How would Worker's Self Managament work in Socialism? [Archive]

Blake's Baby

27th September 2014, 22:58

... Do workers elect a delegate into a regional council to make economic decisions? What do they do, exactly?...

I would think so.

Production - how what's made is made - in the hands of the workers, at the point of production. This light engineering works here is making bicycles, it makes 1000 a month because the workers there have decided that's a reasonable level of production. There are 100 people at the factory and in 3 days they've made enough bikes for all the workers.

But how do the workers know how many more they need to make? The workers' delegates also go to the district soviet, were other workers' delegates (who don't work a bicycle factories) request bikes. The workers know that in coming months they'll need 2000 more bikes at least for everyone in the district who needs a bike.

If after that there's no more demand for bikes then perhaps they could re-tool the factory to make something there is a demand for, or, if the demand for bikes keeps up, they keep making bikes.

Devrim

27th September 2014, 23:00

With lots of lite hedgehogs running around.

Devrim

ckaihatsu

28th September 2014, 01:40

We all know socialism can only exist with worker control of their industries, but what exactly do they decide? Socialism also is about providing to all via a common plan - economic planning - through centralized or decentralized methods. So how does economic planning work with workplace democracy? Do workers elect a delegate into a regional council to make economic decisions? What do they do, exactly?

Because Worker's Self Management without any planning is just market socialism, and thus rather reactionary.

This is a good point, and I've found that conventional / orthodox theory tends to be lacking on the particulars of how organic mass demand could precipitate liberated labor and its efforts at mass production.

If we approach the question using the vantage point of *scale* it might be valid to say that each worker would ultimately be individually self-determining in terms of their own efforts, and would always have recourse to an individualistic 'veto power' over any kind of labor-participation. In this way we could be sure that the people we're talking about are truly 'free' and 'liberated', and not subject to any kind of coercion, as for their labor-power.

From there, liberated labor *would* have to pre-plan all production, otherwise the market mechanism would spontaneously reappear (since nature abhors a vacuum). Economic decision-making, as for mass production, *would* have to be democratic, otherwise it *wouldn't* be, and so would probably tend towards favoritism and elitism of some sort.

I happen to *object*, though, to any kind of delegated / representative decision-making since it's just *superfluous* in this day and age of digitally-based instantaneous communications.

If people have the adequate time and information to stay up-to-date on the (political) issues of the day, whatever they may be, so as to make good, well-informed decisions regarding the selection or dismissal of their political representatives, then they obviously have enough time and information to simply *forward* their opinions and decisions regarding policy and problem-solving, into an entirely *collective* process.

These days our communications technology greatly facilitates such a bottom-up collective decision-making process, *without* having to depend on any (necessarily substitutionist) political representatives of *any* kind.

The crux of the issue that remains, then, is how would organic mass demand be ascertained, exactly, and how much of an impetus would it be on liberated labor, exactly, since the workers would be self-determining over their own labor, and might not always *want* to be responsive to what people are calling-for in terms of production.

Planning -- on both the 'demand' side and on the 'production' side -- should always seek to *generalize*, so as to cover more area with less effort, but much is conventionally left unaddressed in terms of how mass-population dynamics might be handled equitably, so that there are no gray areas or lack of policy to cover new situations.

(For example, what if there's suddenly a large demand from a major region of the globe for warm furs, for a turn of winter weather that leaves many people abnormally cold in their daily out-and-about activities -- ? Would the available and willing liberated laborers of the world automatically shift their efforts to fulfill this call, or would there be some nuance involved, and how might it be handled for such a situation -- ?) (Etc.)

tuwix

28th September 2014, 05:40

Righteous Prophet

28th September 2014, 05:52

First, I think markets can be used on a low-level scale ( for smaller workplaces, delis, etc.) In large production settings, and in sectors that critical for survival ( agriculture, construction, clothing) there needs to be councils as mentioned above. General targets, that are decided democratically) must be met with the specifics such as product design left to the individual workplaces (creativity of the masses). In addition, under capitalism, market studies effectively gauges the needs of the ultra-rich. If we can have councils that use similar analysis of the total population's desires, most of an individual's needs are met. And let's face it: under capitalism most goods are not really "desired", corporate advertising cultivates that desire through a constant barrage of tv ads. J.K. Galbraith even spoke about this.

Creative Destruction

28th September 2014, 05:58

You have touched the main problem of Marxism that is: What is more important? Power of workers over a means of production or power of state?

this would be a good article for you to read: http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html

ckaihatsu

28th September 2014, 06:59

You have touched the main problem of Marxism that is: What is more important? Power of workers over a means of production or power of state? Anarchists have solved this problem, but they are not Marxist.

But the problem could be solved by subsidies. Workers could govern their workplaces by voting very decision, electing a council or a leader to do so, but any authority could offer subsidies to those are willing to accomplish plans.

'Subsidies' implies a state-regulated, currency- / *market*-type economy, since the subsidies are, by definition, seen as a special exception to the regular functioning and flowing of *currency* transactions.

And we already know that

[W]orker's Self Management without any planning is just market socialism, and thus rather reactionary.

I mean to point out that it sounds like there would be a *market*-type economy -- necessarily without planning, by definition -- if the 'subsidies' were not a part of the system.

[A]ny authority could offer subsidies to those are willing to accomplish plans.

So 'subsidies' means some kind of particular compensation for labor, as decided by an authority of some type (presumably based on workplace democracy).

Would this compensation be decided-on in relation to the labor contributed, or would it be decided-on in relation to the 'value' / worth of the compensation-value itself, meaning the range of goods and services that could be obtained with it -- ?

- If the subsidies are in relation to the *labor inputs*, then that effectively *commodifies* labor, since workers will be looking to see the relative *levels* of compensation given for whatever work inputs, over time. People will know what kinds of work are rewarded more than others and that will be a labor *market* of sorts.

- If the subsidies are in relation to the *compensation value* (goods and services exchangeable for it), then that's effectively *market socialism* since the subsidies now function as cash and will circulate at-will, independently of any and all pre-planning.

Of course, we,re discussing a first phase, because in higher phase of socialism/communism all such consideration are irrelevant.

Feel free to distinguish here, and to explain how a 'higher phase' economics might function....

cyu

29th September 2014, 15:55

Worker's Self Management without any planning is just market socialism, and thus rather reactionary.

I wouldn't say it's the "planning" part that makes something left or right-wing. Even large corporations run by capitalists plan what they will produce.

If property claims have been abolished, and hungry people are always encouraged to take any food they see, then it would be in everyone's interest to make sure there's always enough to go around for everyone.

ckaihatsu

29th September 2014, 20:59

I wouldn't say it's the "planning" part that makes something left or right-wing. Even large corporations run by capitalists plan what they will produce.

This is specious reasoning, though -- sure, what you're saying is *empirically* correct, but the planning of a *post*-capitalist society would be altogether different from that which we see today within (capitalist) corporations.

Liberals -- politically to the right of us -- even call for more government *regulation*, which is *political* planning of a sort, while we on the *revolutionary* left call for a worker-based planning over *production itself*, with no intermediaries.

If property claims have been abolished, and hungry people are always encouraged to take any food they see, then it would be in everyone's interest to make sure there's always enough to go around for everyone.

Yup.

tuwix

30th September 2014, 05:39

'Subsidies' implies a state-regulated, currency- / *market*-type economy, since the subsidies are, by definition, seen as a special exception to the regular functioning and flowing of *currency* transactions.

When you want to have everything planned, then you receive the SU economy. And it will collapse sooner or later. You have found a way to sure failure. And certainly you will have a huge black market as the SU had...

And I cannot remember that Marx ever recommended that everything has to be planned. He advocated centralization only of some sectors of economy as far as I know...

ckaihatsu

30th September 2014, 06:09

When you want to have everything planned, then you receive the SU economy. And it will collapse sooner or later. You have found a way to sure failure. And certainly you will have a huge black market as the SU had...

When you want to have everything planned it means you realize that the current system is outdated and has been for decades, at very least. It means that we shouldn't have to depend on the whims of capital owners and on the happenstances of the anarchic market mechanism, to have a reliably functioning economics, and for mass productivity that matches real demand.

When everything is pre-planned it's called a 'gift economy', because only that which is *wanted* is actually produced, and *in advance*, so there's no speculation and no waste.

Thanks for projecting your anxieties, though -- it always helps for good practice over here.

And I cannot remember that Marx ever recommended that everything has to be planned. He advocated centralization only of some sectors of economy as far as I know...

I certainly don't look to your political counsel and I won't be relying on your recollection of scholarly references, either.

'Centralization' simply means 'common agreement for production over large areas of geography, with a single point of administration for it'.

tuwix

30th September 2014, 06:36

^^With no doubts I find better a 'anarchic market mechanism' than the Soviet Union economy that you try to revoke. I would like to remind that the SU economy have collapsed. Your one would collapse too...

And it has nothing to do with any 'anxieties'. I just was living in the economy were everything was tried to be planned and I know how does it look like.

So if you are unable to find any words of Marx advocating a planning of everything in the first phase, then I find your will to plan everything as just irrational and almost religious hatred to a word 'market'.

ckaihatsu

30th September 2014, 06:46

^^With no doubts I find better a 'anarchic market mechanism' than the Soviet Union economy that you try to revoke. I would like to remind that the SU economy have collapsed. Your one would collapse too...

"Mine" -- ?? Like I'm the first and only socialist who ever existed -- !

You seem to think that past events are the only possibility for the future. (Go figure.) And, based on this conception, you'd rather sit down and give in to the status quo than even *discuss* possibilities for a better world.

And it has nothing to do with any 'anxieties'. I just was living in the economy were everything was tried to be planned and I know how does it look like.

Well I'm sorry for any adverse personal experiences you may have had, but that doesn't invalidate the aspirations of many *today* to transcend the barbarities of capitalism.

So if you are unable to find any words of Marx advocating a planning of everything in the first phase, then I find your will to plan everything as just irrational and almost religious hatred to a word 'market'.

So, according to your brain, if I can't find a precedent in Marx's writings for what I'm advocating then that automatically makes my politics "irrational" and "[hateful]". Again, I won't even *try* to decipher the process you use to reach your conclusions.

tuwix

30th September 2014, 08:07

Well I'm sorry for any adverse personal experiences you may have had, but that doesn't invalidate the aspirations of many *today* to transcend the barbarities of capitalism.

Aspirations to plan everything are not socialist but Stalinist or at least Leninist (they both failed). And they will result the same effect. To offer something like that is just to offer a barbarities of the SU economy. You want to replace some barbarities with others. I do not.

Blake's Baby

30th September 2014, 10:32

In order for 'Leninism' (whatever that might be) to 'fail' it must be attempting to do something.

Can you explain what you think 'Leninism' was supposed to accomplish, and then explain what planning has to do with what it was attempting to do?

Gepetto

30th September 2014, 11:00

Aspirations to plan everything are not socialist but Stalinist or at least Leninist (they both failed). And they will result the same effect. To offer something like that is just to offer a barbarities of the SU economy. You want to replace some barbarities with others. I do not.
Lol.

Eastern bloc economies were hardly planned. Government just set targets that managers had to meet and that was all.

Also, what's with Polish anarchists and crypto-Proudhonism and closeted anti-communism?

cyu

30th September 2014, 11:48

In order for 'Leninism' (whatever that might be) to 'fail' it must be attempting to do something.

That's a great point - although I apologize the rest of this isn't really on-topic. Pro-capitalists often claim that communism "failed" while capitalism "succeeded" - it seems part of the parameters for "success" in capitalism just means the ruling class stays rich and the poor starve - in other words, they've incorporated failure into their definition of success.

Blake's Baby

30th September 2014, 13:56

tuwix

30th September 2014, 16:21

Can you explain what you think 'Leninism' was supposed to accomplish, and then explain what planning has to do with what it was attempting to do?

Well, actually no. I'm not interested very much in failed ideologies. However, I must say that Leninism in theory and Leninism in practice seem to be very different things.

Eastern bloc economies were hardly planned. Government just set targets that managers had to meet and that was all.

You first phrase contradicts a second one. Setting targets to meet is exactly a central planning. And are you aware of existence of the "Centralny Urząd Planowania" (Central Planning Office)?

Also, what's with Polish anarchists and crypto-Proudhonism and closeted anti-communism?

Polish anarchists have very various opinions. But I think that a common think is rejecting a Stalinism and Leninism.

Blake's Baby

30th September 2014, 16:36

Well, actually no. I'm not interested very much in failed ideologies. However, I must say that Leninism in theory and Leninism in practice seem to be very different things...

You think something that you don't define failed to do something that you won't explain?

This is going to be a pretty mysterious discussion.

tuwix

30th September 2014, 17:24

^^Leninism supposed to be a kind of socialism IMHO. But it failed in those terms and failed to be any valid economic system.

Blake's Baby

30th September 2014, 17:29

I'm still not sure what you think 'Leninism' failed at. I get that it's 'a kind of socialism'. So, it's a theory of... what a socialist world would be like? How to get to a socialist world?

Now, what do you think it 'failed' at? I'm not sure how it can 'fail to be a theory of socialism'.

And what do either of these things have to do with economic planning?

ckaihatsu

30th September 2014, 17:42

Aspirations to plan everything are not socialist but Stalinist or at least Leninist (they both failed).

It doesn't matter what *labels* you happen to slap on it, or how you associate it to past historical events -- the crux of the issue is how an *economics* is supposed to function, and you've clearly been apologetic for the markets system, repeatedly.

You *call* yourself 'Marxis or anarchis or whatever' next to your username but you're simply arguing against any change to the status quo, and using a 'guilt by association' line of argumentation in your attempts to make revolutionary socialism look hopeless.

And they will result the same effect.

I find it just *incredible* that you presume to make such predictions so blithely -- I imagine you just waving your arms around as you walk down the street, issuing forth unfounded proclamations that 'This will happen', and 'All of them over there are wrong', and more along these lines.

To offer something like that is just to offer a barbarities of the SU economy. You want to replace some barbarities with others. I do not.

No, you're falling into the common mistake of thinking that historical conditions are *static*, when in fact they're not. The world has moved on from the superpower showdown of the Cold War, and we now have a well-integrated global financial system that's ripe for the plucking -- it could well serve as an initial logistics framework for worldwide workers control of social production, to introduce a process of workers economics and democracy in which we all figure out how to proceed from there.

tuwix

30th September 2014, 18:52

I'm still not sure what you think 'Leninism' failed at. I get that it's 'a kind of socialism'. So, it's a theory of... what a socialist world would be like? How to get to a socialist world?

So I don't think that Leninism put in practice is socialism. However, I could recognize its theory as socialist. But practice was different than theory.

Now, what do you think it 'failed' at? I'm not sure how it can 'fail to be a theory of socialism'.

Simply theory wasn't put in practice. Lenin was writing other thing than he's done them.

And what do either of these things have to do with economic planning?

Central economic planning was reality of the Soviet Union. It's child or grandchild of Lenin. Even if we recognize as only Stalin's fault, then Stalin was an effect of Lenin works. The people who believed in Lenin, they've elected Stalin...

It doesn't matter what *labels* you happen to slap on it, or how you associate it to past historical events -- the crux of the issue is how an *economics* is supposed to function, and you've clearly been apologetic for the markets system, repeatedly.

You *call* yourself 'Marxis or anarchis or whatever' next to your username but you're simply arguing against any change to the status quo, and using a 'guilt by association' line of argumentation in your attempts to make revolutionary socialism look hopeless.

I find it just *incredible* that you presume to make such predictions so blithely -- I imagine you just waving your arms around as you walk down the street, issuing forth unfounded proclamations that 'This will happen', and 'All of them over there are wrong', and more along these lines.

No, you're falling into the common mistake of thinking that historical conditions are *static*, when in fact they're not. The world has moved on from the superpower showdown of the Cold War, and we now have a well-integrated global financial system that's ripe for the plucking -- it could well serve as an initial logistics framework for worldwide workers control of social production, to introduce a process of workers economics and democracy in which we all figure out how to proceed from there.

Let's just from beginning. Socialism is about a giving a power over workplace to workers. When you have central planning, it means there is an authority above workers' owned workplaces. If there is a plan to fulfill, then some authority must order by force to do it. And do really workers own their workplaces? No, they are owned by those authorities who order to apply plans. And you have a state capitalism back. The Soviet Union economy...

There are just effects of central planning. Either you have plans to accomplish by force or you have really means of productions owned by workers. Central planning makes a state capitalism inevitable.

Blake's Baby

30th September 2014, 21:39

So I don't think that Leninism put in practice is socialism. However, I could recognize its theory as socialist. But practice was different than theory.

Simply theory wasn't put in practice. Lenin was writing other thing than he's done them...

And where do the think the 'failure' lies? Do you think it was possible for Lenin, or for the working class in Russia, or any combination of them, to make Russia into a socialist society? Was it possible for the Anarchists in Russia, or the other socialist groups? Do you think Lenin, or anyone else, believed it was possible to make Russia socialist?

My view is that it is not possible for any social group (whether that's the working class of a country or a socialist organisation or both together) to make a country socialist.

So... failure yes. Failure of the world revolution, particularly failure of the German working class to overthrow the capitalist state, failure of the German communists even to provide a sufficiently clear leadership to the German working class... but failure of 'Leninism'? Lenin succeeded in getting Russia out of the war, and succeeded in provoking the Congress of Soviets to take power... isn't that the success of Leninism? To claim it was a failure is to imply that there is something beyond that it didn't do. It wasn't supposed to lead the German workers to victory, and it didn't. I don't see how that's a failure.

...Central economic planning was reality of the Soviet Union. It's child or grandchild of Lenin. Even if we recognize as only Stalin's fault, then Stalin was an effect of Lenin works. The people who believed in Lenin, they've elected Stalin...

So, because Lenin helped Russia come out of the way and helped in the process of the revolution in Russia, then the counter-revolution that was the consequence of the revolution, is Lenin's fault too?

Surely, but only if Hitler is Luxemburg's fault, Franco is Durutti's fault, and Mussolini is Malatesta's fault.

...
Let's just from beginning. Socialism is about a giving a power over workplace to workers...

No, it's about the working class taking that power.

... When you have central planning, it means there is an authority above workers' owned workplaces...

The workers don't 'own' the workplaces, you're thinking of self-managed capitalism (like, maybe, a co-op) there.

... If there is a plan to fulfill, then some authority must order by force to do it...

By force? Authority?

Yeah, every time me and my mates plan to go to the pub, I literally kick them if they don't abide by my diktats about where we go and when. Because, hey, that's what 'plan' means isn't it?

Even anarcho-syndicalists believe in planning. No-one thinks that a power station should be able to produce no power coz no-one can be arsed to work there, while a bicycle factory produces 20,000,000 bicycles no-one wants, because no-one can stop them.

... And do really workers own their workplaces? No, they are owned by those authorities who order to apply plans. And you have a state capitalism back. The Soviet Union economy...

Of course the workforce don't own the plants. That's a stupidity. If they did they could sell the goods they produce instead of distributing them freely. They can't.

The point is that society elaborates the plan. Anything else cannot reasonably be described as 'socialism'.

...There are just effects of central planning. Either you have plans to accomplish by force or you have really means of productions owned by workers. Central planning makes a state capitalism inevitable.

Your worker-ownership is capitalism - nothing 'inevitable' about it, you haven't had a revolution. You've just made sure that the board of directors is made up of workers.

ckaihatsu

30th September 2014, 23:43

Let's just from beginning. Socialism is about a giving a power over workplace to workers.

Or the workers *taking back* *their own power* so that they're / we're in control ourselves, instead of the bosses.

When you have central planning, it means there is an authority above workers' owned workplaces. If there is a plan to fulfill, then some authority must order by force to do it. And do really workers own their workplaces? No, they are owned by those authorities who order to apply plans. And you have a state capitalism back. The Soviet Union economy...

There are just effects of central planning. Either you have plans to accomplish by force or you have really means of productions owned by workers. Central planning makes a state capitalism inevitable.

Okay, I understand your concern here -- it's a valid one.

[There's] a common misperception that potential feasible post-capitalist approaches need to be beholden to the *historical*, Soviet-type approach -- basically, a 'blueprint', designed from the top-down, to encompass a grand plan that accounts for all social production.

While the very definition of socialistic cooperative social planning inherently *implies* centralization, this fact doesn't mean there can't be some 'wiggle room' along the way, as for realizing a truly 'bottom-up' process instead of a 'top-down' one.

And, no quotas needed -- the determination of what should be produced can be found from the communicated needs and desires of the population itself. I developed a model that accommodates this -- here are excerpts:

Associated material values

consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily

Material function

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

Determination of material values

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

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

---

And do really workers own their workplaces?

*This* is the part we always need to be focused on -- either they *don't*, or they do.

tuwix

1st October 2014, 06:03

And where do the think the 'failure' lies?

I do not really care. Leninists will always find excuses...

Your worker-ownership is capitalism.

We have very different opinions about what capitalism and socialism is. In my opinion, there is exactly a difference in terms of property. In capitalism, there private or state property is predominant. In socialism, the collective property of workers over means of production is predominant and that means an ownership of workers over means of production in other words.

Okay, I understand your concern here -- it's a valid one.

While the very definition of socialistic cooperative social planning inherently *implies* centralization, this fact doesn't mean there can't be some 'wiggle room' along the way, as for realizing a truly 'bottom-up' process instead of a 'top-down' one.

You do not still see a conflict there. Bottom or top someone plans something. And workers are against due to some reason. Then the planner must use a force to accomplish a plan. And that means that workplace is not property of workers but it is property of planner. State capitalism is back...

Only incentives can solve such contradictions.

ckaihatsu

1st October 2014, 06:25

You do not still see a conflict there. Bottom or top someone plans something.

Okay -- let's start here, and let's use this as a basis:

In socialism, the collective property of workers over means of production is predominant and that means an ownership of workers over means of production in other words.

So if the workers -- at whatever scale, factory, local, or greater -- actually 'own' and *control* the means of production, then that means they're necessarily in the appropriate position to collectively approve or veto any kind of 'planning', wherever it may happen to come from (hopefully bottom-up, from their own initiatives). Correct?

And workers are against due to some reason.

Okay, so in this particular scenario, they *veto* the plan for production that's in front of them.

Then the planner must use a force to accomplish a plan. And that means that workplace is not property of workers but it is property of planner. State capitalism is back...

I don't know *who* this 'planner' is, but more to the point is whether or not the workers of any given factory truly have control of their workplace, or not -- if they *do*, then they have the collective 'veto' power to stand aside from any larger-scale initiative, or plan.

Only incentives can solve such contradictions.

You'll have to explain here.

RedMaterialist

1st October 2014, 08:07

Well, to my mind it wasn't 'communism' that failed because the Soviet Union was capitalist. It was an inefficient form of capitalism that failed (or rather, became a little more 'efficient').

But I'm not really concerned about productivity and the social wage here. It's more to do with what the point of 'Leninism' is supposed to be trying to achieve. A higher standard of living for Russian workers than they had in 1880? A fridge in every home by 1970? World revolution and the overthrow of capitalism by 1925? What, exactly?

I thought Leninism was the concept of state control of the "commanding heights of the economy" and allowing market exchange for the rest of the economy. Thus, big industries, steel, transportation, etc. controlled by the state and local farmer's markets distributing food.

Stalin, of course, thoughteverything should be state controlled.

So, Lenin's point was to allow the development of a mixed economy, with suppression of the big bourgeoisie, then take control of the smaller industries as they grew big enough to exert influence on the socialist state.

Now, after Hitler's invasion and almost complete destruction of Russia, you might have to credit Stalin with the correct direction. In other words, could Russian industry have expanded at the scale needed to defeat the Nazis under Lenin's plan?

tuwix

1st October 2014, 08:16

So if the workers -- at whatever scale, factory, local, or greater -- actually 'own' and *control* the means of production, then that means they're necessarily in the appropriate position to collectively approve or veto any kind of 'planning', wherever it may happen to come from (hopefully bottom-up, from their own initiatives). Correct?

Correct.

I don't know *who* this 'planner' is, but more to the point is whether or not the workers of any given factory truly have control of their workplace, or not -- if they *do*, then they have the collective 'veto' power to stand aside from any larger-scale initiative, or plan.

That is very bad that you are advocating a central planning and you do not know who would plan. :) I assume that some authority must do it.

You'll have to explain here.

As in first my post of this topic I wrote, as there is still money used because we are discussing first phase of socialism an incentive should be money.

And I am aware that you have some anarcho-communist ideas to abolish money immediately. But I am sure you do not understand consequences of it. You then lack any incentives to have done unpleasant jobs. Everyone wants to be an actor and nobody wants to be cleaner. Lack of the money incentive causes a decrease of production and this causes decrease of life quality and this causes an anti-socialist reaction. And you are aware that there is not enough goods and services now to give a free access to them. Then you have rationing and shortages that means the barbarities of the SU economy with that difference that there is no money...

Marx was writing about phases of socialism because he knew all of that. And the higher one is to be only when there is abundance of goods to avoid rationing them...

Chomskyan

1st October 2014, 08:20

I have thought recently trying to work for a Worker co-op in my area. Of course, this is down the road. In the short term, I plan on working for a corporation. I wonder what the forum thinks about this. Should I get involved in a worker co-op which already runs along Socialistic principles of management, or should I be in corporate to fight for revolution from within?

Share your wisdom. :)

cyu

1st October 2014, 08:45

You then lack any incentives to have done unpleasant jobs. Everyone wants to be an actor and nobody wants to be cleaner.

What makes something pleasant and something unpleasant? What makes something desirable and something undesirable? Is it a matter of psychological conditioning?

ckaihatsu

1st October 2014, 08:48

Correct.

That is very bad that you are advocating a central planning and you do not know who would plan. :) I assume that some authority must do it.

I find that many revolutionaries, including yourself, are far too caught-up with historical and totalitarian conceptions of a post-capitalist political and economic order -- it really comes off as a political anxiety of some kind since that's the only framework you seem capable of working-with.

At this point I can only repeat myself, in this return to the same ground we've already covered. (And your little 'smile' is hardly helpful in your communications here.)

[There's] a common misperception that potential feasible post-capitalist approaches need to be beholden to the *historical*, Soviet-type approach -- basically, a 'blueprint', designed from the top-down, to encompass a grand plan that accounts for all social production.

'Centralization' simply means 'common agreement for production over large areas of geography, with a single point of administration for it'.

To explain further, economics (as for mass production) is *not* synonymous with politics (as for wide-ranging social policy) -- I mean to say that production can happen at all scales simultaneously and for all sorts of items, and also for social reproduction. While you remain attached to your authoritarian anxieties, the potential exists for self-determined bottom-up planning from the scale of the individual all the way up to the global level, but not for everything all at once, since that's the fallacious 'blueprint' conception of a global socialist production.

I'll add this graphic illustration to the mix, which may have some explanatory power:

Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://s6.postimg.org/cp6z6ed81/Multi_Tiered_System_of_Productive_and_Consumptiv.j pg (http://postimg.org/image/ccfl07uy5/full/)

---

As in first my post of this topic I wrote, as there is still money used because we are discussing first phase of socialism an incentive should be money.

And I am aware that you have some anarcho-communist ideas to abolish money immediately. But I am sure you do not understand consequences of it. You then lack any incentives to have done unpleasant jobs. Everyone wants to be an actor and nobody wants to be cleaner. Lack of the money incentive causes a decrease of production and this causes decrease of life quality and this causes an anti-socialist reaction. And you are aware that there is not enough goods and services now to give a free access to them. Then you have rationing and shortages that means the barbarities of the SU economy with that difference that there is no money...

Incidentally I've been addressing this *very issue* concurrently, at another thread -- here's from a post from only yesterday:

[T]he only thing with this is that it's strictly 'gift economy', meaning sheerly organic-voluntarist-type liberated labor. There are no societal-type incentives for people to commit to more-difficult or more-distasteful labor roles.

If there's huge demand for a new gadget or car there could very well be a gap between the quantity of demand and the actual willing liberated labor to *satisfy* that demand -- many, who even have the required talents and skills for such work, could just say 'meh' and nothing would be different for them whether they did the work or not.

I'll have to note that, with my model, those who commit to difficult and/or hazardous work roles *do* get particular consideration, through higher rates of labor credits earned:

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

labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers [...]

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

So this approach addresses material scarcity through socially-sanctioned incentives for the liberated labor that *alleviates* such material scarcity. Work roles that are more-difficult, more-hazardous, and/or more-demanded would see increasing rates of labor credits offered per hour of liberated labor, and those who *earn* such labor credits would realize an increasing share of control over *future* uses of liberated labor, limited to the actual amount of labor credits earned.

---

Marx was writing about phases of socialism because he knew all of that. And the higher one is to be only when there is abundance of goods to avoid rationing them...

Understood.

tuwix

1st October 2014, 09:56

^^ Then let's ask it straightly: Who will plan in your model of economy? Exactly without advertising your other threads.

Besides according to Marxist definition of money labor credits are money very much, although I find it as rather a stupid idea.

I have thought recently trying to work for a Worker co-op in my area. Of course, this is down the road. In the short term, I plan on working for a corporation. I wonder what the forum thinks about this. Should I get involved in a worker co-op which already runs along Socialistic principles of management, or should I be in corporate to fight for revolution from within?

Share your wisdom. :)

It depends on is this really cooperative or is it only so-called cooperative. I was working on so-called one and I was sacked. The real cooperative must share its profit that isn't for investments equally. If not it's just another corporation.

But whatever you choose you'll still live in capitalist environment...

ckaihatsu

1st October 2014, 14:28

^^ Then let's ask it straightly: Who will plan in your model of economy? Exactly without advertising your other threads.

I'll refer you to the relevant portions of my model -- that's what it's for....

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

communist administration -- Assets and resources are collectively administered by a locality, or over numerous localities by combined consent [supply]

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

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

Besides according to Marxist definition of money labor credits are money very much,

No, my 'labor credits' are *not* (commodity) money, because they're not exchangeable for materials or goods of any kind.

although I find it as rather a stupid idea.

You should make sure you *understand* it before you issue forth with more of your unfounded proclamations.

tuwix

1st October 2014, 16:45

I'll refer you to the relevant portions of my model -- that's what it's for....

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

As I thought, an authority... It's just another version of state capitalism.... No, thanks. I lived in one state capitalism and that's enough. I find better a socialism than state capitalism.

No, my 'labor credits' are *not* (commodity) money, because they're not exchangeable for materials or goods of any kind.

You just refuse to acknowledge and understand Marxist definition of money.

ckaihatsu

1st October 2014, 17:04

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

As I thought, an authority... It's just another version of state capitalism.... No, thanks. I lived in one state capitalism and that's enough. I find better a socialism than state capitalism.

Understandable, but this framework *isn't* state capitalism, nor would it lead to state capitalism.

You're confusing 'prevailing political sentiment' for 'authority' -- the model gives rise to an overall prioritized daily list of mass demands, by locality, to be discerned, for everyone's review, and especially for review by liberated labor for potential projects and production runs.

You just refuse to acknowledge and understand Marxist definition of money.

Well go ahead and put forth your understanding of this definition and let's compare it to what I have in terms of 'labor credits'.

tuwix

1st October 2014, 17:28

^^ Whatever you will say, an administration is form of authority especially of a state. If administration is to decide about means of production, then they're a state property what implicates a state capitalism.

And money:

Money is the commodity whose sole use is for storing value and acting as a means of payment.

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/o.htm

But we discussed it yet. And you've just ignored the definition...

Tim Cornelis

1st October 2014, 18:23

Tim Cornelis

1st October 2014, 18:24

Oooh here we go again. Tuwix using definitions in a way no one uses them ever... It's unbelievably frustrating. Now money and administration are redefined in Tuwix's dictionary.

No labour points or labour vouchers are not money. It's not a commodity, it's a measure for individual consumption. Administration is not a state function.

tuwix

1st October 2014, 18:34

No labour points or labour vouchers are not money. It's not a commodity, it's a measure for individual consumption. Administration is not a state function.

Your ignorance of definitions is apparently one of your favorite sports. I'll only cite them, because I don't believe that anyone can overcome your ignorance in terms of definitions.

Money is the commodity whose sole use is for storing value and acting as a means of payment.

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/o.htm

The term administration, as used in the context of government, differs according to jurisdiction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(government)

ckaihatsu

1st October 2014, 18:49

^^ Whatever you will say, an administration is form of authority especially of a state.

Historically, yes, but, again, we're not *beholden* to history -- a collective administration could emerge from a bottom-up process, as is outlined in the 'communist supply & demand' framework.

If administration is to decide about means of production, then they're a state property what implicates a state capitalism.

You're correct, and fortunately that's not the case here, since:

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

communist administration -- Assets and resources have no quantifiable value -- are considered as attachments to the production process

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

---

And money:

Money is the commodity whose sole use is for storing value and acting as a means of payment.

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/o.htm

Okay, agreed:

The commodity that functions as a measure of value, and, either in its own person or by a representative, as the medium of circulation, is money.

But we discussed it yet. And you've just ignored the definition...

Well there's the definition, and the 'labor credits' are -- again -- *not* exchangeable for materials or goods of any kind, so that means they're *not* 'money'.

Here's from my blog, for further clarification:

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

Tim Cornelis

1st October 2014, 19:04

Your ignorance of definitions is apparently one of your favorite sports. I'll only cite them, because I don't believe that anyone can overcome your ignorance in terms of definitions.

Money is the commodity whose sole use is for storing value and acting as a means of payment.

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/o.htm

The term administration, as used in the context of government, differs according to jurisdiction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(government)

*sigh*.

The term administration, as used in the context of government, differs according to jurisdiction.

(in other words, it can be used outside the context of governments).

Your comprehension skills are very poor. And I'm too frustrated with you to continue pointing out that you are wrong. It's really tiring. All I can say is that no one uses these words and definitions in the same way you do -- so maybe consider that you are wrong to use them that way.

tuwix

2nd October 2014, 05:59

Historically, yes, but, again, we're not *beholden* to history -- a collective administration could emerge from a bottom-up process, as is outlined in the 'communist supply & demand' framework.

You apparently don't see consequences what you invented.

First of all, I was living in state called the Polish People's Republic. But in this state the people didn't have anything to say. Why do I write it? Because you want to call administration 'communist' and it has to solve the problem.

The only really communist 'administration' acceptable for me is direct democracy. Certainly, it isn't administration at all. And I can imagine what would happen if direct democracy was to decide what to produce. The chaos would be very mild word to describe. The acceptance of plans for planning that you advocate would last for years and voted by all would include economic impossibilities because people don't know all production process of everything.

And finally you get to the main problem of our discussion. What if producer won't accept a plan? Will you enforce them to do so? If so, you have a state capitalism back. If not, the plan regardless who invented it won't be accomplished and it will be just fiction.

Well there's the definition, and the 'labor credits' are -- again -- *not* exchangeable for materials or goods of any kind, so that means they're *not* 'money'.

Here's from my blog, for further clarification:

I don't really understand what's the purpose of your labor credit if there is nothing to exchange for it. But it's irrelevant. You're advocating a gift economy. Fine! I'd like too live environment where everything is free too. But the difference is that I and Karl Marx don't believe that introducing it immediately is advisable. In the one of the previous posts, I've explained why. Shortly, the effect would be barbarities and idiocies of the SU economy which means shortages and huge black market at least.

ckaihatsu

2nd October 2014, 06:35

You apparently don't see consequences what you invented.

First of all, I was living in state called the Polish People's Republic. But in this state the people didn't have anything to say. Why do I write it? Because you want to call administration 'communist' and it has to solve the problem.

The only really communist 'administration' acceptable for me is direct democracy. Certainly, it isn't administration at all. And I can imagine what would happen if direct democracy was to decide what to produce. The chaos would be very mild word to describe. The acceptance of plans for planning that you advocate would last for years and voted by all would include economic impossibilities because people don't know all production process of everything.

The conception you're using is one of a populist *Stalinist* control, where, in the effort to please everyone, everything gets screwed up due to too many inputs from too many people.

This framework doesn't suffer from this problem because popular political sentiment is accurately collected and *reflected* but it isn't then 'plugged-right-in', directly into the mass-production process.

Instead, this mass political sentiment serves as a 'grand to-do list' for liberated labor, which runs *separately*, using its own economy of *labor credits* (or sheerly voluntary efforts, for a 'gift economy'). Nothing is guaranteed up-front in terms of labor being *mandated* to fulfill projects from mass demand, but in such a post-capitalist social environment there'd be nothing *stopping* those who want to provide to society from doing so, either.

And finally you get to the main problem of our discussion. What if producer won't accept a plan? Will you enforce them to do so?

No -- here it is, from the model:

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

The *premise* for this is that once self-liberated from wage slavery, the people of the world would be able to adequately provide for their / our own basic human needs for life and living, on nothing more than sheer voluntarism, for humane mass production (a 'gift economy'). This would be enough, from strictly voluntary efforts (no formal economy), to make everyone's life work-optional, so that everyone would be liberated and able to live regardless of their work status.

It's on *this* basis that more-complex economic / production arrangements could be made, as with using the labor-credits system so that ongoing liberated-labor efforts could be accurately gauged and 'leapfrogged' going-forward, indefinitely.

If so, you have a state capitalism back.

This model does not require a standing authority, if that's what you mean.

If not, the plan regardless who invented it won't be accomplished and it will be just fiction.

Correct. There are no guarantees that liberated labor would be willing or able to fulfill any given initiative, no matter how popular it might be.

I don't really understand what's the purpose of your labor credit if there is nothing to exchange for it.

Here's from a past thread that speaks to this concern:

My framework [...] addresses the *outer reaches* of what a strictly moneyless communistic 'gift economy' could conceivably cover. Some on the revolutionary left have suggested that perhaps a *remnant* of the former markets could exist within a post-capitalist social order, to cover luxury / specialty production, since such might be *unaddressed* by the more mass-oriented mainstream gift economy.

However, a regular market-based approach to luxury / specialty production could very well be more cumbersome than it's worth -- it would be tolerating a kind of exchange-values-based 'black market' within an otherwise free-access social paradigm.

My 'labor credits' is meant to acknowledge a post-capitalist liberated-labor on its own terms, without resorting to backsliding to any system of exchange values.

---

But it's irrelevant. You're advocating a gift economy. Fine! I'd like too live environment where everything is free too. But the difference is that I and Karl Marx don't believe that introducing it immediately is advisable. In the one of the previous posts, I've explained why.

I agree with you, and we've covered this ground already, at post #35.

Shortly, the effect would be barbarities and idiocies of the SU economy which means shortages and huge black market at least.

Yup. See above.

cyu

2nd October 2014, 11:57

Well, capitalists certainly attempt to find ways to "store" value - but the practical fact is that they can't really do it.

If they want to store the things that they want and need, it can certainly be done, but it's not so simple as making a deposit in a bank account or burying a chest on a desert island.

You can put food in a freezer. The freezer needs power. Power has to be produced. You can put clothes in a closet. The closet has to be maintained.

Capitalists want to be able to store their wealth easily, but just because that's what they want, doesn't make it so. In the end, it's going to be a somewhat complex network of finished goods, means of production, raw materials, and the labor that puts it all together. Capitalism can't really accept that, of course, because that would put too much power in the hands of the workers. And they don't want workers to realize that value can be "stored" just by combining the working class with their workplaces, leaving capitalists out of the equation entirely.

tuwix

2nd October 2014, 12:39

The conception you're using is one of a populist *Stalinist* control, where, in the effort to please everyone, everything gets screwed up due to too many inputs from too many people.

This framework doesn't suffer from this problem because popular political sentiment is accurately collected and *reflected* but it isn't then 'plugged-right-in', directly into the mass-production process.

Instead, this mass political sentiment serves as a 'grand to-do list' for liberated labor, which runs *separately*, using its own economy of *labor credits* (or sheerly voluntary efforts, for a 'gift economy'). Nothing is guaranteed up-front in terms of labor being *mandated* to fulfill projects from mass demand, but in such a post-capitalist social environment there'd be nothing *stopping* those who want to provide to society from doing so, either.

Direct democracy has nothing to do with Stalinism. Any other way of planning means really administration in sense of state administration. You can label it 'communist', but it will be still a stat capitalist. Besides there many 'communist' parties who support exactly state capitalism....

No -- here it is, from the model:

I don't have a slight idea what does have to do with problem that workers could want not to accomplish plans. As I've written, you have then only two options: abandon a plan or enforce them by some kind of police. The second option implicates a state capitalism back.

The *premise* for this is that once self-liberated from wage slavery, the people of the world would be able to adequately provide for their / our own basic human needs for life and living, on nothing more than sheer voluntarism, for humane mass production (a 'gift economy'). This would be enough, from strictly voluntary efforts (no formal economy), to make everyone's life work-optional, so that everyone would be liberated and able to live regardless of their work status.

It's on *this* basis that more-complex economic / production arrangements could be made, as with using the labor-credits system so that ongoing liberated-labor efforts could be accurately gauged and 'leapfrogged' going-forward, indefinitely.

You'd be great a member of parliament. You're able to say much that means exactly nothing. :)
That's what you say is irrelevant to the problem. As I've written, you have then only two options: abandon a plan or enforce them by some kind of police. The second option implicates a state capitalism back.

Correct. There are no guarantees that liberated labor would be willing or able to fulfill any given initiative, no matter how popular it might be.

So we can leave that all your planning and start to consider incentives.:) If plans are only fiction, then it doesn't make any sense to plan.

ckaihatsu

2nd October 2014, 15:53

The only really communist 'administration' acceptable for me is direct democracy. Certainly, it isn't administration at all. And I can imagine what would happen if direct democracy was to decide what to produce. The chaos would be very mild word to describe.

The conception you're using is one of a populist *Stalinist* control, where, in the effort to please everyone, everything gets screwed up due to too many inputs from too many people.

Direct democracy has nothing to do with Stalinism. Any other way of planning means really administration in sense of state administration. You can label it 'communist', but it will be still a stat capitalist.

You're dismissing any and all possible alternatives to Stalinism, simply out-of-hand, without wanting or bothering to take the time to even *consider* them. In that case you've *resigned yourself* to "being stuck" with Stalinism, or with whatever it is you *would* accept. You *mention* direct democracy and then *dismiss* that, as well, saying it would be 'chaotic'.

Your stubborn fatalism is your own, and I have no interest in trying to get past the mental boundaries you have set up for yourself.

Besides there many 'communist' parties who support exactly state capitalism....

Apples-and-oranges.

---

No -- here it is, from the model:

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

I don't have a slight idea what does have to do with problem that workers could want not to accomplish plans.

You're not understanding that society / civilization *derives from* labor -- whatever plans can be accomplished and *are* accomplished gives us the world as it is, and whatever *isn't* done means that there's outstanding, untapped potential.

As I've written, you have then only two options: abandon a plan or enforce them by some kind of police. The second option implicates a state capitalism back.

A 'plan' can be as small-scale as fixing a bicycle or as large-scale as providing health and welfare to everyone in the world -- the latter hasn't been accomplished yet.

Your political anxieties are showing again.

You'd be great a member of parliament. You're able to say much that means exactly nothing. :)

I could say some unkind words your way, as well, but I'll refrain. If you don't want to bother dealing with the content of what I'm saying then please don't reply.

That's what you say is irrelevant to the problem.

What I'm saying is being *ignored* by you and dismissed out-of-hand, without reasoning.

As I've written, you have then only two options: abandon a plan or enforce them by some kind of police. The second option implicates a state capitalism back.

You're repeating yourself. See above.

Correct. There are no guarantees that liberated labor would be willing or able to fulfill any given initiative, no matter how popular it might be.

So we can leave that all your planning and start to consider incentives.:)

Again you're being blithely dismissive, and of *labor's own volition* -- I can't speak for the entirety of what everyone in a post-capitalist society might want to do as far as labor goes, or what they might *not* want to do.

If you're going to mention 'incentives' you should take the time to explain what you mean.

If plans are only fiction, then it doesn't make any sense to plan.

If no one *ever* made any plans nothing would ever change, and, arguably, even regular, *routine* things couldn't get done.

tuwix

2nd October 2014, 16:15

You're dismissing any and all possible alternatives to Stalinism, simply out-of-hand, without wanting or bothering to take the time to even *consider* them. In that case you've *resigned yourself* to "being stuck" with Stalinism, or with whatever it is you *would* accept. You *mention* direct democracy and then *dismiss* that, as well, saying it would be 'chaotic'.

I see many alternatives to Stalinism, but when we talk about democratic ones the direct democracy is only solution. The rest is undemocratic and elitist.

You're not understanding that society / civilization *derives from* labor -- whatever plans can be accomplished and *are* accomplished gives us the world as it is, and whatever *isn't* done means that there's outstanding, untapped potential.

Now you write in language understandable to me. However, you apparently don't understand an economic problem. You want to have everything planned in economy. I find it impossible. But you don't. And some workers refuse to accomplish a plan. And again: you have two options. Enforce a plan or abandon it. Abandoning plans in economy where everything is planned means a collapse of your economic model. Enforcing plans means a state capitalism.

In very vague way you try to not acknowledge that there is no other option. You cite irrelevant quotes of your former discussions because you seem to reject a fact that everything in economy cannot be planned.

A 'plan' can be as small-scale as fixing a bicycle or as large-scale as providing health and welfare to everyone in the world -- the latter hasn't been accomplished yet.

Your political anxieties are showing again.

I don't feel any anxieties in this discussions, but you seem to fly away from economic history and facts. You invented a nice economic model but you don't want to face challenges that mode would have to face.

If no one *ever* made any plans nothing would ever change, and, arguably, even regular, *routine* things couldn't get done.

There is a difference between making plans sometimes and economy planned in every detail. The second one is just impossible.

ckaihatsu

2nd October 2014, 17:18

I see many alternatives to Stalinism, but when we talk about democratic ones the direct democracy is only solution. The rest is undemocratic and elitist.

There is a difference between making plans sometimes and economy planned in every detail. The second one is just impossible.

I agree, and I've already said so. The following is from post #35:

[P]roduction can happen at all scales simultaneously and for all sorts of items, and also for social reproduction. While you remain attached to your authoritarian anxieties, the potential exists for self-determined bottom-up planning from the scale of the individual all the way up to the global level, but not for everything all at once, since that's the fallacious 'blueprint' conception of a global socialist production.

Now you write in language understandable to me. However, you apparently don't understand an economic problem. You want to have everything planned in economy.

Yes, everything can be planned, but it doesn't have to be under a *single* *encompassing* *detailed* plan -- rather, the prevailing political sentiment of the day (as for 'health and welfare for everyone') could be the *general* plan, with economic / labor initiatives at all levels that are directed *towards* that global plan.

I find it impossible. But you don't. And some workers refuse to accomplish a plan. And again: you have two options. Enforce a plan or abandon it. Abandoning plans in economy where everything is planned means a collapse of your economic model.

No, if some liberated laborers don't want to be a part of a plan then they don't have to be a part of it. Maybe some others *will* want to be a part of it, or maybe *no one* wants to be a part of it.

Either things get done, or they don't.

Enforcing plans means a state capitalism.

In very vague way you try to not acknowledge that there is no other option. You cite irrelevant quotes of your former discussions because you seem to reject a fact that everything in economy cannot be planned.

Please be careful of how you characterize my postings -- I'm not putting in anything frivolous or off-topic. Nothing's 'irrelevant'.

Yes, everything in a (post-capitalist) economy *can* be planned.

I don't feel any anxieties in this discussions, but you seem to fly away from economic history and facts. You invented a nice economic model but you don't want to face challenges that mode would have to face.

Go ahead and feel free to elaborate on those 'challenges'.

tuwix

2nd October 2014, 17:52

ckaihatsu

2nd October 2014, 18:17

^^I think there must be a example to elaborate a such challenges.

There was a world revolution. Your model of economy was introduced. But...

The 90% of former farmers abandoned their former professions. Their work is too hard they became artists, poets, factory workers, etc.

Food production decreased a half due to insufficient workforce. Then you face a global famine.

And what are you going to do? Shortages, rationing? Should I remind what economy is the most known of that?

What am *I* going to do in such a situation -- ?

I'd probably make sure I got enough food, same as ever.

(You seem to think that I'd have some special control over people's actions, when in fact the model I developed and advocate-for enables self-determined liberated labor, as I've explained now several times.)

tuwix

3rd October 2014, 05:40

^^It is exactly a challenge that your model faces. And I'm suggesting by using the example how it can easily collapse.

So what's the answer of your model to the problem? If there is no answer, the people will start to die due to famine...

ckaihatsu

3rd October 2014, 05:49

^^It is exactly a challenge that your model face. And I'm suggesting by using the example how it can easily collapse.

So what's the answer of your model to the problem? If there is no answer, the people will start to die due to famine...

And if molten lava suddenly erupted from the earth's crust everywhere on earth, *then* what would I do -- ?? -- !

You're not saying much just by inventing a contrived nightmare scenario. What is it *you* think people should do?

tuwix

3rd October 2014, 05:55

ckaihatsu

3rd October 2014, 06:19

^^ I and Karl Marx think that it isn't advisable to introduce a gift economy immediately.

And it is very nightmare scenario. I don't know how many farmers do you know but the vast majority of farmers I know would leave their profession, if it was economically possible...

Well we can think of it as potentially starting right now -- if capitalism wasn't an obstacle any longer what kind of food production (and further life-sustenance) could be provided-for, immediately, with whose voluntary labor -- ? (How much of an output would it be? Would it be enough for everyone, in every locality on the globe? Would there be means of properly transporting the products, whatever they may be, to major and minor population centers? Etc.)

Mere speculation, especially on the basis of the capitalist wage-labor system, wouldn't be helpful -- we'd have to have real facts, real reports from all of those concerned, from everywhere in the world, and such information would have to be made public so that people could respond appropriately in an ongoing way.

I happen to think that there *would* be enough sheer voluntarism and constructive results from it to get things rolling at least, after which more-complex types of production could then be comfortably, generally considered.

tuwix

3rd October 2014, 07:58

ckaihatsu

3rd October 2014, 08:13

^^ Any valid economic model should work in every circumstances. And you haven't predicted such problems...

You encourage to think, but I can assure you that when there is a global famine, there is no time to think. There is time to act. Certainly, you can automatize food production, but it will last years... Years of famine? It's very likely that hungry people will overthrow your economic model earlier than you'll automatize a food production...

Now you're back to your spurious nightmare-scenario-making -- I know it's spurious because you're not actually making any sort of *critique*, as in 'This part of your framework looks like it wouldn't be able to handle 'x' conditions, because of its 'y' quality.'

So it's like me saying 'That guy sure would look stupid as he's being washed away by a tsunami.'

Come back when you have something of *substance* to add to the conversation.

tuwix

3rd October 2014, 09:01

^^It's exactly your lack of ability to face problems that your model have to face. You became emotional saying that my showing such problems isn't "critique" at all.

And I can assure you that the vast majority of farmers that I know would like to work in other professions. It's not a rare "night-mare" scenario like tsunami. Even Marx wrote about "idiocy of rural life". If you don't see it as problem, then you don't want to face problems that your economic model will surely face.

ckaihatsu

3rd October 2014, 09:16

^^It's exactly your lack of ability to face problems that your model have to face.

You're rattling off a list of extreme conditions and then making it sound like it's my responsibility to show that the framework can automatically bound over any hazardous situation -- I'll remind you that the model is simply *that*, a *model*, and *how it's used* would be entirely up to those who are actually participating, in the actual conditions they find themselves. I cannot speak for those who do not even exist yet, or for sheerly hypothetical and contrived situations.

You became emotional saying that my showing such problems isn't "critique" at all.

*You're* the one putting forth world-threatening scenarios and expecting something *other* than an emotional retort in return -- there's no possible way to characterize what *you're* doing as a 'critique' of any kind. It's simply you in your fantasy-land, letting your imagination run wild and expecting me to respond to it. I'll pass.

And I can assure you that the vast majority of farmers that I know would like to work in other professions. It's not a rare "night-mare" scenario like tsunami. Even Marx wrote about "idiocy of rural life". If you don't see it as problem, then you don't want to face problems that your economic model will surely face.

I'm not arguing with you on this, and I wouldn't presume to speak for burnt-out farmers.

I don't see why you're expecting me to suddenly be a towering 'expert' over all social / productive matters -- if you want to address my framework on its characteristics (and not on your imagination), I'm open to that. All else is off-topic.

tuwix

3rd October 2014, 10:27

I'm not arguing with you on this, and I wouldn't presume to speak for burnt-out farmers.

I don't see why you're expecting me to suddenly be a towering 'expert' over all social / productive matters -- if you want to address my framework on its characteristics (and not on your imagination), I'm open to that. All else is off-topic.

I don't know what characteristics do you mean, when you aren't able to face very easy problem: lack of food... In capitalism it exists too but some countries have solved it in better or worse way. In your theoretical model, you're not able to challenge it. Then, I'm sorry, but it's nothing worth for humanity... It's only your theoretical game unfortunately...

And it's not only my opinion. I only remind that Karl Marx didn't advice an immediate gift economy either... I only showed you an example why. But rejecting such example is only your choice...

ckaihatsu

3rd October 2014, 11:04

I don't know what characteristics do you mean, when you aren't able to face very easy problem: lack of food...

Here:

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

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

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

So by this I mean that, with the model, the prevailing popular political sentiment will be *resoundingly* for food production, since *everyone* will be prioritizing it at the top of their daily 'demands' lists. At the cumulative (collective) scale there will be no doubt that the public is both calling for food production and is also collectively self-aware that everyone is calling for food production.

Since you're saying that a gift economy might not be appropriate or effective in this scenario I'll use the labor-credits approach and note that we've covered this terrain before, with the 'ham and yogurt' scenario:

[If] simple basics like ham and yogurt couldn't be readily produced by the communistic gift economy, and were 'scarce' in relation to actual mass demand, they *would* be considered 'luxury goods' in economic terms, and would be *discretionary* in terms of public consumption.

Such a situation would *encourage* liberated-labor -- such as it would be -- to 'step up' to supply its labor for the production of ham and yogurt, because the scarcity and mass demand would encourage others to put in their own labor to earn labor credits, to provide increasing rates of labor credits to those who would be able to produce the much-demanded ham and yogurt. (Note that the ham and yogurt goods themselves would never be 'bought' or 'sold', because the labor credits are only used in regard to labor-*hours* worked, and *not* for exchangeability with any goods, because that would be commodity production.)

This kind of liberated-production assumes that the means of production have been *liberated* and collectivized, so there wouldn't be any need for any kind of finance or capital-based 'ownership' there.

---

In capitalism [lack of food] exists too but some countries have solved it in better or worse way.

In your theoretical model, you're not able to challenge it. Then, I'm sorry, but it's nothing worth for humanity... It's only your theoretical game unfortunately...

See above.

And it's not only my opinion. I only remind that Karl Marx didn't advice an immediate gift economy either... I only showed you an example why. But rejecting such example is only your choice...

Actually I do hear you, and that's where the 'communist supply & demand' 'labor credits' framework comes into play -- wherever a gift-economy *can't* be workable, and isn't advisable.

tuwix

3rd October 2014, 16:22

[If] simple basics like ham and yogurt couldn't be readily produced by the communistic gift economy, and were 'scarce' in relation to actual mass demand, they *would* be considered 'luxury goods' in economic terms, and would be *discretionary* in terms of public consumption.

Yogurt as luxury? Even capitalist state economy wouldn't invented it... But ham as luxury, I remember very well. The ham in special metal box was in our fridge for a few years waiting for special guests. But I wouldn't like a return of such economy...

It's time to finish the topic. I tried to convince you not to waste a time for something completely useless, in my opinion. I failed as such model surely would fail... Let's finish our considerations in peace...

I still think you're a much above a line of economic knowledge of this forum. :)

ckaihatsu

3rd October 2014, 19:28

Yogurt as luxury?

You're missing the point and refusing to sustain a direction of discussion, as usual.

I was addressing the 'lack of food' scenario you were so adamant about, which you've raised in the past with the 'ham and yogurt' example.

It doesn't matter *what* the scarcity is -- it could be *any* combination of food items, or anything else, for that matter, even liberated labor. When something is in short supply it would trigger a cascading of economic events as described from before, in my prior post (#64).

Even capitalist state economy wouldn't invented it... But ham as luxury, I remember very well. The ham in special metal box was in our fridge for a few years waiting for special guests. But I wouldn't like a return of such economy...

It's time to finish the topic. I tried to convince you not to waste a time for something completely useless, in my opinion.

It hasn't been useless for me.

I failed as such model surely would fail... Let's finish our considerations in peace...

Your diplomatic abilities are surely wanting, since you're asking for 'peace' right after a further unfounded slight at my model.

I still think you're a much above a line of economic knowledge of this forum. :)

Enjoy your time here.

cyu

4th October 2014, 22:32

All slaves would immediately "leave their profession" if it was legally or practically possible. However, that doesn't mean we should keep slavery in place.

GanzEgal

5th October 2014, 12:03

So how does economic planning work with workplace democracy? Do workers elect a delegate into a regional council to make economic decisions?
Many different theoriest exist, including such which don't include central planning.

I feel more comfortable by avoiding the term workers, and replacing it with citizens. All adult citizens have a say, not only those who currently have a job. I also lean towards central planning in my thinking, which leaves little room or necessity for democracy within a workplace. A workplace produces what has been centrally planned, not what its employees democratically vote between themselves. In my view, workplace democracy has a role mainly in personnel promotion issues, who should be chosen as foreman and manager etc., not in production issues, what the company should produce. Yes, I feel more comfortable with the term company than terms such as community or production unit.