hairdressers slowly.

The other services can be done in similar way. The rest can be solved by booking as form of rationing.


Yes I'm sure there would be machines but it won't stop people carrying on offering those services and for those to be in demand for perceived higher quality. My worry is that vouchers for privileged access to these services would create a new market and barter system with these vouchers as some kind of new currency.

[Creative Destruction]

Yes I'm sure there would be machines but it won't stop people carrying on offering those services and for those to be in demand for perceived higher quality. My worry is that vouchers for privileged access to these services would create a new market and barter system with these vouchers as some kind of new currency.

"Perceived higher quality" usually has to do with a lack of information on the part of the consumer, either a lack of good information or just that they simply don't realize that a machine can do it just as well.

[adipocere12]

"Perceived higher quality" usually has to do with a lack of information on the part of the consumer, either a lack of good information or just that they simply don't realize that a machine can do it just as well.


Maybe. I know that with musical instruments people will pay a premium for hand made and they swear it makes a difference. Or they may want something very specific

[Creative Destruction]

Maybe. I know that with musical instruments people will pay a premium for hand made and they swear it makes a difference. Or they may want something very specific

well, they will swear that to themselves because they paid that premium. it's a strong psychological effect. there really isn't a difference between a handmade instrument and a mass produced one except for the materials. mass production usually calls for lesser quality materials, which is why they don't sound as good as a "handmade" instrument. an ebony guitar body is still going to sound like any other guitar body made of ebony, depending on the electronics put in the guitar and what QA process the factory uses, regardless of whether it was CNC'd or hand cut using chisels.

also, the guitars (for example) that tend to be made for specificity usually have to do hardware (a khaler vs. a floyd rose bridge, or just having a fixed bridge) which would be easily swapped out at the factory or even by the guitarist with a little bit of know how. designs among guitars are remarkably similar, though.

[adipocere12]

well, they will swear that to themselves because they paid that premium. it's a strong psychological effect. there really isn't a difference between a handmade instrument and a mass produced one except for the materials. mass production usually calls for lesser quality materials, which is why they don't sound as good as a "handmade" instrument. an ebony guitar body is still going to sound like any other guitar body made of ebony, depending on the electronics put in the guitar and what QA process the factory uses, regardless of whether it was CNC'd or hand cut using chisels.



also, the guitars (for example) that tend to be made for specificity usually have to do hardware (a khaler vs. a floyd rose bridge, or just having a fixed bridge) which would be easily swapped out at the factory or even by the guitarist with a little bit of know how. designs among guitars are remarkably similar, though.


But whether you're right or not is beside the point. The fact they believe there is a difference creates the demand for the scarce resource that I'm referring to.

[Strannik]

If your commune has an excellent hairdresser who is overburdened with work, the rational thing would beto ask him whether he can train the hairdresser in my commune. Just throwing money at him will not increase his capacity, he'll just burn through. :)

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The hairdresser is not producing for a profit at this point though, their only limitation is their own motivation to continue styling hair. Whether or not they see 10 clients a day or 5 clients a month would be their choice, but since they stand to gain nothing either way it doesn't make sense for them to introduce some kind of currency into that situation, what is it they would gain? You keep formulating the question as if a monetary system had never actually ended, and the hair dresser has the same day to day concerns that you and I have under capitalism. The only benefit the credit vouchers could seemingly have for the hair dresser would be to allow them to limit the number of clients they perform the service for, but since we're talking about a society of free producers and consumers, the hair dresser already has the right to limit the number of clients in the first place, since their act of being a hair dresser, or anything else, is wholly voluntary.

[Creative Destruction]

But whether you're right or not is beside the point. The fact they believe there is a difference creates the demand for the scarce resource that I'm referring to.

Pay attention. What I was telling you is that this effect -- that people pay a premium for things labelled "handmade" -- is a psychological byproduct of paying an amount of money that they really shouldn't have needed to pay. They're justifying the "quality" of the instrument for the price they paid.

I can't imagine this being too big of a problem when you have the proper information in front of you: that is, handmade instruments are not necessarily better than machined instruments. There's especially no byproduct of having to justify your purchase when you got it for free.

You can see this with just about any, what's called, Veblen goods: their price is based on their branding as a status symbol. Cristal isn't expensive as shit because it's a better champagne, or even because it is perceived as a better champaigne. It's expensive as shit and "scarce" because of its symbol as an expensive champagne. IOW, it's pretty much expensive because it's expensive. These kinds of things should disappear when production becomes for free access rather than profit.

[adipocere12]

Would you say the same argument applies to food? Machine made vs a master chef?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I would say yes, but someone completely submerged in yuppie food culture would likely disagree. The question then would be if yuppie food culture could even exist under communism.

[adipocere12]

Oh I'm certain people would enjoy cooking still, for sure. Especially with free access to ingredients

[Creative Destruction]

lol.

It doesn't matter whether you can apply this argument to every little situation. Maybe a machine will never be able to be Gordon Ramsay, but that really doesn't matter. (I happen to think it's possible. You can program a machine to do just about anything, if you really wanted to.) Ethics Gradient already gave a couple of pretty outstanding answers to your question.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Oh I'm certain people would enjoy cooking still, for sure. Especially with free access to ingredients

You asked whether or not status is connected to eating gourmet food vs. mass produced food in the same fashion as rednoise' instrument example, my answer is yes. People will likely enjoy cooking for as long as they enjoy eating food.

[adipocere12]

The hairdresser is not producing for a profit at this point though, their only limitation is their own motivation to continue styling hair. Whether or not they see 10 clients a day or 5 clients a month would be their choice, but since they stand to gain nothing either way it doesn't make sense for them to introduce some kind of currency into that situation, what is it they would gain? You keep formulating the question as if a monetary system had never actually ended, and the hair dresser has the same day to day concerns that you and I have under capitalism. The only benefit the credit vouchers could seemingly have for the hair dresser would be to allow them to limit the number of clients they perform the service for, but since we're talking about a society of free producers and consumers, the hair dresser already has the right to limit the number of clients in the first place, since their act of being a hair dresser, or anything else, is wholly voluntary.


No no, that's not what I meant at all. My concern was the hairdresser, in having a high-demand service, would choose to limit supply in exchange for someone else's high demand service. They could jump the queue, if you will. Extrapolate that out and you end up with a privileged few who barter and exchange exclusive access to things. As the hairdresser might not want a meal prepared by the master chef right away they take it in the form of a voucher.

My original post was based purely on a starting point of people having no concept of monetary exchange and markets but both developing out of a free access economy.

[adipocere12]

To be honest, the best response I've read here is that high demand services would be rationed according to a plan democratically decided by the community as a whole. That's fine, but I guess I was just hoping for a less interventionist solution.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

No no, that's not what I meant at all. My concern was the hairdresser, in having a high-demand service, would choose to limit supply in exchange for someone else's high demand service. They could jump the queue, if you will. Extrapolate that out and you end up with a privileged few who barter and exchange exclusive access to things. As the hairdresser might not want a meal prepared by the master chef right away they take it in the form of a voucher.

My original post was based purely on a starting point of people having no concept of monetary exchange and markets but both developing out of a free access economy.

I see, but incidentally when you explain it like this it sounds even less threatening. I don't think someone producing in an exclusive manner like what you're describing is actually much of a problem. Communism means equality in access, but not necessarily in experience. If I make a really good sandwich but will only do so exclusively for another person who happens to also provide a really good hair cut, this in no way prevents others from my community from eating a different sandwich or receiving a different haircut. They just presumably won't be as good as my sandwich or the other person's haircut (although those things are pretty subjective so it would be hard to argue either way). As it stands now, my partner makes fantastic goat curry, but exclusively for me, so far at least. After a revolution, should that have to change for some reason?

[adipocere12]

I see, but incidentally when you explain it like this it sounds even less threatening. I don't think someone producing in an exclusive manner like what you're describing is actually much of a problem. Communism means equality in access, but not necessarily in experience. If I make a really good sandwich but will only do so exclusively for another person who happens to also provide a really good hair cut, this in no way prevents others from my community from eating a different sandwich or receiving a different haircut. They just presumably won't be as good as my sandwich or the other person's haircut (although those things are pretty subjective so it would be hard to argue either way). As it stands now, my partner makes fantastic goat curry, but exclusively for me, so far at least. After a revolution, should that have to change for some reason?


I suppose you're right. It does feel like a privileged few is growing there though. That's fine when we're talking sandwiches and haircuts but I wonder how it looks when we're talking shuttle trips to mars or anything else where there is no alternative.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Well something like transportation is more of an access item than a luxury good, but I get your point. I think social conflict will survive a transition to communism, it just won't be this social conflict. You should read Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by Corey Doctorow, it deals with social conflict in a post-scarcity future, its pretty good. You can download it for free on his site: http://craphound.com/down/?page_id=1625