No money? What?

[RisingDawn]

Ok, so I think i have that right. Ive known for a while that in a true marxist society there would be no money (or rather capital), but I want to know how exactly would that work? On a barter system? Wouldn't that collapse in todays world which is just so large? Why did it fail in Soviet Russia? After all even Lenin had to "reform" the economy.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

There would be no money (capital or otherwise). It would however not be a barter system, because there would not be exchanged in kind. The Soviet Union was integrated into and dependent upon the world market. You cannot simply detach fragments of nations of the world from the market system - the market logic continues to prevail.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ok, so I think i have that right. Ive known for a while that in a true marxist society there would be no money (or rather capital), but I want to know how exactly would that work? On a barter system? Wouldn't that collapse in todays world which is just so large? Why did it fail in Soviet Russia? After all even Lenin had to "reform" the economy.

Soviet Russia was never socialist - nor did Lenin consider it as such, as he was well aware that socialism as a mode of production can only be global, there can't be pockets of socialism in the world market. And it always had money - the chervontsy, then the rubles.

Barter would not be used - that would entail autonomous enterprises exchanging products. Rather, distribution, once the possible need for rationing has passes, would be based on free access. You want a banana, you take a banana.

[RisingDawn]

Soviet Russia was never socialist - nor did Lenin consider it as such, as he was well aware that socialism as a mode of production can only be global, there can't be pockets of socialism in the world market. And it always had money - the chervontsy, then the rubles.

Barter would not be used - that would entail autonomous enterprises exchanging products. Rather, distribution, once the possible need for rationing has passes, would be based on free access. You want a banana, you take a banana.

Ive never really thought about this before but what would you define as "Socialism"?

But what about when the bananas run out? Whats stopping me from slapping someone in the face and stealing their Banana?

[Lord Hargreaves]

Some people would argue that if you eliminate the labour market and expansion of capital (M-C-M) you'd no longer have capitalism. You could have a "Marxist society" that retains a market, as in market socialism. But I believe most people on this forum are communists.

[Illegalitarian]

It's kind of like fallout, you just blow up people who have shit that you want.




















(but really though look up gift economics, that should give you an idea of the distribution model we advocate, in essence)

[Loony Le Fist]

There would be two things necessary for such a realization of a pure gift economy:

Greed must be tempered
A post-scarcity society


We have to temper greed, because that is the first prong in tackling scarcity. Scarcity can be tackled next with automation. In order to do this, our thinking and value systems have to change. Capitalism is more than just an economic system--it's a value system. Not only did people give form to capitalism, capitalism also gives form to them. A system can create it's own evangelists.

To break the grip capitalism has, we have to destroy it's value system. Marx made the excellent philosophical observation of how economic, political and social systems work holistically--the individual influences the system and vice-versa. Combining this with the concept of memes from Dawkins (which many of you hate, I know) and one gets an idea that there is some kind of oscillatory momentum set up between the memes themselves and those conveying them that serves to explain why bad ideas stick around, despite being detrimental.

TL;DR: The gift economy is ideal. It also only feasible if you are post-scarcity. You can't really get to post-scarcity unless you are post-greed.

[DOOM]

Barter means that you exchange a commodity/a service for something which has a (nearly) equivalent value. Value is defined by exchange and use value. This means barter underlies the same dialectical rules as buying stuff with money. So no, there is no basis for the assumption that in communism barter will replace the exchange of commodities using money.

[Illegalitarian]

and we can't get post-greed until we're post capitalism.

So what are you waiting for? Smash capitalism!

[Illegalitarian]

Relatively recently it was discovered by anthropologists that it was the gift economy, rather than barter, that drove trade in the ancient world.

Which is what Marx told us 100+ years ago by simply looking at how productive forces had developed into what there is now from the feudalist system. That's astute as fuck

[tuwix]

Ok, so I think i have that right. Ive known for a while that in a true marxist society there would be no money (or rather capital), but I want to know how exactly would that work? On a barter system? Wouldn't that collapse in todays world which is just so large? Why did it fail in Soviet Russia? After all even Lenin had to "reform" the economy.


Len has made many errors. Many his successors too. The economy without money is undoubtedly hard task. But it's not impossible. IMHO it's inevitable.

There will come a time when money will become obsolete. In some areas they became obsolete now. Education on lower levels is free in many countries, for example.
Besides prices of the most products are going down comparing to income due to technological progress. Then price of them is less and less relevant. Them there will come a time that charging for all items will give more effort than giving them free. Money will just become obsolete.

[ChangeAndChance]

Ok, so I think i have that right. Ive known for a while that in a true marxist society there would be no money (or rather capital), but I want to know how exactly would that work? On a barter system? Wouldn't that collapse in todays world which is just so large? Why did it fail in Soviet Russia? After all even Lenin had to "reform" the economy.

I would highly recommend anarchist anthropologist David Graeber's book "Debt: The First 5000 Years". It explains why for most of human history people have operated on gift economies and barter was a rare occurrence, only happening between foreign bands or tribes. In a communist society, this isn't even necessary. Goods produced in one commune are distributed according to demand to other communes in return for other produced goods.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ive never really thought about this before but what would you define as "Socialism"?

The global, stateless, classless society based on the complete socialisation of the means of production and social planning.


But what about when the bananas run out?

Why would they run out? Production would be planned so that they don't run out - so that production matches and exceeds demand.


Whats stopping me from slapping someone in the face and stealing their Banana?

Other people, presumably. I mean, how does money prevent you from "slapping someone in the face and stealing their banana"?

In socialism, there would be no need for slapping people in the face (unless they want and like it), and you couldn't steal their bananas as bananas would be given out free and wouldn't cost anything.

[Tim Cornelis]

i know i like to be slapped in the face for bananas, hopefully its compatible with socialism

if you have a party where each visitor needs to bring something for the collective table to snack from, you can:

- have everyone bring something and exchange them for money (market)
- have everyone bring something and exchange in kind, chips for soda (barter)
- have everyone bring something and share it freely without measuring each's exact input or consumption (free access communism)
- have everyone bring something and award points for, travel I guess (analogous to labour), and the points are used to ration the snacks (first phase communism)

[Ferret the Anarchist]

What are you people talking about!? This communism stuff is scary, yo.

We need to revert back to full feudalism today! :thumbup1:

[Ritzy Cat]

Relatively recently it was discovered by anthropologists that it was the gift economy, rather than barter, that drove trade in the ancient world.

Just out of curiosity, where can I read up on this?

Resources as simple as bananas would never run out. When we get into stuff like super-rare earth metals, there just isn't enough of it on the surface of the Earth. So even in communism, sorry, you can't have a pure yttrium 100 carat ring.

This kind of stuff isn't falsely scarce (like almost every resource in capitalism), it is literally scarce.

Anything necessary and anything reasonable (and reasonable goes very far) is easily obtainable in a gift economy under communism because there is no 'hiding' of resources by corporations to manipulate the market.

[Rafiq]

Relatively recently it was discovered by anthropologists that it was the gift economy, rather than barter, that drove trade in the ancient world.

What? Can we get a source for this?

[Tim Cornelis]

Source = David Graeber

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years .

[Rafiq]

Source = David Graeber

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years .

So just a heap of nonsense, then?

[Illegalitarian]

No, peer reviewed and substantiated research based on the previous work of Marcel Mauss

[Red Star Rising]

I'm sure this is a debate which has been had many times before but, in the transitional period between capitalism and communism how would wages actually work? And how would paying for goods work when things are owned collectively? Obviously, use values that are in great enough abundance to be provided for everybody would not have any kind of ties to currency at all, but in general how would currency work, I doubt we could jump straight to a moneyless system...what would replace private capital?

[Creative Destruction]

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

[Tim Cornelis]

That's the first phase of communism, not the revolutionary dictatorship.

[Creative Destruction]

Yeah, I went back and read the OP closer after I posted that. My mistake. In my defense, the OP seems a bit confused. There is still value in the beginning in the dictatorship of the proletariat and things aren't automatically owned collectively. It's the process of doing so. To his question, specifically, what would replace private capital: what I posted would.

[Illegalitarian]

bartering with live ducks

[DDR Agrarian]

This would work because the monitary syestem is being used for functioning but not for economic gain by any party

[Blake's Baby]

Rationing, I suspect. It may not be possible to do this for everything but I'd like to see the revolutionary dictatorship go towards rationing as soon as possible in as many fields as possible.

I'm sure our Technocrats will be along to say that's completely wrong and inefficient, but I think it's the only sensible solution.

Of course, what I mean is rationing by need, as opposed to rationing by price or rationing by work. Until we reach a free-access society, it's all rationing in some form.

[Red Star Rising]

Rationing, I suspect. It may not be possible to do this for everything but I'd like to see the revolutionary dictatorship go towards rationing as soon as possible in as many fields as possible.

I'm sure our Technocrats will be along to say that's completely wrong and inefficient, but I think it's the only sensible solution.

Of course, what I mean is rationing by need, as opposed to rationing by price or rationing by work. Until we reach a free-access society, it's all rationing in some form.

And other things? without capitalist exchange value being nearly as prevalent, there might be enough of SOME luxury items to give one to almost everyone who wants one, but how would things that can't be rationed or provided for all be distributed? Labour credits or something?

Personally I think that in the very beginning post-revolution I think there should be two currencies - money that is held only by the state and used for international trade, to make sure that the state can sustain itself until the revolution is widespread enough, and money in the form of labour credits that is used for payment and exchange. This probably wouldn't work, but it's my humble opinion as a young Communist. I'm open to anyone else's more informed ideas though.

[Creative Destruction]

And other things? without capitalist exchange value being nearly as prevalent, there might be enough of SOME luxury items to give one to almost everyone who wants one, but how would things that can't be rationed or provided for all be distributed? Labour credits or something?

Personally I think that in the very beginning post-revolution I think there should be two currencies - money that is held only by the state and used for international trade, to make sure that the state can sustain itself until the revolution is widespread enough, and money in the form of labour credits that is used for payment and exchange. This probably wouldn't work, but it's my humble opinion as a young Communist. I'm open to anyone else's more informed ideas though.

one of the very first steps should be getting rid of "luxury" items and the concept of "luxury" as an exclusivity altogether. occurring in the revolution is also a social revolution where things of that nature won't hold so much importance, either. from the beginning, that concept, i suspect, would be rendered moot.

[Tim Cornelis]

I wouldn't ration according to needs, since needs are subjective, yet ration limits very real and objective. That can and will create unnecessary tensions.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm not sure needs are subjective. I think they're socially-determined.

What criteria would you use for rationing Tim? The only alternatives I know are rationing by price, and rationing by work. Why should someone who works 40 hours get preferential access to a wheelchair that they don't need, rather than someone who works 20 hours but needs a wheelchair?

[RisingDawn]

Thank you all for your help, and I apologise I wasn't here sooner to reply but I was busy writing multiple assignments, ironically enough they all involved Communism.

[egonkrenz]

Communist theory has the concept of surplus goods no one would lack any good or service because of abundance. currency and barter would be non existent.

[Red Star Rising]

In socialism, there would be no need for slapping people in the face (unless they want and like it), and you couldn't steal their bananas as bananas would be given out free and wouldn't cost anything.

What stops people taking 100 bananas?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What stops people taking 100 bananas?

Nothing.

Why do you want 100 bananas?

[RisingDawn]

I think what he means is whats stopping people from being assholes?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think what he means is whats stopping people from being assholes?

There is no abstract "being an arsehole" that is separate from social conditions. People "are arseholes" today in order to secure some kind of comparative advantage. This would not exist in socialism - someone who has taken a hundred bananas from the distribution centre even though they can't use them all will just have an apartment full of rotting bananas. Not a pleasant thing, as anyone who has left their apartment for the weekend and forgotten about those bananas standing next to the radiator will tell you. Or was that just me?

And even if someone takes a hundred bananas because, I don't know, the voices told him to, then what? We can live without those bananas. In fact, even under decaying capitalism, so much food is produced that it has to be destroyed so it doesn't rapidly destroy the food market via an overproduction crisis. I guess people are trying to be "realistic" as a sop to some pretty irrelevant Internet right-wing types, so they underestimate the productive forces even under capitalism.

And, I mean, if you think that people, if freed from the constraints of class society, would just "be arseholes", why even advocate socialism?

[Rad]

The no money state is final, it will take decades if not centuries to reach that. In the meantime, there will be many ways in which society will evolve - other ssytems may also come into place. Point is, it wont be a sudden transformation from the current stage to a money less stage.

[Jacob Cliff]

I had always considered it to be exclusively socialist. Are we not opposed to living off of the labor of others? I'm not sure how this is necessarily a birthmark of capitalism.

[consuming negativity]

often, the people who need the most are the least able to contribute

persons with health issues, older persons, children, etc.

"from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" is better

[Creative Destruction]

I had always considered it to be exclusively socialist. Are we not opposed to living off of the labor of others? I'm not sure how this is necessarily a birthmark of capitalism.

Because it exists in an era of socialism where free access has not yet been achieved. With automation comes the ability for humans to escape toiling labor, and to enjoy the things we make in a situation of post-scarcity. Until we can reach post-scarcity, it is necessary to account for the things we produce, thus "from each according to her ability, to each according to her contribution." Once free access is achieved, the maxim then becomes "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

The "birthmark of capitalism" comes from the need to account for goods since there is still a measure of scarcity, which is the basis for a capitalist economy existing: you have a need, but something is scarce, so a capitalist will provide money and capital in order to produce for that need, at a profit. It's an accounting system, but an accounting system based on the exploitation of the real producers -- the working class, in an effort to deal with scarcity (if we didn't have scarcity, we wouldn't have the need for an economy.) In the initial phase of socialism, there would still exist the need for the accounting system, which is the birthmark, but the exploitation would be removed.

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't consider it a bourgeois right, I disagree with Marx. It is a distributive principle of socialist society, perhaps a society that is less advanced than a higher phase of socialism, but it's socialism nonetheless. Saying it's not optimally distributive justice does not mean it's therefore "bourgeois".

[QueerVanguard]

I don't consider it a bourgeois right, I disagree with Marx. It is a distributive principle of socialist society, perhaps a society that is less advanced than a higher phase of socialism, but it's socialism nonetheless. Saying it's not optimally distributive justice does not mean it's therefore "bourgeois".

The very notion there's such a thing as "distributive justice" is bourgeois, that was Marx's point. Free access, what Communism will *actually* practice, is the antithesis to any distributive "principle" because people simply take as they want. It's an anti-principle, and the entire notion of justice is a mere smokescreen for class domination - which will not exist in Communism.

[Tim Cornelis]

The very notion there's such a thing as "distributive justice" is bourgeois, that was Marx's point. Free access, what Communism will *actually* practice, is the antithesis to any distributive "principle" because people simply take as they want. It's an anti-principle, and the entire notion of justice is a mere smokescreen for class domination - which will not exist in Communism.

Of course, the distributive principle of a higher phase of communism would be free access, it would be distribution according to needs. That is as much a principle as 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their contribution'. Principle, something like foundational, general basis; and the general basis for distribution would needs guiding consumption.

My comment about distributive justice was directed at the posters, who said it's unfair as some can work more than others. My point being that just because it doesn't conform to one's vision of distributive justice, does not make it bourgeois. Justice is about people getting what they are due. I don't see why one couldn't consider "needs" to be the fairest way to distribute the total products, needs guiding consumption is what people are due, as opposed to ownership or contribution.

This: "But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."

Does sound Marx doesn't consider it justified, not everyone gets what he is due.

But then, I remember you as the person who called me a fascist, a liberal, a reactionary, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a Transphobe, a rightist, a Glenn Beck/Fox News-watcher, a Proudhonist, a nationalist, a non-Marxist for thinking communism will have mental health issues and corresponding institutions to deal with them, as well as dispute resolution to mediate disputes. You're a walking parody, and I heavily suspect a troll, so I doubt something productive will come from engaging you.

[Creative Destruction]

Free access, what Communism will *actually* practice

in the later phase of communism. the early phase of communism is still communism and would have a distributive principle of taking out what you put in, "in proportion." (that is, after deductions have been made for agreed-upon social projects.)

[Illegalitarian]

What is Marx saying in that quote?

Obviously access will be free and equal in a communist society, some sort of gift economy. The revolutionary period, well, that's usually pretty hectic, it's hard to say.

[Creative Destruction]

What is Marx saying in that quote?

Obviously access will be free and equal in a communist society, some sort of gift economy. The revolutionary period, well, that's usually pretty hectic, it's hard to say.

Marx is making a distinction between the "lower phase" of communist society, which might operate according to how Marx imagined, as quoted by Tim, and the "upper phase" of communist society where there would be free and equal access to life's needs and wants. This is all separate from the revolutionary period, i.e., the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Comrade #138672]

I don't consider it a bourgeois right, I disagree with Marx. It is a distributive principle of socialist society, perhaps a society that is less advanced than a higher phase of socialism, but it's socialism nonetheless. Saying it's not optimally distributive justice does not mean it's therefore "bourgeois".It can be considered a principle of the lower phase of communism. Also, by the very definition of labor, the bourgeoisie does not work. Therefore, it is more anti-bourgeois than bourgeois.

And, of course, we do not have to take it too literally. Just because there are people that cannot work but are in need of help/resources, does not mean that we are going to let them rot away or anything.

Furthermore, I do believe that the lower phase of communism has become very irrelevant nowadays, when we consider how much the means of production have developed since Marx and Lenin.

[Tim Cornelis]

"I do believe that the lower phase of communism has become very irrelevant nowadays, when we consider how much the means of production have developed since Marx and Lenin."

I think this overly optimistic. Wants have increased proportionally to the development of the productive forces, so no real progress has been made in that department I'd say.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The principle, such as it is, is an example of bourgeois right because it restricts access to the general social product based on one factor or the other; in this, it reproduces one of the essential characteristics of class societies, and it does so on the basis of a "perfect" (from a bourgeois standpoint) exchange of (what would have been a) labour value for labour value.

Too many people, I think, treat this as some sort of grand principle of Marxism instead of Marx's speculation on one of those unpleasant things we won't be able to rid ourselves off immediately after the transitional period. And it crucially depends on Marx's assessment of the productive forces. I have no idea how the productive forces will be as the state withers away; but it is in no way impossible that society might "skip" this "stage".

[Creative Destruction]

It can be considered a principle of the lower phase of communism. Also, by the very definition of labor, the bourgeoisie does not work. Therefore, it is more anti-bourgeois than bourgeois.

And, of course, we do not have to take it too literally. Just because there are people that cannot work but are in need of help/resources, does not mean that we are going to let them rot away or anything.

Furthermore, I do believe that the lower phase of communism has become very irrelevant nowadays, when we consider how much the means of production have developed since Marx and Lenin.

You have to make the case that the means of production have developed to the point where complete automation, across all industries, is possible. It may be going in that direction, but it is not yet the case. Until that does become the case, then the "lower phase of communism" is still necessary.

[QueerVanguard]

But then, I remember you as the person who called me a fascist, a liberal, a reactionary, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a Transphobe, a rightist, a Glenn Beck/Fox News-watcher, a Proudhonist, a nationalist, a non-Marxist for thinking communism will have mental health issues and corresponding institutions to deal with them, as well as dispute resolution to mediate disputes. You're a walking parody, and I heavily suspect a troll, so I doubt something productive will come from engaging you.

Go fuck yourself, really and truly. A "troll" am I? Why, because I called you those things because they conformed with bullshit remarks you've made in the past? Just because you've censored yourself in recent months due to the efforts of people like me calling you out on your reactionary beetle shit doesn't mean those remarks were invalid at the time. And you're still harping on about "principles" of distribution, so it's clear you still haven't shaken off your Proudhonism.

[Tim Cornelis]

Yes, a troll. No one can be this stupid, this aggressive, this antagonizing, this dishonest, this ignorant without being a troll I hope. So that's what I tell myself to keep my sanity. Incidentally, you have the same hysterical puritan 'socialism' as 870 (I still half-suspect you of being his sockpuppet). And like 870, if I were to paraphrase Marx you would hysterically shout "You Proudhonist!". 870 has already called Marx's conception of communism, the free association of equal producers, exclusively something one can find in Proudhon, not Marx -- that is, Marx is a Proudhonist, and now you too say that Marx has Proudhonist tendencies.

Marx:

"Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form."

What is this? Marx talking about a principle when he is talking about the distribution of the total product amongst individual consumers, a principle of distribution if you will. What a Proudhonist!

Who could possibly take you seriously? If you have any intelligence you wouldn't even take yourself seriously. You must be the alter ego of 870 with the same intellectual dishonesty, but with no substance.

[Illegalitarian]

Lenin said, iirc, that the lower phase of communism would be realized during the revolutionary period, when the gains of the revolution were protected but the revolutionary struggle still continued, ie, when the DOTP had established itself but the forces of reaction hadn't been entirely wiped away.

This sounds right. It's kind of common sense that we won't just go from capitalism yesterday to full communism tomorrow

[Creative Destruction]

Lenin said, iirc, that the lower phase of communism would be realized during the revolutionary period, when the gains of the revolution were protected but the revolutionary struggle still continued, ie, when the DOTP had established itself but the forces of reaction hadn't been entirely wiped away.

This sounds right. It's kind of common sense that we won't just go from capitalism yesterday to full communism tomorrow

Lenin was misguided in his conception or misreading Marx, which also, iirc, led him to the false understanding that there is are separate "socialist" and "communist" phases. The dictatorship of the proletariat is still capitalist, because it still is a period that has the law of value. It is just in the works of abolishing the law of value and, thus classes. Only once that is done is socialism ushered in. Even the terminology is mismatched, because assuming a "lower phase of socialism" in the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is incoherent, when socialism is premised on the complete abolition of classes (i.e., there will be no proletariat to dictate rule.)

[Illegalitarian]

That makes sense, too.

I'm still not sure how to feel about this whole "upper and lower phase" thing, then.. if class society is abolished, what is there to stop a fully socialized economy, then? Why would there even be a need, in a society where classlessness and statelessness have already been achieved, for there to be any other distribution system aside from one based on the needs and wants of people?

I'm probably overthinking this and missing something obvious.. maybe Marx is assuming a great deal of the world would be destroyed by revolution, and thus a lot of productive capacity lost?

[robbo203]

This whole idea of a two stage model of socialism/communism is I think a little suspect.

There is no dispute about the fact that the "higher phase" of communism is characterised by free access. Well, why might not the principle of free access be applied to some goods in the lower phase too even though other goods would be rationed? With the reorganisation of production, the conversion of capitalism's structural waste into socially useful functions and the all round increase in socially useful output resulting from that, more and more goods might then become available on a free access basis while the rationed sector would correspondingly contract

In other words we are talking of a difference in degree, not kind, manifesting itself over time. I suspect free access goods would correspond to those that satisfy basic urgent needs whereas rationed goods would tend to be confined to things like luxury items. Luxury items will be systematically discriminated against in the allocation of resources within the productive sphere itself and this is what will tend to make them relatively scarce and hence subject to rationing.

Finally, instead of rationing goods according to one's contribution i.e. labour vouchers of some sort which is absurdly bureaucratic (think of all the monitoring of labour it entails) , inherently problematic (how do you compare different kinds of labour?) and quite likely socially divisive, why not use some other criterion of rationing?

I am an advocate of the compensation model of rationing which focusses simply on (graded) quality of housing stock. After all, the world we will inherit from capitalism will exhibit considerable differences in the quality of housing stock for quite a while. You cannot simply magick that a way. Practical necessity means that many people will still be living in relatively poor quality housing for a long time

Society needs to acknowledge, and do something about, this. The grading of housing stock into simple bands (which is something done today for the purposes of local taxation - though taxes wont exist in communism obviously! - and will have to be done anyway as part of the process of tackling the housing problem ) provides the basis upon which a system of rationing for some goods (those that are scarce) could be constituted which discriminates in favour of those compelled to live in poor quality housing for the time being. That is to say, it is such individuals who, quite rightly, should have first call on goods that are scarce and hence rationed

[Creative Destruction]

That makes sense, too.

I'm still not sure how to feel about this whole "upper and lower phase" thing, then.. if class society is abolished, what is there to stop a fully socialized economy, then?

I don't understand your question. The lower phase is a "fully socialized economy," because the law of value is no longer in effect and classes have been abolished. There are no markets for exchange (at least, markets as we know them in a capitalist sense -- I guess a "store of goods" would be a market if you're being extremely pedantic about it [which I'm not accusing you of]).


Why would there even be a need, in a society where classlessness and statelessness have already been achieved, for there to be any other distribution system aside from one based on the needs and wants of people?

I think maybe the "birth stamps of capitalism" thing is messing with you a bit, perhaps? If that's the case, you'd need to separate what the "birth stamps" mean versus what the capitalist system is in totality and what actually defines it. There are some things, at the beginning, because we haven't reached a period of full automation of toiling labor, that would have a superficial relation to the old system; like a one-for-one labor-hour accounting system. On the face of it, it looks like a wage system, but the nature of it is completely different from that of an actual wage system, not the least of which is because it's not predicated on "value" (other than perhaps use-values.)

Am I getting anywhere near the mark of what you were asking? I have a feeling that I'm not.


I'm probably overthinking this and missing something obvious.. maybe Marx is assuming a great deal of the world would be destroyed by revolution, and thus a lot of productive capacity lost?

No, definitely not. A revolution is about advancing the means of production and its productive capacity (that is, advancing the nature of it and what it means to produce.) Destroying productive capacity would be a set back to our end goal.

[Creative Destruction]

There is no dispute about the fact that the "higher phase" of communism is characterised by free access. Well, why might not the principle of free access be applied to some goods in the lower phase too even though other goods would be rationed? With the reorganisation of production, the conversion of capitalism's structural waste into socially useful functions and the all round increase in socially useful output resulting from that, more and more goods might then become available on a free access basis while the rationed sector would correspondingly contract

I kind of assumed this would be the case; that we would have free access to goods and services that aren't actually scarce, beyond their economic scarcity thanks to capitalism... like housing, medical care, education. And all else that we couldn't supply free access to would be based on this one-to-one labor hour accounting system until we had the means of production advanced to a point where it was possible (agriculture and clothing are two big ones that come to mind that are common industries that we have not automated or retooled to compensate for wastefulness.)

I also get the sense that people are kind of put off by the dual-phase conception because it doesn't have a set time to it. I think humans are always prone to assume the worst, so they assume that this is just going to be a generations long process, when it doesn't necessarily have to be. Just like the dictatorship of the proletariat could -- in theory -- be a month long process (or however long it takes), the transition from the lower phase to a higher phase could be fairly quick. It's kind of one of those "We'll cross that bridge when we get there" sorts of situations.

eta. One thing that does occur to me, and intrigues me, and may complicate things, is how, because of capitalism, we've developed a capacity to "overconsume" or to be completely wasteful. Who knows how long that'll take before we get out of that pattern, so I imagine on that level, some sort of accounting system -- which then doesn't imply post-scarcity -- would be needed until we brought ourselves to a sustainable level, or at least one where our consumption won't completely wreck the planet.

[robbo203]

I kind of assumed this would be the case; that we would have free access to goods and services that aren't actually scarce, beyond their economic scarcity thanks to capitalism... like housing, medical care, education. And all else that we couldn't supply free access to would be based on this one-to-one labor hour accounting system until we had the means of production advanced to a point where it was possible (agriculture and clothing are two big ones that come to mind that are common industries that we have not automated or retooled to compensate for wastefulness.)

I also get the sense that people are kind of put off by the dual-phase conception because it doesn't have a set time to it. I think humans are always prone to assume the worst, so they assume that this is just going to be a generations long process, when it doesn't necessarily have to be. Just like the dictatorship of the proletariat could -- in theory -- be a month long process (or however long it takes), the transition from the lower phase to a higher phase could be fairly quick. It's kind of one of those "We'll cross that bridge when we get there" sorts of situations.

eta. One thing that does occur to me, and intrigues me, and may complicate things, is how, because of capitalism, we've developed a capacity to "overconsume" or to be completely wasteful. Who knows how long that'll take before we get out of that pattern, so I imagine on that level, some sort of accounting system -- which then doesn't imply post-scarcity -- would be needed until we brought ourselves to a sustainable level, or at least one where our consumption won't completely wreck the planet.

Hi Rednoise,

Yes I go along with all this except with the idea of a "one-to-one labor hour accounting system" as a means of rationing. I really think folks ought to rethink this whole idea of labour vouchers or indeed labour time accounting - these two ideas are not the same since you can have labour time accounting without an institutionalised system of labour vouchers.

Ive touched on some of the problems this involves and it would be interesting to hear people's responses to that as well as to the alternative "compensation model of rationing" which I think is far more do-able and sensible approach than any rationing system based on one's supposed contribution to production (assuming it is even possible to determine or measure this)

[White_Sun]

Hello, let me put my nose into this one briefly.


Yes I go along with all this except with the idea of a "one-to-one labor hour accounting system" as a means of rationing. I really think folks ought to rethink this whole idea of labour vouchers or indeed labour time accounting - these two ideas are not the same since you can have labour time accounting without an institutionalised system of labour vouchers.

Completely agree and am elated that there are other people who view this as something very, very important. In many ways the fears of many of socialism/communism (yes they are uneducated) in contemporary society is how their efforts would be rewarded. You want a system that can benefit all levels of society and productivity. On a personal level I have no problem giving my all into a particular given work but I want reward of some sort, it does not have to be a whopping bonus per se.


Also with psychology these days what do you all think of all the identified character types (Myers Briggs, Enneagram)? People are driven my different objectives and fears so it is essential to have something that caters to all.

In terms of labour vouchers I can only imagine one giant post office in my head, something absolutely horrifying :lol:.



I don't understand your question. The lower phase is a "fully socialized economy," because the law of value is no longer in effect and classes have been abolished. There are no markets for exchange (at least, markets as we know them in a capitalist sense -- I guess a "store of goods" would be a market if you're being extremely pedantic about it [which I'm not accusing you of]).

This is where I often get lost in Marxist debate. How are the markets going to vanish overnight? This is based on the assumption that all major powers have turned red and they have enough vital commodities to completely abolish exchange?

If this is the assumption (I very well might be wrong and jumping the gun) I firmly believe in very gradual reduction of the market system with the fulfilling of basic needs above all else. Universal healthcare, safety nets, rational unemployment schemes (to a point, people can in fact get too "comfortable") ect. ect.

I think historically attempts to bring radical change too quickly have brought with them huge amounts of instability which can threaten any would be future socialist society unless it starts resorting to more heavy handed methods to stay in power rather than bank on popular support. No matter how noble the idea, if people see themselves as worse off, it becomes only a matter of time that they simply go to the highest bidder.

[Creative Destruction]

First, I'm having a tough time figuring out exactly how your compensation model, based on quality of housing, is at all adequate or not as potentially "socially divisive" as the labor accounting system proposed by Marx. Nor that it would be necessary, considering building materials are not scarce, and neither is the labor required to make housing.


Finally, instead of rationing goods according to one's contribution i.e. labour vouchers of some sort which is absurdly bureaucratic (think of all the monitoring of labour it entails) , inherently problematic (how do you compare different kinds of labour?) and quite likely socially divisive, why not use some other criterion of rationing?

Given that, I'm going to focus on the above.

First, simply because something is going to take a large amount of coordination and effort to do does not automatically mean it should not be done. I mean, after all, we're here talking about what happens after a globally coordinated revolution in which the entirety of the previous economic system has been overthrown and replaced with a new, highly functioning system based on human needs. Compared to that, "monitoring of labour" (which is something we do anyway, right now, so obviously we have the means to do so) is a goddamned walk in the park.

Second, I don't know what you mean by "comparing other labor." Labor is accounted for one-for-one. One hour is equal to another, so there is no comparing other labor or its qualities, other than how much time it actually takes to produce a good, and how many hours of labor a person has done.

Third, the only way I can think of this being "socially divisive" is because people would still personally value their own labor over others, as we do now. Well, part of the point of the revolution is to have a social revolution, as well, which would do away with this individualistic kind of thinking. So, taking that into account, I am not sure that I see the problem here. There's a lot of mind paid toward the "incentive issue," but that's a separate one than what you're raising here.

[Creative Destruction]

This is where I often get lost in Marxist debate. How are the markets going to vanish overnight? This is based on the assumption that all major powers have turned red and they have enough vital commodities to completely abolish exchange?

If this is the assumption

It's not the assumption at all. "Markets" and all market logic is done away with in the dictatorship of the proletariat -- the revolutionary period. What I was saying earlier was that there is no set temporal restriction on how long this could happen, it could be a month, it could be years.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Completely agree and am elated that there are other people who view this as something very, very important. In many ways the fears of many of socialism/communism (yes they are uneducated) in contemporary society is how their efforts would be rewarded. You want a system that can benefit all levels of society and productivity. On a personal level I have no problem giving my all into a particular given work but I want reward of some sort, it does not have to be a whopping bonus per se.

I have to admit that, having talked about socialism to quite a few people, the only ones who have mentioned anything about their efforts being rewarded were petit-bourgeois and professional types. This is admittedly anecdotal, but it makes sense: in capitalism, the "had work" of proletarians (i.e. the proletarian being ground up by the machinery of capital) is not rewarded.


Also with psychology these days what do you all think of all the identified character types (Myers Briggs, Enneagram)? People are driven my different objectives and fears so it is essential to have something that caters to all.

The amount of scientific evidence for "personality types" is approximately the same as the amount of scientific evidence for unicorns, to be blunt.


In terms of labour vouchers I can only imagine one giant post office in my head, something absolutely horrifying :lol:.

I think people are far too attached to labour vouchers; it would probably be best to leave the details of rationing for when we have a good grasp of the status of the productive forces after the revolution (which would probably be after the revolution). But in fact the post office is a classical socialist metaphor; that, or the railways (I think Lenin used the post office example and Hilferding the railways).


This is where I often get lost in Marxist debate. How are the markets going to vanish overnight? This is based on the assumption that all major powers have turned red and they have enough vital commodities to completely abolish exchange?

No, the market will not vanish overnight. In the area under the dictatorship of the proletariat, production and distribution will largely follow non-market norms; but obviously this area would still be part of a world that is organised on the basis of a capitalist global market. When capitalism has been broken as a world system, when it has been swept off the globe, then the processes of production and distribution come under complete, planned social control.


If this is the assumption (I very well might be wrong and jumping the gun) I firmly believe in very gradual reduction of the market system with the fulfilling of basic needs above all else. Universal healthcare, safety nets, rational unemployment schemes (to a point, people can in fact get too "comfortable") ect. ect.

I think historically attempts to bring radical change too quickly have brought with them huge amounts of instability which can threaten any would be future socialist society unless it starts resorting to more heavy handed methods to stay in power rather than bank on popular support. No matter how noble the idea, if people see themselves as worse off, it becomes only a matter of time that they simply go to the highest bidder.

Well, if they genuinely are better off in capitalism, they can't be workers, so good riddance to them. The problem with the idea of "gradually" introducing a new mode of production is that it doesn't work, and it can't work. The revolution brings instability, yes. But it also brings the only real possibility for social change.

[White_Sun]

The amount of scientific evidence for "personality types" is approximately the same as the amount of scientific evidence for unicorns, to be blunt.

People interpret information and function differently many ways, as to how you can really categorize that is of course up for debate. Psychology as a whole is a whole bunch of assumptions, economics is often quantifying the un-quantifyable. It goes by the logic that there is something better but has yet to be stumbled upon. You can choose believe in Carl Jung and much as Marx, which I personally find logic in, that doesn't mean in can get disproven in the near or far future.


Well, if they genuinely are better off in capitalism, they can't be workers, so good riddance to them. The problem with the idea of "gradually" introducing a new mode of production is that it doesn't work, and it can't work. The revolution brings instability, yes. But it also brings the only real possibility for social change.

If conditions reach continual hardship for a prolonged period of time people get fed up. Only zealots starve and die in the name of an idea. If me and my family were teetering on collapse my primary function is providing necessities, not higher ideals so it's saying "good riddance" to a sizable portion good and rational people.


I think people are far too attached to labour vouchers; it would probably be best to leave the details of rationing for when we have a good grasp of the status of the productive forces after the revolution (which would probably be after the revolution). But in fact the post office is a classical socialist metaphor; that, or the railways (I think Lenin used the post office example and Hilferding the railways).

But what are the chances of setting good policy on the issue in the event of the sudden, newly formed socialist government. Decisions on the fly are for the battlefield, not economic policy.

[robbo203]

First, I'm having a tough time figuring out exactly how your compensation model, based on quality of housing, is at all adequate or not as potentially "socially divisive" as the labor accounting system proposed by Marx. Nor that it would be necessary, considering building materials are not scarce, and neither is the labor required to make housing.


Well, lets agree on one thing at least - your home is absolutely central to, or is a major aspect of, your quality of life. This is why I would place the quality of housing stock at the centre of any proposed rationing system; it doesnt capture every aspect of "quality of life, of course, but it is a reasonably good proxy for most things from that point of view.

Next, consider what the situation is likely to be in the first years or even decades after the revolution. What we will inherit from capitalism, amongst other things, is a massive inequality of housing stock which is likely to persist for quite a while. You cannot just magick this problem away. You say there is no shortage of building material which may well be true but it still takes time to renew and upgrade the housing stock, time during which there will be palatial houses existing alongside cramped slum dwellings. Of course we have to, as a matter of priority, focus on getting rid of the slums but even then unless you propose to wastefully demolish the palatial houses you are still going to have a degree of inequality. The opportunity costs of building a palatial home for everyone -7 billion of us - would, I suggest, be beyond our reach so we have to make the best of the situation we find ourselves.

As I see it, a communist society could not stand by and just fatalistically accept the situation as it is. Nor could it simply allow a free for all in which individuals grab what they can and fight tooth and nail to hang on to it. It has to accommodate itself to the situation in a way that acknowleges the basic inequality and injustice built into the situation. Hence the idea of a compensation model of rationing.

The bureaucratic procedure involved in operating such a system is fairly straightforward. As a first step housing stock has to be graded or ranked for the purposes of evaluation. In fact this is something that has already been done in some places under capitalism for the purposes of local tax collection. In the UK, if I recall correctly, when the poll tax existed, each local authority placed all housing units under its jurisdiction into one of 6 or 7 bands based on property values. Of course, in communism we would not be talking about property values but, rather, such things as facilities, property size, access to local amenities etc - a box ticking exercise . Sure, its a rough and ready approach but at least its addressing the sitiuation and as I said you would have to go through this sort of exercise anyway in order to assess the extent of the housing problem locally and where to prioritise your efforts.


Once you have got your basic profile of the housing stock locally you are then able to organise a systen of vouchers around this data which permits differential access between households to rationed goods depending on what housing band you fall under. There are many ways in which this could be done and the vouchers themselves could be time-limited but at this stage Im more concered with putting acorss the basic concept - bearing in mind that it applies to rationed non-essential goods rather than non-rationed essential goods which of course would be distributed on the basis of free access






Given that, I'm going to focus on the above.

First, simply because something is going to take a large amount of coordination and effort to do does not automatically mean it should not be done. I mean, after all, we're here talking about what happens after a globally coordinated revolution in which the entirety of the previous economic system has been overthrown and replaced with a new, highly functioning system based on human needs. Compared to that, "monitoring of labour" (which is something we do anyway, right now, so obviously we have the means to do so) is a goddamned walk in the park.


I disagree. One of the biggest indictments of capitalism is precisely that more and more of the work we do today is socially useless - does not produce anything that would actually enhance the wellbeing of individuals . Included in this are the massive transaction costs of operating the capitalist system itself. Ive often used the example of banks to illustrate this point. Banks only exists to service the functional needs of the system itself. They produce nothing of value in themselves. Whats more they direct a massive amount of manpower and resources away from socially useful production.

The same argument would apply in a communst system. We need to minimise the opportunity costs of bureaucracy precisely to enable more useful stuff to be prpduced and made available to the populace. In my view operating a system of labour vouchers would in itself absorb a massive amount of manpower and labour in itself. If you are going to install such a system it has of its very nature to be universalistic and must involve the close monitoring and recording of ALL labour contributions otherwise there is simply no point in having such a system





Second, I don't know what you mean by "comparing other labor." Labor is accounted for one-for-one. One hour is equal to another, so there is no comparing other labor or its qualities, other than how much time it actually takes to produce a good, and how many hours of labor a person has done.



Im referring here to the problem of the "heterogeneity of labour" as it is called - how do you compare one kind of labour against another. Is one hour's work by a janitor the equivalent of one hour's work by a neuro surgeon. The labour theory of value would suggest not (because of the much greater costs involved in producing a neuro-surgeon) and if you decided neverthelss to still treat each hour of labour as equivalent regardless of kind , the labour theory of value would suggest that you would then run into serious problems of misallocating labour. I stress this is ONLY a problem if you think in terms of "compensating" labour. I dont. I support the full blooded communist idea that ALL labour hould be completely voluntarily and freely offered by the associated workers themselves. That alone makes the question of how you evaluate differet kinds of labour completely redundant




their own[/i] labor over others, as we do now. Well, part of the point of the revolution is to have a social revolution, as well, which would do away with this individualistic kind of thinking. So, taking that into account, I am not sure that I see the problem here. There's a lot of mind paid toward the "incentive issue," but that's a separate one than what you're raising here.

But to follow the logic of your own argument, if you want to do away this individualistic thinking then you ought also to do away with the kind individualistic practice which a system of labour vouchers incarnates which rewards you for precisely what you as an individual have contributed by way of your own labour. The system of labour vouchers is precsely a system of individual incentives which atomises society and effectively pits one individual against other . Even if you ruled that different kinds of labours should be valued as exactly equivalent the very fact that this labour is remunerated at all will induce a tendency to compare and contrast - "my labour is more skilled and worth more than hers", " I work harder than him but still he gets the same as me" - which will sow deep social divisions at the very heart of a communist society and might even ultimately destroy it. I say - do away with very idea of "remuneration" in a communist society from the word go

[Creative Destruction]

Well, lets agree on one thing at least - your home is absolutely central to, or is a major aspect of, your quality of life. This is why I would place the quality of housing stock at the centre of any proposed rationing system; it doesnt capture every aspect of "quality of life, of course, but it is a reasonably good proxy for most things from that point of view.

Okay, but housing stock isn't actually scarce, as I noted above, and neither is the labor to build housing. Many houses fall into disarray for the reason of it being too expensive to do repairs or there is cost in building a house. If you remove these economic barriers -- which are the only barriers that makes it "scarce" and not of quality -- then there isn't an issue. Let's take the Western countries, for example, of which there exists a lot of substandard housing: standardized quality homes are not scarce and there actually exists more of these homes, that sit empty, than there is a homeless population in the United States, in the UK, in Ireland and, I imagine, the same is true for any other European country. When you take into consideration the barrios in Latin America; well, it's easy enough to raze the shanty towns and to allocate building materials and labor to build the houses. Again, as I noted above, what stops this from happening is the false scarcity that capitalism creates.

Yes, I agree, one of the major projects should be to upgrade housing to a standardized quality. But there are 7 billion people in this world, and houses are, to be quite honest, pretty easy to build, as well as there are a variety of types of housing. One of the most common housing types in the parts of the Middle East which are completely arid are cob houses -- and they're damn fine houses. And they're easy to build, with a little bit of help.

What I'm trying to get at is this: you seem to be positing that housing is going to be some large hurdle to overcome where it regards allocation. In fact, you're overstating (mis-stating, rather) what the problem is. It makes no sense whatsoever to peg any sort of compensation system to housing when it is so easy to obtain, even quality housing, when you remove things like the law of value and the profit motive. Which is why I said earlier that it was a foregone conclusion with me that housing would have been one of those free goods. And people who are living in shanty towns and ghettos and barrios would finally have easy access to these resources to build quality homes for themselves. The other part of your assumption appears to be that this project, although admittedly massive, will require some sort of complete resource allocation on the part of everyone, so much so that it would be necessary to peg this project to compensation. That's simply not the case. You might as well peg compensation to building water desalination plants, for the same reasons.


Next, consider what the situation is likely to be in the first years or even decades after the revolution. What we will inherit from capitalism, amongst other things, is a massive inequality of housing stock which is likely to persist for quite a while. You cannot just magick this problem away. You say there is no shortage of building material which may well be true but it still takes time to renew and upgrade the housing stock, time during which there will be palatial houses existing alongside cramped slum dwellings.

This is about what I was referring to earlier; with placing temporal restrictions on when all of this is occur. It's true that, in theory, it could take decades. It's equally true, in theory, that it won't. Upgrading "housing stock" is not a difficult thing to do, and with the construction methods that we have and the means of production and techniques for coordination that we have, it does not take that long. My wife worked on a construction crew, of total, maybe about 150 - 200 workers (at most, including subcontractors, and much of the labor was redundant) and they raised two separate, rather large, apartment complexes and a large subdivision, inside of about 9 months. It takes much much less time to actually complete a house, and much less time to upgrade housing.

So, again, I think you're overstating the problem. As to the "palatial homes," raze them. Make that one of the first things we do, and replace them with housing for everyone. I'm not "magick"-ing the problem away; what I'm telling you is that you're overstating the difficult and resource amount that such a project would take (just like you overstated the issue of accounting for labor.)


Of course we have to, as a matter of priority, focus on getting rid of the slums but even then unless you propose to wastefully demolish the palatial houses you are still going to have a degree of inequality. The opportunity costs of building a palatial home for everyone -7 billion of us - would, I suggest, be beyond our reach so we have to make the best of the situation we find ourselves.

Why would we be building palatial homes? I'm sure some individuals would want "palatial" homes, but this is a social project. And society at large does not view such large homes as need-worthy. In fact, I don't know if you've noticed how much venom is thrown in the way of people who build mansions, generally. And why is it "wasteful" to remove a "palatial" home, which usually only houses one family, and use that land to build homes for more than one family? To call that "wasteful" makes absolutely no sense.


As I see it, a communist society could not stand by and just fatalistically accept the situation as it is. Nor could it simply allow a free for all in which individuals grab what they can and fight tooth and nail to hang on to it. It has to accommodate itself to the situation in a way that acknowleges the basic inequality and injustice built into the situation. Hence the idea of a compensation model of rationing.

This is what Marx called the "birth stamps" of capitalism appearing in some ways in the lower phase of communism. The labor accounting system he proposed is such a birth stamp, so, no one is not acknowledging some basic inequalities that might arise out of such a situation. He even explicitly called it out, here:


But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

But it is a way of dealing with what remaining scarcity we have in the world until we can move into a period of post-scarcity. And, frankly, a much better way of doing so rather than simply focusing on upgrading one area of society -- like housing stock -- and paying no mind to anything else.


The bureaucratic procedure involved in operating such a system is fairly straightforward. As a first step housing stock has to be graded or ranked for the purposes of evaluation. In fact this is something that has already been done in some places under capitalism for the purposes of local tax collection. In the UK, if I recall correctly, when the poll tax existed, each local authority placed all housing units under its jurisdiction into one of 6 or 7 bands based on property values. Of course, in communism we would not be talking about property values but, rather, such things as facilities, property size, access to local amenities etc - a box ticking exercise . Sure, its a rough and ready approach but at least its addressing the sitiuation and as I said you would have to go through this sort of exercise anyway in order to assess the extent of the housing problem locally and where to prioritise your efforts.

Yeah, I understand the process, or figured it would be like this anyway. That still does not address my overarching concern.


Once you have got your basic profile of the housing stock locally you are then able to organise a systen of vouchers around this data which permits differential access between households to rationed goods depending on what housing band you fall under. There are many ways in which this could be done and the vouchers themselves could be time-limited but at this stage Im more concered with putting acorss the basic concept - bearing in mind that it applies to rationed non-essential goods rather than non-rationed essential goods which of course would be distributed on the basis of free access.

To me, this is a much harder exercise than simply accounting for labor and the labor time that is needed to create goods and give services. Before any of this starts, you'd have to come up with standards that everyone can agree on, first of all, which, if the point is to create a basic housing standard, is an impossible survey to take among 7 billion people. If you're worried about whatever bureaucratic nightmares may arise from tracking labor hours of a product and the labor hours that someone works, which are objective measurements, I can't understand how your knees just don't buckle at the thought of 7 billion people trying to agree on such a subjective thing, such as needs and wants for housing.


I disagree. One of the biggest indictments of capitalism is precisely that more and more of the work we do today is socially useless - does not produce anything that would actually enhance the wellbeing of individuals . Included in this are the massive transaction costs of operating the capitalist system itself. Ive often used the example of banks to illustrate this point. Banks only exists to service the functional needs of the system itself. They produce nothing of value in themselves. Whats more they direct a massive amount of manpower and resources away from socially useful production.

None of this is actually a rebuttal to anything of mine you quoted, least of all the specific section you quoted.


The same argument would apply in a communst system. We need to minimise the opportunity costs of bureaucracy precisely to enable more useful stuff to be prpduced and made available to the populace. In my view operating a system of labour vouchers would in itself absorb a massive amount of manpower and labour in itself. If you are going to install such a system it has of its very nature to be universalistic and must involve the close monitoring and recording of ALL labour contributions otherwise there is simply no point in having such a system

I don't think you're aware of how automated tracking hours has truly become. If you work, for any measure of time, in a corporate office that uses a program like ADP, you'd know that it is much less a bureaucratic burden than you're trying to make it out to be. More over, we already measure the time it makes commodities, and it's not a difficult thing to do at all. I mean, much of big data is just a representation of the socially necessary labor time it takes to create something. Companies know how long, on average, it should take to create something, like a TV and what not. They have to know that because that's what enables them to adjust input and output of living and dead labor, in order to fine tune how much profit they can rake in.

That's what I'm saying: we have these existing systems already. We already have common system of tracking labor time and we already have common systems of tracking how long it takes to produce goods and services. It's far and away entirely easier to take systems such as that, retool them and use them for a labor accounting purpose in a socialist society, in order to ration scarce goods, than it is to create an entirely new system that need to take into account the subjective needs and wants of 7 billion people, and base a rationing system on that. I really don't think you've either a.) thought this through very well and/or b.) have much experience with the systems that I am referring to.


Im referring here to the problem of the "heterogeneity of labour" as it is called - how do you compare one kind of labour against another. Is one hour's work by a janitor the equivalent of one hour's work by a neuro surgeon.

You don't. An hour of labor is equal to another hour. Full stop. Again, the problem we come to with this is purely a problem of the capitalist system; where people are inculcated with the idea that one worker's labor is more socially valuable than another worker's labor.


The labour theory of value would suggest not (because of the much greater costs involved in producing a neuro-surgeon) and if you decided neverthelss to still treat each hour of labour as equivalent regardless of kind , the labour theory of value would suggest that you would then run into serious problems of misallocating labour.

I have to ask: how much of Marx have you read (or Smith and Ricardo, for that matter?) You do realize that the labor theory of value is a model under the capitalist system, right? It's what underpins the workings of capitalism. There is no labor theory of value in socialism; in fact, one of the main tasks of socialism is to dispense with the LTV.


I stress this is ONLY a problem if you think in terms of "compensating" labour. I dont.

No, this is a problem if you accept the LTV has any relevance in the conversation we're having about a labor accounting system under a lower phase of socialism, specifically one that Marx posited. Spoiler alert: It doesn't have any relevance.


I support the full blooded communist idea that ALL labour hould be completely voluntarily and freely offered by the associated workers themselves. That alone makes the question of how you evaluate differet kinds of labour completely redundant

It's becoming clear to me that what you support is more akin to some idealistic anarcho-communist formulation. (lol @ "full blooded communist")


But to follow the logic of your own argument, if you want to do away this individualistic thinking then you ought also to do away with the kind individualistic practice which a system of labour vouchers incarnates which rewards you for precisely what you as an individual have contributed by way of your own labour.

Ultimately, I do want to get rid of that, because, yes, it is individualistic. But it's far less so than the issue I pinpointed in the selection you quoted, and what I'm saying has the benefit of being within the context of moving toward doing away with a labor accounting system, once post-scarcity has been reached. It is, again, a "birth stamp" of capitalism that exists on the new society, coming fresh from the old. It is a temporary necessary evil (though not based on exploitation and alienation of labor), in other words, that is used until we are at a point in society where it is no longer necessary; not a permanent state of things.



The system of labour vouchers is precsely a system of individual incentives which atomises society and effectively pits one individual against other .

Absolutely not. No one is in competition with one another because labor is no longer being alienated or set against one another. It's a system of accounting in a cooperative system. That is the assumption, and always has been. No one is forced or is under pressure to do more work or shittier work for anyone else in order to compete for a higher wage. Since the accounting is the same (one-to-one) there is no competition to be had.


Even if you ruled that different kinds of labours should be valued as exactly equivalent the very fact that this labour is remunerated at all will induce a tendency to compare and contrast - "my labour is more skilled and worth more than hers", " I work harder than him but still he gets the same as me" - which will sow deep social divisions at the very heart of a communist society and might even ultimately destroy it. I say - do away with very idea of "remuneration" in a communist society from the word go

Again, along with the economic and political revolution is a social revolution. This "compare and contrast" idea is an idea born of capitalist logic. Do away with capitalist logic, which includes the idea of competitive labor, and this isn't an issue. It is all social labor working toward the goal of automating whatever toiling labor we're left to do, in order to enjoy free access. And it is a necessary step in a society that has not yet automated everything. What you're doing here, instead, is actually proposing a kind of magic. You're willing away the fact that we will have issues to deal with that stem from just freshly overcoming the capitalist system.

You might as well just argue that we keep the capitalist system until the capitalists have figured out a way to automate everything, and only then is when we get together and overthrow the system. It's ludicrous.

[Illegalitarian]

I don't understand your question. The lower phase is a "fully socialized economy," because the law of value is no longer in effect and classes have been abolished. There are no markets for exchange (at least, markets as we know them in a capitalist sense -- I guess a "store of goods" would be a market if you're being extremely pedantic about it [which I'm not accusing you of]).

So then what, exactly, is the higher phase? That is, why is there a higher phase, what characterizes it, and how would it turn into the "lower phase". Marxist-Leninism has made me very weary of any sort of alleged transitionary phases and anyone claiming that they're a huge necessity, but I'm probably misunderstanding something fundamental here.




I think maybe the "birth stamps of capitalism" thing is messing with you a bit, perhaps? If that's the case, you'd need to separate what the "birth stamps" mean versus what the capitalist system is in totality and what actually defines it. There are some things, at the beginning, because we haven't reached a period of full automation of toiling labor, that would have a superficial relation to the old system; like a one-for-one labor-hour accounting system. On the face of it, it looks like a wage system, but the nature of it is completely different from that of an actual wage system, not the least of which is because it's not predicated on "value" (other than perhaps use-values.)


So what, a system of labour vouchers where one is given some sort of ticket to show how much they have worked, or some such?

I'm not sure what you mean by the birth marks of capitalism or any of that, could you elaborate more? I'm pretty confused overall of the nature of this "higher phase", as I mentioned above, I think that's my problem.

[Illegalitarian]

I'm sorry if you answered my questions in the above posts somewhere, but no offense, I don't want to read all of those replies which mostly seem like overly complicated post-revolutionary planning :grin:

[Creative Destruction]

So then what, exactly, is the higher phase? That is, why is there a higher phase, what characterizes it, and how would it turn into the "lower phase". Marxist-Leninism has made me very weary of any sort of alleged transitionary phases and anyone claiming that they're a huge necessity, but I'm probably misunderstanding something fundamental here.

From Marx:


Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

the tl;dr of this is that the "higher phase" is characterized by the era of communist society where the means of production have been revolutionized to the point of automation, and where there is a general principle of free access. this necessitates that society's condition is that of post-scarcity.

the "lower phase" of communist society is geared toward getting rid of the law of value (so, no competitive labor, no alienated labor, things can be distributed according to a social plan and the way (or at least a way) to deal with scarce goods is to regulate their access by means of a labor accounting system, where one hour of labor is treated as equal to another hour of labor, and you can draw from society in equal measure to what you have contributed.)


So what, a system of labour vouchers where one is given some sort of ticket to show how much they have worked, or some such?

yeah, basically. it's similar to the old utopian socialist schemes, where you work an x-amount of hours for the community and you are then allowed to draw goods from the "time store" the equal amount of labor that you put in. except, the way Marx is using the system in context, it's not for exchange (because there is no commodity production since there is no law of value to define commodities.) in the end, it's a way of ensuring that scarce resources aren't being exhausted before we've found a way to make these resources abundant for everyone.


I'm not sure what you mean by the birth marks of capitalism or any of that, could you elaborate more? I'm pretty confused overall of the nature of this "higher phase", as I mentioned above, I think that's my problem.

the "birth stamps" of capitalism in socialism, that i keep referring to, is just a way of saying that there are some things that would appear to be similar to how capitalism operated, but because the framework has changed, these similar appearances are superficial. but they're still issues that we have to deal with. the division of manufactured labor (possibly even the division of social labor, to an extent), for example, is something that is prominent in capitalism, and would be seen to some extent in socialism, but the way they express themselves changes when the economic system changes. the labor accounting system we're dealing with this thread is another such example.

in the "higher phase" these "birth stamps" would no longer be around because society would have been moved beyond them, thanks to a socialized society moving along in that direction.

[Illegalitarian]

the "lower phase" of communist society is geared toward getting rid of the law of value (so, no competitive labor, no alienated labor, things can be distributed according to a social plan and the way (or at least a way) to deal with scarce goods is to regulate their access by means of a labor accounting system, where one hour of labor is treated as equal to another hour of labor, and you can draw from society in equal measure to what you have contributed.)



yeah, basically. it's similar to the old utopian socialist schemes, where you work an x-amount of hours for the community and you are then allowed to draw goods from the "time store" the equal amount of labor that you put in. except, the way Marx is using the system in context, it's not for exchange (because there is no commodity production since there is no law of value to define commodities.) in the end, it's a way of ensuring that scarce resources aren't being exhausted before we've found a way to make these resources abundant for everyone.

One could argue that we're already well past the point of post-scarcity for the vast majority of goods, which is absolutely true.

So then, it would only be the goods that are still scarce that are distributed based off of this model?


How would such a system not be considered commodity production, or wage labor? If you're working for X amount of currency (which is time in the scenario) and are only able to buy X amount of goods with it, how is that not pretty much exactly like capitalism aside from the fact that one cannot accumulate these vouchers?





the "birth stamps" of capitalism in socialism, that i keep referring to, is just a way of saying that there are some things that would appear to be similar to how capitalism operated, but because the framework has changed, these similar appearances are superficial. but they're still issues that we have to deal with. the division of manufactured labor (possibly even the division of social labor, to an extent), for example, is something that is prominent in capitalism, and would be seen to some extent in socialism, but the way they express themselves changes when the economic system changes. the labor accounting system we're dealing with this thread is another such example.


What are some other examples of these birth marks? I see this concept as mostly being social, rather than economic or anything tangible (there will no doubt still be many people who do not "get it" and think that the system is too radical and undesirable, and thus will refuse to cooperate, most likely).

What do you mean by "manufacturing labor" and "social labor"? I thought all labor was social labor. What are the specifics of this labor accounting system, what is its purpose?


What is to guarantee that society will move towards a higher phase, though? Production plans set every year to make production even greater so as to eventually produce so many goods that they no longer have to be rationed, or some such?

[Creative Destruction]

One could argue that we're already well past the point of post-scarcity for the vast majority of goods, which is absolutely true.

I'd agree with this to an extent, but...


So then, it would only be the goods that are still scarce that are distributed based off of this model?

...post-scarcity implies complete automation of production processes and the ability of society to take part, on level terms, in all of social wealth. There are, for sure, production processes that we could automate but we simply haven't because they're deemed to expensive in a capitalist economy. A couple off the top of my head are clothes, various consumer goods and what not. Unless capitalism has already developed the means of production to complete automation, then it'll be our task, as a socialist society, to automate those processes. That would necessarily mean that there is a division, because we can't have a society of free access and still have toiling labor messing around with what machines should be doing. To a large extent, even those processes have been automated, but not completely. They still require labor -- which is a limited resource -- to produce and thus couldn't be considered in a situation of post-scarcity. The other part of this is that free access also means that we've eliminated toiling labor. It's all kind of a big package, so to speak. It's a period of allowing everyone to take part in society's wealth on purely equal terms (that is, without an accounting system -- an accounting system that still leads to some -- albeit minor -- inequities.)

But, again, I think some folks have a hesitancy to "buy in" to this "phase" model because there is an uncertain time frame as to when all this would happen. robbo, for example, is surmising that 'upgrading housing stock' would take decades. That's "decades" before we've reached a point of post-scarcity, which could happen in theory, isn't necessarily true. A lot of this depends upon the social momentum and drive to completely emancipate people from any sort of toiling labor and toward a point where labor, rather, becomes "life's prime want," in Marx's words.


How would such a system not be considered commodity production, or wage labor? If you're working for X amount of currency (which is time in the scenario) and are only able to buy X amount of goods with it, how is that not pretty much exactly like capitalism aside from the fact that one cannot accumulate these vouchers?

Because commodity production is purely production for profit, and there is exploitation of labor inherent in commodity production. Under the model that Marx proposed, labor is not exploited or alienated. And the "currency" (it's not actually currency) question you're putting forward, as if it's an insignificant difference from what we know as wages, isn't insignificant at all. Again, this is the superficial feature -- the "birth stamp" -- that looks, at first glance, the same or similar, but it's completely different because the underlying process and logic has changed.

To this extent, this is what I find attractive with Michael Albert's parecon model: there is no market, but there is a general social plan. Under parecon, people can submit "proposals" for their consumption, and through a series of negotiation processes, a general social plan is agreed upon and the goods are produced, based on need (and not profit), in a cooperative manner, and not in a competitive manner. However much you've accumulated (in contributing labor) is deducted, based on what you've requested. (Albert and Hahnel add into the mix different ways of considering remuneration, which I find, frankly, baffling and mistaken, but the general process they lay out is intriguing.)

It seems that what you're seeing here as insignificant differences are actually quite significant, when you sit down and actually compare the two systems, their underlying logic and the point of production.


What are some other examples of these birth marks? I see this concept as mostly being social, rather than economic or anything tangible (there will no doubt still be many people who do not "get it" and think that the system is too radical and undesirable, and thus will refuse to cooperate, most likely).

My mind is too limited at the current moment to come up with any more examples other than the ones I've already put to you. (I'm dividing up between this debate, another debate happening within my organization [the MHI] and also finishing up a project for school.) But I would dispute trying to separate the "social" from the "economic" since one interplays with the other. Economic expressions are social expressions. Economic "laws," "rights," or whatever else is associated with the concept therein, don't supersede the social structure that defines them. To try and say otherwise is positing that the economy is a separate concrete entity, free from social pressures, when exactly the opposite is true.


What do you mean by "manufacturing labor" and "social labor"? I thought all labor was social labor. What are the specifics of this labor accounting system, what is its purpose?

I have a feeling we've had this conversation in a different thread.

"Manufacturing labor" is the coordination of labor within the workplace. In a concrete example: the division of labor within a car plant (the production line model, for example, championed by Henry Ford) is a manufacturing labor division.

"Social labor" refers, for example, to labor done outside that realm, but which makes up labor anyway. One of the examples that Marx used was the workings of the family, as we know it, is a form of social labor -- child rearing, housekeeping, cooking or whatever else entails keeping up a household, and thus contributing to the ongoing nature of society.

I've already, multiple times (and I believe in response to you, as well), laid out the reasoning and functioning for this sort of accounting. I mean, Marx lays it pretty clearly in the passage I just cited to you, as well as in preceding and following paragraphs in the Critique of the Gotha Program.


What is to guarantee that society will move towards a higher phase, though? Production plans set every year to make production even greater so as to eventually produce so many goods that they no longer have to be rationed, or some such?

Well, I guess there's no set guarantee, just like there is no set guarantee that we will ever reach communism in the first place. A lot of it depends on how society will move. It's a constant push, and if the general desire is for complete human emancipation, and the complete transformation of what we know as labor, then the desire to move toward the "higher phase" will be there. Production plans wouldn't be increased just for the sake of doing so, though. That's a specific action needed to address human wants and needs in a period of scarcity. Rather, what is dependent on is how quickly or how far we can automate the production process in order to achieve an era of free access.

[Illegalitarian]

Seems like a well thought out and concise response, I shall respond tomorrow when I'm not so beat from wage slavery :P

Thanks!

[robbo203]

Okay, but housing stock isn't actually scarce, as I noted above, and neither is the labor to build housing. Many houses fall into disarray for the reason of it being too expensive to do repairs or there is cost in building a house. If you remove these economic barriers -- which are the only barriers that makes it "scarce" and not of quality -- then there isn't an issue.

---
What I'm trying to get at is this: you seem to be positing that housing is going to be some large hurdle to overcome where it regards allocation. In fact, you're overstating (mis-stating, rather) what the problem is. It makes no sense whatsoever to peg any sort of compensation system to housing when it is so easy to obtain, even quality housing, when you remove things like the law of value and the profit motive. Which is why I said earlier that it was a foregone conclusion with me that housing would have been one of those free goods. And people who are living in shanty towns and ghettos and barrios would finally have easy access to these resources to build quality homes for themselves. The other part of your assumption appears to be that this project, although admittedly massive, will require some sort of complete resource allocation on the part of everyone, so much so that it would be necessary to peg this project to compensation. That's simply not the case. You might as well peg compensation to building water desalination plants, for the same reasons.

No I think youve got the wrong end of the stick here. Its not the houses that I am saying should be rationed. What I am saying is that any rationing system (which would basically apply ONLY to those goods that are scarce and non essential - because of the way in which allocation would skew resources in favour of high priority essential goods) perhaps ought to use the assessed quality of housing stock as the core criterion around which to organise a system of rationing - given the centrality of housing as a factor in our quality of life




This is about what I was referring to earlier; with placing temporal restrictions on when all of this is occur. It's true that, in theory, it could take decades. It's equally true, in theory, that it won't. Upgrading "housing stock" is not a difficult thing to do, and with the construction methods that we have and the means of production and techniques for coordination that we have, it does not take that long. My wife worked on a construction crew, of total, maybe about 150 - 200 workers (at most, including subcontractors, and much of the labor was redundant) and they raised two separate, rather large, apartment complexes and a large subdivision, inside of about 9 months. It takes much much less time to actually complete a house, and much less time to upgrade housing.

I agree that upgrading of housing stock is not a difficult thing to do and individual projects such as the one your wife was involved in can be realised fairly rapidly. Ive worked on a building site myself back in the UK. The problem is the sheer scale of the work needed to be done on a society wide level and the completion rates of individual projects is not really a good guide of the scale of task required at the social level. Everything has an opportunity cost. The building materials cannot be magicked out of thin air. They have to be manufactured and that in itself possibly implies the construction of additional industrial capacity and so on and so forth. Of course, you are quite right to point to the fact that there are millions of empty houses which will significantly alleviate the housing problem in a communist society. That, along with the elimination of the profit motive and the artificial scarcity it engenders will enable a communist society to seriously address and eventially solve the housing problem - unlike under capitalism.


However , however however - it will take TIME to do all this and I think, with respect, you seriously underestimate how much time . There are 7 billion of us on this little blue planet and a huge proportion of us today live in crappy little rural hovels or pokey little high rise flats in some goddam awful sprawling megalopolis somewhere. Even in the developed world substandard housing is a significant problem. Moreover no matter how resolute a communist programme of housing construction is, it is not going to eliminate entrenched inequalities in housing stock any time soon, even as it strives to upgrade the quality of houses generally. There will still remain deeply entrenched inqualities in respect of the quality of housing stock for a long time into the future and it is this that I am looking at as the basic criterion around which a system of rationing might be constructed. Even if everyone in the planet finally gets to be housed and homelessness is banished forever, inequalities in housing stock will still persist . And Im not just talking of the houses in themselves but their also their immediate environs - things like access to amenities, desirability of location etc etc







So, again, I think you're overstating the problem. As to the "palatial homes," raze them. Make that one of the first things we do, and replace them with housing for everyone. I'm not "magick"-ing the problem away; what I'm telling you is that you're overstating the difficult and resource amount that such a project would take (just like you overstated the issue of accounting for labor.)


Why would we be building palatial homes? I'm sure some individuals would want "palatial" homes, but this is a social project. And society at large does not view such large homes as need-worthy. In fact, I don't know if you've noticed how much venom is thrown in the way of people who build mansions, generally. And why is it "wasteful" to remove a "palatial" home, which usually only houses one family, and use that land to build homes for more than one family? To call that "wasteful" makes absolutely no sense.


Well, of course it is wasteful. You are destroying perfectly good use values which is quite ridiculous. Many of these high-quality-end-of-the-market homes are aesthetically beautiful and solid constructions in their own right and I think it would be criminal to just destroy them or pull them down. There are imaginative ways round the problem you pose. My brother was involved in a big building project in the 1980s restoring a very large stately home in the UK and subdividing it into luxury flats. The place was amazing. The main hall had one of the earliest examples of chinese wallpaper dating back two or three hundred years. The fireplace and the mantelpeice was an incredibly ornate carved construction going back to the 16th century. You would burn this all down? I can't believe that. Far better in my view to make such a place available to more people to live in or convert to other purposes such as a social centre





But it is a way of dealing with what remaining scarcity we have in the world until we can move into a period of post-scarcity. And, frankly, a much better way of doing so rather than simply focusing on upgrading one area of society -- like housing stock -- and paying no mind to anything else.



But thats not what I am saying at all. Quite the contrary, Ive been pointing out to you that everything has an opportunity cost. Improving housing stock has opportunity costs in that the manpower and resouces you pour into that has to be at the expense of something else. So the problem is trying to reach an optimal balance in your allocation of these things. Meaning the housing problem is not gonna just suddenly disappear!






To me, this is a much harder exercise than simply accounting for labor and the labor time that is needed to create goods and give services. Before any of this starts, you'd have to come up with standards that everyone can agree on, first of all, which, if the point is to create a basic housing standard, is an impossible survey to take among 7 billion people. If you're worried about whatever bureaucratic nightmares may arise from tracking labor hours of a product and the labor hours that someone works, which are objective measurements, I can't understand how your knees just don't buckle at the thought of 7 billion people trying to agree on such a subjective thing, such as needs and wants for housing.


No, I think thou doth protest too much here,as the expression goes. There are pretty much standardised or routine procedures by which housing inspectors go about evaluating housing stock. Density of housing per hectare is one criterion. Per capita living space is another. Internal facilities is another such as whether it possesses hot and cold running water, insulation etc etc is yet another. Whether or not it has a garden is another . Whether it has reasonable access to amenities within walking distance is yet another. All these things can be ticked in boxes without much difficulty. I dont see what the big problem is, frankly . It is something that communities in a communist society are going to have to do anyway if they are going to tackle the housing problem locally. So in a sense this is just making use of the data from that exercise for the purpose of implementing a rationing system. Of course its not a perfect procedure - nothing is - but it is do-able and far less bureaucratic that a system of labour vouchers becuase it is a one off exercise whereas the latter is continuous and ongoing




I don't think you're aware of how automated tracking hours has truly become. If you work, for any measure of time, in a corporate office that uses a program like ADP, you'd know that it is much less a bureaucratic burden than you're trying to make it out to be. More over, we already measure the time it makes commodities, and it's not a difficult thing to do at all. I mean, much of big data is just a representation of the socially necessary labor time it takes to create something. Companies know how long, on average, it should take to create something, like a TV and what not. They have to know that because that's what enables them to adjust input and output of living and dead labor, in order to fine tune how much profit they can rake in.


I am aware of automated tracking systems which might or might not be suitable in some working environments but certainly not others where you would pretty have to rely on trust and in any case could be wide open to abuse . But this is only scratching the surface of the problem of the labour vouchers approach. It is the attitudes that such an approach will tend to engender that is most problematic from a communist point of view and will in itself give rise to the necessity for a much much higher level of supervision and monitoring than you seem to imagine. I would love to know what the advocates of labour vouchers actually have in mind - how they envisage it actually working in concrete detail as opposed to just falling back on vague generalities about "automated tracking systems" It conjures up visions of having to queue up at the end of the week outside the pay office to receive your careflly worked out quota of labour vouchers. Not much different from today frankly. Allowance will also have to be made for those unable to contribute labour - the sick the elderly etc - and some kind of tax system will thus have to be instituted which conjures up visions of tax offices and tax inspectors - more bureaucracy!

Also, you overlook that the other side of the coin is that if you are going to have a system of labour vouchers then logically you are ALSO going to have price goods in labour time hours - yet more bureaucracy! - and put in place some kind of surveillance to ensure goods are not simply freely taken - even more bureaucracy! Pricing goods in labour hours raises all sorts of theoretical problems to do with the supply and demand for goods. How do you ensure stock is cleared except by allowing prices to fluctuate in a way that departs from the labour content of the goods in question? Thats already beginning to look more and more like market capitalism. Moreover how do you ensure against the possiblity of black markets emerging in the face of supply bottleneck, thereby heralding a return to small scale capitalism?

This is not as far fetched a claim as it might, seem. Enthusiasts of the labour voucher proposal, such as Cockshott and Dieterech, point to the example of the Chinese rural communes which in a brief period lasting from the late 1960s to the early 1970s, introduced a workpoint system under which "members of the communes were credited with work points and these were then used to divide the product up at harvest time". This "concrete, if rather primitive example", they contend, "shows the difference between labour credits and money rather nicely". (The Contemporary Relevance of Exploitation Theory", Paul Cockshott and Heinz Dieterich, http://nongae.gsnu.ac.kr/~issmarx/eng/article/21/21cockshott&dieterich.pdf).

Unfortunately for them, what it also shows up "rather nicely" is the severe limitations of such a scheme which in fact led to its eventual abandonment. The workpoint system came to be increasingly viewed by the Chinese authorities as unsatisfactory from the point of view of providing incentives, raising rural productivity and thus enabling the rural sector to effectively contribute to the development of state capitalist industry. Hence an increasing emphasis on market incentives in this sector. As Satyananda Gabriel and Michael F. Martin point out:

In practice it was difficult to tie income to performance under this work point system. Self-assessment of the quantity and quality of work done was not likely to produce an accurate measure of actual effort. But, mutual assessment by all members of the team was also difficult. It could take up enormous amounts of time and lead to great tension among village families because some would inevitably feel they were unfairly treated (Perkins 1988, 609).
("China: The Ancient Road to Communism?" Satyananda Gabriel & Michael F. Martin, Rethinking Marxism
Association for Economic and Social Analysis Spring 1992 Volume 5,Number1






You don't. An hour of labor is equal to another hour. Full stop. Again, the problem we come to with this is purely a problem of the capitalist system; where people are inculcated with the idea that one worker's labor is more socially valuable than another worker's labor.


No. I think you are overlooking the point I made earlier. The very fact that you have a quid pro quo exchange transaction taking place - I hour or your labour in exchange for X labour vouchers - makes for a perceived opposition of interests that is necessarily the case with buyers and sellers. It is not mitigated by the fact that it is society as a whole that is the buyer of your labour power under a system of labour voucher socialism. Inevitably, as I suggested ,the very fact of engaging in a transaction invites comparsion of the value of your labour vis the the labour of others. You can declare "Full stop!" for all you might but that is not going to prevent others comparing the value of their contribution over the course of an hour with the value of your contribution, as they see it, and complaining that they are being sold short





It's becoming clear to me that what you support is more akin to some idealistic anarcho-communist formulation. (lol @ "full blooded communist")


Ultimately, I do want to get rid of that, because, yes, it is individualistic. But it's far less so than the issue I pinpointed in the selection you quoted, and what I'm saying has the benefit of being within the context of moving toward doing away with a labor accounting system, once post-scarcity has been reached. It is, again, a "birth stamp" of capitalism that exists on the new society, coming fresh from the old. It is a temporary necessary evil (though not based on exploitation and alienation of labor), in other words, that is used until we are at a point in society where it is no longer necessary; not a permanent state of things.



Yes Im a full blooded communist, Whats idealistic about that? The difference between us is that I want to see the completely free volunteer labour of the associated producers instituted from the word go whereas you want labour to still remain, for some indeterminate period, imprisoned within the nexus of the exchange form and all that that implies. The "realism" that advocates of labour vouchers harp on about hinges on the claim that there will still be some scarcity in early socialism/communism. I dont disagree but I see the solution to that as something to be tackled not in the sphere of production - in the form and conditions of human labour - but in the sphere of distribution alone in the form of rationing of those goods that happen to be in short supply and are most likely to consist in non essential luxury type goods






Absolutely not. No one is in competition with one another because labor is no longer being alienated or set against one another. It's a system of accounting in a cooperative system. That is the assumption, and always has been. No one is forced or is under pressure to do more work or shittier work for anyone else in order to compete for a higher wage. Since the accounting is the same (one-to-one) there is no competition to be had.


I disagree. I think competition and a competive ethos inevitably flows a system of labour vouchers just as it does from a system of wage labour. The Chibnese example above proves that. If your consumption is tied to your contribution to society then that in itself constitutes a form of pressure that will inevitably express itself outwardly in a competitive fashion - namely "why an I getting the same as Jack or Jill when I am working so much harder?". Alternatively, individuals will beginning to think why bother to work hard at all if Im bound to get the same remuneration as all those suckers slogging their guts out. A labour voucher system is a tailor made recipe for the free rider problem to take hold and multiply. Its the antithesis of a communist outlook



Again, along with the economic and political revolution is a social revolution. This "compare and contrast" idea is an idea born of capitalist logic. Do away with capitalist logic, which includes the idea of competitive labor, and this isn't an issue. It is all social labor working toward the goal of automating whatever toiling labor we're left to do, in order to enjoy free access. And it is a necessary step in a society that has not yet automated everything. What you're doing here, instead, is actually proposing a kind of magic. You're willing away the fact that we will have issues to deal with that stem from just freshly overcoming the capitalist system.

You might as well just argue that we keep the capitalist system until the capitalists have figured out a way to automate everything, and only then is when we get together and overthrow the system. It's ludicrous.

You contradict yourself. Or you want to have your cake an eat it. You rationalise the need for a system of labour vouchers on the grounds that the "birth stamp" of capitalism will still exist in the new society, "coming fresh from the old" Yet you expect the "compare and contrast" idea which you say is an idea "born of capitalist logic" to instantly disappear. Has it not occured to you that the "compare and contrast" idea might be precisely the kind of birth stamp of capitalism that you claim will continue to exist in early socialism?

I say the whole biological metaphor as inept and inapplicable anyway. Communism or socialism pressupposes a mass change in consciousness. You cannot impose it from above. Therefore there is no need to institute a system of labour vouchers to discipline the workforce into working which is what labour vouchers is all about - discipline and coercion. The whole idea reeks of a bourgeis mentality and its institutionalisation in the form of a system of labour vouchers will assuredly herald the return of bourgeois society

[Tim Cornelis]

"It conjures up visions of having to queue up at the end of the week outside the pay office to receive your careflly worked out quota of labour vouchers. Not much different from today frankly. Allowance will also have to be made for those unable to contribute labour - the sick the elderly etc - and some kind of tax system will thus have to be instituted which conjures up visions of tax offices and tax inspectors - more bureaucracy!"

Or deposit credits on their electronic card. Yes, deductions have to be made, but to say that this will be "taxation" is absurd. Simply a definite amount of resources will be reserved for collective consumption in advance.

Yes, we will have 'bureaucracy' (administration). I don't see the problem with this.

A problem I do see with assuming a higher phase communism will come about almost immediately is the optimistic expectation that we will be able to produce in 'abundance', except perhaps for some luxury goods which will be rationed. There's all sorts of problems with this. First, let's assume I want 5x milk and 2x TV. TVs are luxury goods by some standard so they will be rationed. So I will get 5x milk and 1x TV. Problem solved it seems. But just because milk is of a lower category does not mean I prefer it more. Perhaps I'd prefer 2x TV and 2x milk. Meaning I'd be willing to sacrifice 3x milk for 1x TV. This is impossible in the higher phase communism envisioned here. Luxury goods will simply be rationed, tough luck. In other words, general equilibrium of utility will not be approximated.

A second problem is is that there is no objective basis for determining what a luxury good is and will thus be rationed, and what not. The implication of this is is that people will vote on millions of goods to qualify them as standard or luxury. Then it will be calculated if this is possible with the available resources, and if not (likely) we will be voting again. And then complain about bureaucracy because we will need some impartial monitors in the first phase of communism!

A third major problem is is that all decisions of investment will, as Von Mises said, a "leap in the dark". There is no basis for deciding where to invest and in, apart from some qualitative (instead of quantitative and therefore comparable) vague notions of "need". Prioritising production will therefore be inefficient, ineffective, and suboptimal. The social utility of goods and investment cannot be weighed against each other.

Higher phase of communism, without objective criteria to weigh genres of goods against each other, is only feasible, not when supply outstrips demand at a certain point for a certain number of goods, but when the sheer volume of the produced goods compensate for the inherent waste incurred by the lack of any quantifiable objective economic calculation and decision-making criterion. This is a future still far beyond the reach of our current productive capacities, and of course, under current production techniques, would result in ecological deprivation. The realisation of a higher, advanced phase of communism, therefore, relies on 1) full-scale automation 2) general reliance on renewable resources 3) abundance of renewable resources. None of those criteria have been met, and are unlikely to be met in the near future.

[robbo203]

Or deposit credits on their electronic card. Yes, deductions have to be made, but to say that this will be "taxation" is absurd. Simply a definite amount of resources will be reserved for collective consumption in advance.

Yes, we will have 'bureaucracy' (administration). I don't see the problem with this.

It is not the bureaucracy per se that is the problem but the likely scale of it under a system of labour vouchers. There are multiple reason for expecting it would be very substantial indeed and I have touched on some of these including the pricing side of things which people often overlook

Will provisions for social welfare entail a form of taxation under labour vouchers? I think so. The "definite amount of resources" you refer to actually refers to a definite sum of a values in terms of labour time units, not a reserve of concrete goods as such. Marx talks of there being a "fund"

Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.




A problem I do see with assuming a higher phase communism will come about almost immediately is the optimistic expectation that we will be able to produce in 'abundance', except perhaps for some luxury goods which will be rationed. There's all sorts of problems with this. First, let's assume I want 5x milk and 2x TV. TVs are luxury goods by some standard so they will be rationed. So I will get 5x milk and 1x TV. Problem solved it seems. But just because milk is of a lower category does not mean I prefer it more. Perhaps I'd prefer 2x TV and 2x milk. Meaning I'd be willing to sacrifice 3x milk for 1x TV. This is impossible in the higher phase communism envisioned here. Luxury goods will simply be rationed, tough luck. In other words, general equilibrium of utility will not be approximated.

But we are both, I think, rightly assuming there will be a degree of scarcity in the case of some goods anyway. So its "tough luck" however you look at it. We can't always get what we want as the song says. The important thing is to ensure 1) that the brunt of scarcity falls on the non essential, low-priority end uses and 2) that there should be a significant degree of consensus as to what should take priority in the allocation of resources. You might want 2 TVs but on what grounds do you assume you have the right to take them when other more pressing needs are not met?






A second problem is is that there is no objective basis for determining what a luxury good is and will thus be rationed, and what not. The implication of this is is that people will vote on millions of goods to qualify them as standard or luxury. Then it will be calculated if this is possible with the available resources, and if not (likely) we will be voting again. And then complain about bureaucracy because we will need some impartial monitors in the first phase of communism!


I only mentioned luxury goods as an example of what is likely to be a candidate for rationing. I am not saying therefore that luxury goods ipso facto will be rationed. Whether something needs to be rationed will depend on its relative abudance or scarcity not on the type of good it is , so we dont actually need to produce a working defintion of what is a luxury good. Its not the type of good Im coincerned with as the imbalance between the supply and demand for the good in question and thus the lower its priority, the less likely is the supply of a good to meet its demand because of the way in which resources are allocated in the first place

And, no, there is no implication whatsoever people will have to "vote on millions of goods to qualify them as standard or luxury". Thats absurd and thats not my position in any case. My position is that the relative scarcity or abundance of goods will be an emergent property of decisions made by loterally hundreds of thousands of production units, each of which in the event of supply bottlenecks will have to decide for themselves which of the limited number of orders placed with them should receive the highest priorty and allocate their particular resource accordingly. Of course it cannot be 100% accurate - nothing ever is - but this does at least ensure an outcome that approximately meets the two criteria I specified above

For the sake of illustration and to keep things simple if a particular unit produces a certain input called X for both the luxury goods sector (A) and the medical equipment sector (B) and if A and B need 12 and 8 units of X respectively but there is only 15 units of X in total, one assumes B will get its full quota of 8 units demanded while A will only get 7 instead of the 12 demand. A might then have to reconfigure its product and resort to technological subsititution but at least the high priority end use in the case B is satisfactorily met. I dont think some ridiculously unwieldy ordinal scale of ends uses is required at all We can rely on peoples' intution and commonsense in these matters - not to mention their shared values - and perhaps the occasional comminque informing people of some big project being undertaken locally which specifically requires certain inputs as a matter or urgency





A third major problem is is that all decisions of investment will, as Von Mises said, a "leap in the dark". There is no basis for deciding where to invest and in, apart from some qualitative (instead of quantitative and therefore comparable) vague notions of "need". Prioritising production will therefore be inefficient, ineffective, and suboptimal. The social utility of goods and investment cannot be weighed against each other.



Its a joke quoting Baron von Mises' inept remark about communist planning being a "leap in the dark" when capitalist investment itself is all about guesswork and vague hunches which all too frequently go badly wrong. What leap in the dark was it that led to the depths of an economic recession or are you suggesting this must have been planned becuase capitalism employs a single unit of account which makes everything commensurable and hence plannable?


In any event, I emphatically dispute your claim that quantitivate assessments of what is needed will not be available to a communist society. On the contrary we already have even under capitalism the very mechanism that allows this to happen - a self regulating system of stock control. This aspect of a communist production system will mesh with the hierarchy of production goals to which each production unit will respond, intuitively or otherwise, to produce a particular broad pattern of output that large conforms to society own needs and sense of priorities



Higher phase of communism, without objective criteria to weigh genres of goods against each other, is only feasible, not when supply outstrips demand at a certain point for a certain number of goods, but when the sheer volume of the produced goods compensate for the inherent waste incurred by the lack of any quantifiable objective economic calculation and decision-making criterion. This is a future still far beyond the reach of our current productive capacities, and of course, under current production techniques, would result in ecological deprivation. The realisation of a higher, advanced phase of communism, therefore, relies on 1) full-scale automation 2) general reliance on renewable resources 3) abundance of renewable resources. None of those criteria have been met, and are unlikely to be met in the near future.

I dont know what you mean by "inherent waste incurred by the lack of any quantifiable objective economic calculation and decision-making criterion". I suggest you read up on Justus von Liebig's Law of the Minimum ( (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_law_of_the_minimum) which lays out very clearly the basic principle that a communist society could use to effectively economise on resources. Liebig was an agricultural chemist but his law can also apply to allocation of resources in a communist economy

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

People interpret information and function differently many ways, as to how you can really categorize that is of course up for debate. Psychology as a whole is a whole bunch of assumptions, economics is often quantifying the un-quantifyable. It goes by the logic that there is something better but has yet to be stumbled upon. You can choose believe in Carl Jung and much as Marx, which I personally find logic in, that doesn't mean in can get disproven in the near or far future.

Every science operates with certain assumptions. The difference between science and magical or wishful thinking isn't that the latter involve people making assumptions, it's that people doing science modify their assumptions according to the results of practical engagement with the world. Bourgeois economics is, I would say, mostly wishful thinking, with most of the models used being terrible at anything resembling prediction. This is, of course, because the discipline is ideologically restrained; to admit anything like the anarchy of the market or the tendency of the rate of profit to fall would be disastrous. Psychology, on the other hand, contains both scientific and magical thinking. Weber's law is pretty well-established; on the other hand, Maslow's infamous "hierarchy of needs" could be used as a textbook example of how not to do science (step one: ideologically restrict your samples, kissing any claim to representativeness goodbye).

Anyway, the last sentence is utterly baffling to me. Marxists consider Marx's theories to be (in the main; obviously we don't put much stock in his pretty awful theories about imperialism for example) demonstrably true. To have faith in Marx is to do something Marx would be the first to condemn.


If conditions reach continual hardship for a prolonged period of time people get fed up. Only zealots starve and die in the name of an idea. If me and my family were teetering on collapse my primary function is providing necessities, not higher ideals so it's saying "good riddance" to a sizable portion good and rational people.

Alright, so first we have to establish what you're talking about here. Are you talking about socialism? Socialism, even with whatever rationing might be in place for a short time, is a society of abundance, where the material wealth produced by human labour is entirely at the disposal of society to fulfill human needs. The only ones who would be worse off under socialism are the bourgeoisie and the wealthier petite-bourgeoisie and professionals; not exactly the sort of people the socialist movement should be interested in.

Or are you talking about the period of the revolution? That the civil war would result in material hardship is a possibility, a very realistic one, but this has nothing to do with socialism. And of course, market methods are grossly inefficient when it comes to wartime situations.


But what are the chances of setting good policy on the issue in the event of the sudden, newly formed socialist government. Decisions on the fly are for the battlefield, not economic policy.

What do you mean "sudden, newly formed socialist government"? The seizure of power needs to be organised; it won't happen spontaneously. When the hour comes, the revolutionary party will need to have a good appraisal of the situation, and what needs to be rationed, and what can be given out freely. But we can't at this point predict where the bourgeois order is going to crack first and when. So it's pretty pointless to speculate.

As for rationing, one thing that needs to be pointed out is that using rationing as an individual incentive can actually damage productivity, as groups of workers push to be "more productive" than other workers and disrupt workflow; the same can happen among different industries (steel mill 1024 producing steel ingots at a mad rate even though there is no one who can use the ingots at that point in time, leaving them to rust etc.). A modern economy (to the extent that we can talk about the economy in socialism) is a collective, objectively socialised endeavour. Pushing for individual productivity is the same as the mad "fulfill the five-year plan in four years" rush of the thirties in the Soviet Union.

Where rationing can be useful, though, is to gently nudge workers toward less popular jobs and regions. So if there is a shortage of plastic workers in Guangzhou, plastic workers in Guangzhou would be given somewhat higher daily allocations of goods. This is not as effective as direct administrative allocation, but is likely to cause less resistance in the period of construction of ("higher phase") socialism.

[Creative Destruction]

No I think youve got the wrong end of the stick here. Its not the houses that I am saying should be rationed. What I am saying is that any rationing system (which would basically apply ONLY to those goods that are scarce and non essential - because of the way in which allocation would skew resources in favour of high priority essential goods) perhaps ought to use the assessed quality of housing stock as the core criterion around which to organise a system of rationing - given the centrality of housing as a factor in our quality of life

I agree that upgrading of housing stock is not a difficult thing to do and individual projects such as the one your wife was involved in can be realised fairly rapidly. Ive worked on a building site myself back in the UK. The problem is the sheer scale of the work needed to be done on a society wide level and the completion rates of individual projects is not really a good guide of the scale of task required at the social level. Everything has an opportunity cost. The building materials cannot be magicked out of thin air. They have to be manufactured and that in itself possibly implies the construction of additional industrial capacity and so on and so forth. Of course, you are quite right to point to the fact that there are millions of empty houses which will significantly alleviate the housing problem in a communist society. That, along with the elimination of the profit motive and the artificial scarcity it engenders will enable a communist society to seriously address and eventially solve the housing problem - unlike under capitalism.

This point, I think, above all, undercuts this proposal that you have. No one (at least I'm not) is denying the importance of housing, but I am saying that it is not of the magnitude that you're emphasizing. The labor, materials and time that goes into upgrading housing isn't that great at all. And when you factor in how labor would be cooperative, rather than competitive, the issue of how much time it would be to raise or upgrade housing for people becomes much less of an issue. Far less of an issue than you're making it to be, no issue at all to be making the basis of a rationing system. I'm sorry, but this is just an absurd standard by which to ration non-scarce goods as a whole. Not the least of which is that not all of our goods are tied to housing to begin with. It just doesn't make any sense from a logical or practical standpoint. Again, you might as well peg rationing to people building water desalination plants, since a good part of human society is hard up for potable water, just like they are with housing.


However , however however - it will take TIME to do all this and I think, with respect, you seriously underestimate how much time . There are 7 billion of us on this little blue planet and a huge proportion of us today live in crappy little rural hovels or pokey little high rise flats in some goddam awful sprawling megalopolis somewhere. Even in the developed world substandard housing is a significant problem. Moreover no matter how resolute a communist programme of housing construction is, it is not going to eliminate entrenched inequalities in housing stock any time soon, even as it strives to upgrade the quality of houses generally. There will still remain deeply entrenched inqualities in respect of the quality of housing stock for a long time into the future and it is this that I am looking at as the basic criterion around which a system of rationing might be constructed. Even if everyone in the planet finally gets to be housed and homelessness is banished forever, inequalities in housing stock will still persist . And Im not just talking of the houses in themselves but their also their immediate environs - things like access to amenities, desirability of location etc etc

Again, much of these qualities are entirely subjective and to try to boil it down into a standard is impossible, given the breadth of human wants and needs. And this is a project that can only persist along the general project of social progression. I'm still unsure how you just don't sweat bullets at the idea of trying to boil down a standard for 7 billion people, when you take into account things like "access to amenities" and "desirability of location." Your priorities are completely ass-backwards, I'm afraid.


Well, of course it is wasteful. You are destroying perfectly good use values which is quite ridiculous. Many of these high-quality-end-of-the-market homes are aesthetically beautiful and solid constructions in their own right and I think it would be criminal to just destroy them or pull them down. There are imaginative ways round the problem you pose. My brother was involved in a big building project in the 1980s restoring a very large stately home in the UK and subdividing it into luxury flats. The place was amazing. The main hall had one of the earliest examples of chinese wallpaper dating back two or three hundred years. The fireplace and the mantelpeice was an incredibly ornate carved construction going back to the 16th century. You would burn this all down? I can't believe that. Far better in my view to make such a place available to more people to live in or convert to other purposes such as a social centre

Again, this just goes to how incredibly difficult, if not impossible, it would be to get a standard for everyone. I do not give two flying fucks about three-hundred-year-old Chinese wallpaper or an ornate mantelpiece from the 16th century, and I sure as hell wouldn't want either thing in my living space. And most people probably do not give a shit about either of these things either. What you're doing here is projecting your ideal and trying to use it as a standard for which everyone would want to live. That's just insane and really does discount how incredibly varied things like aesthetics are.

My ideal house is one that has been built from cob or wood, in an American Craftsman or Missionary style, with simple, non-ornate designs and clean lines and unobtrusive, plain decor on the inside. This is not the ideal for many people. Some want or appreciate (like you) those ridiculously ugly ornate crap adorning their walls and homes. Nah, fuck that. Your idea about all of this is doomed right from the start; not the least reason of because you refuse to see how incredibly in-depth and varied human wants or needs are. This is why having an objective system of accounting would be much much better and a lot less burdensome way of rationing, rather than nailing everything to a standard that is ultimately doomed from the start because of how subjective and personal a thing like living space is.


But thats not what I am saying at all. Quite the contrary, Ive been pointing out to you that everything has an opportunity cost. Improving housing stock has opportunity costs in that the manpower and resouces you pour into that has to be at the expense of something else. So the problem is trying to reach an optimal balance in your allocation of these things. Meaning the housing problem is not gonna just suddenly disappear!

You keep bandying about the population number of the world, but you fail to see how much labor actually goes into building housing, and how much less labor than that goes into upgrading housing. You could upgrade housing stock without significantly pulling away resources from other projects that need to be done. It seems like you're imagining that all 7 billion people will just become construction workers in this, in your view, huge hurdle to everything else. Which is insane and completely out of step with material reality.


No, I think thou doth protest too much here,as the expression goes. There are pretty much standardised or routine procedures by which housing inspectors go about evaluating housing stock. ...

Yeah, but this isn't what you're proposing. You're not proposing just having a set objective standard to ensure running water and making sure leaks are plugged up, etc. As you've admitted in your post above, you want to include "access to amenities," "desirable location" as well as anything else, all of which are incredibly subjective criteria. This isn't even to go into the environmental degradation that we would have to deal with if we, as a society, just up and let everyone plop down wherever they wanted with the expectation that they have equal access to "amenities!" Let's say beach homes for everyone, with no regard for how that would actually affect beaches and coastal marine life. Or people erecting "palatial" homes in the middle of the woods. I mean, this is really misdirected bullshit. I can't put it any other way. It's not thought through at all. It suffers from idealism with no consideration for material reality.


I am aware of automated tracking systems which might or might not be suitable in some working environments but certainly not others where you would pretty have to rely on trust and in any case could be wide open to abuse . But this is only scratching the surface of the problem of the labour vouchers approach. It is the attitudes that such an approach will tend to engender that is most problematic from a communist point of view and will in itself give rise to the necessity for a much much higher level of supervision and monitoring than you seem to imagine. I would love to know what the advocates of labour vouchers actually have in mind - how they envisage it actually working in concrete detail as opposed to just falling back on vague generalities about "automated tracking systems" It conjures up visions of having to queue up at the end of the week outside the pay office to receive your careflly worked out quota of labour vouchers.

No one is proposing "taxes." Jesus Christ. Please, you really need to move your conception beyond all of this crap before we can reasonably have this conversation. No one has proposed quotas, either. Good lord. And what queues are you imagining? We can't move to a debit card system? What era are you stuck in? Posting from 1945, maybe?


Not much different from today frankly. Allowance will also have to be made for those unable to contribute labour - the sick the elderly etc - and some kind of tax system will thus have to be instituted which conjures up visions of tax offices and tax inspectors - more bureaucracy!


Also, you overlook that the other side of the coin is that if you are going to have a system of labour vouchers then logically you are ALSO going to have price goods in labour time hours - yet more bureaucracy! - and put in place some kind of surveillance to ensure goods are not simply freely taken - even more bureaucracy! Pricing goods in labour hours raises all sorts of theoretical problems to do with the supply and demand for goods. How do you ensure stock is cleared except by allowing prices to fluctuate in a way that departs from the labour content of the goods in question? Thats already beginning to look more and more like market capitalism. Moreover how do you ensure against the possiblity of black markets emerging in the face of supply bottleneck, thereby heralding a return to small scale capitalism?

You also seem to be positing that people are, at their base, untrustworthy. Which, if that's your basic starting point, how do you even call yourself a socialist in the first place? But, more than that, you're bemoaning the bureaucracy that would take place without an iota of examination for your own, actually magical, proposal of overseeing a global upgrade of housing stock based on a standard pegged to subjective desires. I feel like I'm having this conversation in the fucking Twilight Zone.

And what black market would emerge? What acceptable currency would there be to percipitate a black market? Labor vouchers are non-transferable. You decide what you need and measure that against how much of a contribution you made to society, and the labor vouchers are gone. They're not given to anyone else. There are no dollars or things for which you can trade, because there is no exchange. The black market is predicated on money-commodity. And what supply bottleneck would emerge? You ask for the good you need or want and you get it, provided it jibes with how much you've contributed to society.

Again, your conception hasn't moved far enough to have this conversation. You're pissing in the dark.


This is not as far fetched a claim as it might, seem. Enthusiasts of the labour voucher proposal, such as Cockshott and Dieterech, point to the example of the Chinese rural communes which in a brief period lasting from the late 1960s to the early 1970s, introduced a workpoint system under which "members of the communes were credited with work points and these were then used to divide the product up at harvest time". This "concrete, if rather primitive example", they contend, "shows the difference between labour credits and money rather nicely". (The Contemporary Relevance of Exploitation Theory", Paul Cockshott and Heinz Dieterich, http://nongae.gsnu.ac.kr/~issmarx/eng/article/21/21cockshott&dieterich.pdf).

Unfortunately for them, what it also shows up "rather nicely" is the severe limitations of such a scheme which in fact led to its eventual abandonment. The workpoint system came to be increasingly viewed by the Chinese authorities as unsatisfactory from the point of view of providing incentives, raising rural productivity and thus enabling the rural sector to effectively contribute to the development of state capitalist industry. Hence an increasing emphasis on market incentives in this sector. As Satyananda Gabriel and Michael F. Martin point out:

In practice it was difficult to tie income to performance under this work point system. Self-assessment of the quantity and quality of work done was not likely to produce an accurate measure of actual effort. But, mutual assessment by all members of the team was also difficult. It could take up enormous amounts of time and lead to great tension among village families because some would inevitably feel they were unfairly treated (Perkins 1988, 609).
("China: The Ancient Road to Communism?" Satyananda Gabriel & Michael F. Martin, Rethinking Marxism
Association for Economic and Social Analysis Spring 1992 Volume 5,Number1

These are both schemes that existed within a capitalists society. Chinese society was never a socialist society, so your point here isn't taken in the least. This is basically the same as saying the Soviet Union collapsed, ergo socialism sucks and it'll never work. Come on, dude, think.


No. I think you are overlooking the point I made earlier. The very fact that you have a quid pro quo exchange transaction taking place - I hour or your labour in exchange for X labour vouchers - makes for a perceived opposition of interests that is necessarily the case with buyers and sellers. It is not mitigated by the fact that it is society as a whole that is the buyer of your labour power under a system of labour voucher socialism. Inevitably, as I suggested ,the very fact of engaging in a transaction invites comparsion of the value of your labour vis the the labour of others. You can declare "Full stop!" for all you might but that is not going to prevent others comparing the value of their contribution over the course of an hour with the value of your contribution, as they see it, and complaining that they are being sold short

There are no "sellers." What the hell are you talking about? There's a general social product that you draw from, in proportion to the labor input you've contributed -- the objective standard of which is how much time you've put into the greater social labor product. You seem to be suggesting that Marx (and, in turn, I) am proposing a utopian labor note scheme, when exactly is the opposite. Again, go read the passages I cited to Illegalitarian. Actually read and think about what is being proposed, instead of swatting at straw men.


Yes Im a full blooded communist,

As opposed to...?


Whats idealistic about that?

You think the world's problems can be solved by upgrading housing stock and tying rationing to that standard -- for which an actual standard would be impossible to come up with, given the criteria you wish to consider. It has no actual material basis of reasoning.


The difference between us is that I want to see the completely free volunteer labour of the associated producers instituted from the word go whereas you want labour to still remain, for some indeterminate period, imprisoned within the nexus of the exchange form and all that that implies. The "realism" that advocates of labour vouchers harp on about hinges on the claim that there will still be some scarcity in early socialism/communism. I dont disagree but I see the solution to that as something to be tackled not in the sphere of production - in the form and conditions of human labour - but in the sphere of distribution alone in the form of rationing of those goods that happen to be in short supply and are most likely to consist in non essential luxury type goods

Goddamn, you're an idiot. No, I don't "want" this sort of system. I recognize that it will be a necessary step (I've referred to it as a "necessary evil," probably to you, in previous posts) in order to realize a system that we don't have to use it anymore. Just like the proletariat has to take over the general means of coercion to undercut the power of the bourgeoisie in order to destroy the general class order. It's not ideal, it's what has to happen for other events to get set in motion in order to reach our ultimate goals. Which is another contrast to your idealism: you conceive free access "from the word go," in your words, but unless we wait until all the means of production have been automated before we have a revolution, this isn't something that is actually based in reality. It's utopian scheming.


I disagree. I think competition and a competive ethos inevitably flows a system of labour vouchers just as it does from a system of wage labour. The Chibnese example above proves that. If your consumption is tied to your contribution to society then that in itself constitutes a form of pressure that will inevitably express itself outwardly in a competitive fashion - namely "why an I getting the same as Jack or Jill when I am working so much harder?". Alternatively, individuals will beginning to think why bother to work hard at all if Im bound to get the same remuneration as all those suckers slogging their guts out. A labour voucher system is a tailor made recipe for the free rider problem to take hold and multiply. Its the antithesis of a communist outlook

If your consumption of non-scarce goods is tied to your contribution, it just accounts for making sure that non-scarce goods aren't overused to the point of exhaustion before we have the chance to make things automated and truly free access. Your Chinese example occurred in a period of state and global capitalism, so is not an apt comparison. I'm sorry. Again, the sister argument to yours is that the Soviet Union collapsed, and thus socialism is impossible. You may want to think on that for a bit before you continue any further.

The comparison -- "working harder" -- is a symptom of competition in capitalism. No one is making Person A worker harder than Person B. Person A can work as little or as much as they want and enjoy the general social product in proportion to how much they've contributed. If they don't want to labor in the job they are, they don't have to do it. They can go look for something else to do. If it is an issue for which we need to solve because no one will do the job, we need to come together -- as a cooperative society, as "socialism" implies -- and work toward ways of either spreading that labor burden out or just getting rid of it altogether by automating the task.

No one is being assigned jobs, no one is being forced to move somewhere else against their will, no one is being forced to compete with anyone else, especially when all labor is cooperative and social. There is no basis in that situation for which you can compare the intensity of one job over the other, especially since people have varying capacities for work.


You contradict yourself. Or you want to have your cake an eat it. You rationalise the need for a system of labour vouchers on the grounds that the "birth stamp" of capitalism will still exist in the new society, "coming fresh from the old" Yet you expect the "compare and contrast" idea which you say is an idea "born of capitalist logic" to instantly disappear. Has it not occured to you that the "compare and contrast" idea might be precisely the kind of birth stamp of capitalism that you claim will continue to exist in early socialism?

I never said it would "instantly disappear," but you misunderstand the concept anyway (even as I've clearly laid it out previously.) The revolutionary period is also a social revolution. These issues over competition and what not disappear once the revolution has done its job. The birth-stamps of capitalism are, again, superficial similarities between the old system and the new system, but which are ultimately different because of the change in system logic and changed in social coordination. Thus there is no "contradiction" or "having my cake and eat it, too" with this. Competition in jobs, and a comparison between one job and another, is a direct result of capitalist logic. When you get rid of the logic, you don't have those results anymore. The labor voucher proposal is a direct response to scarcity, not capitalist logic. The "birth stamps" comment is meant to address the idea that labor vouchers are "like" wages, which seems like it on the surface, but, when examined in a closer analysis, is completely different.


I say the whole biological metaphor as inept and inapplicable anyway. Communism or socialism pressupposes a mass change in consciousness. You cannot impose it from above. Therefore there is no need to institute a system of labour vouchers to discipline the workforce into working which is what labour vouchers is all about - discipline and coercion. The whole idea reeks of a bourgeis mentality and its institutionalisation in the form of a system of labour vouchers will assuredly herald the return of bourgeois society

The point of labor vouchers isn't to "impose it from above" (there is no "above" for which it can be imposed since everything is directly cooperative, even the voucher proposal.) There is no "disciplining" or "coercing" the workforce into working. If your needs are met with the non-scarce goods that are provided, then I do not see any reason for you to have to work. But if you want to enjoy the general social product in full, you'll have to contribute to the general social product, as well, until there is a point in which we don't have to put in the work for all to enjoy that product without contributing labor as such. The reason why it reeks of "bourgeois mentality and institutionalization" is because you clearly don't understand what is being proposed here.

[Slavic]

Having not read the many volumes that this thread has already produced, I am just going to focus on one aspect that I saw popping up.

I do not believe that labor vouchers are an adequate form of distribution of scarce goods.

First off, and I assume everyone agrees, those who have an immediate need for a scarce good should receive priority in receiving said good; such as a scarce medical treatment.

Other scarce goods that do not have an immediate need should be distributed in a lottery system as opposed to being exchanged via labor vouchers. Labor vouchers hold the baggage of the capitalist system; an exchange of labor for goods, and the alienation of self from one's labor. Working becomes a means of obtaining scarce goods as opposed to being an expression of social labor. Not to mention I have a hard time grasping how "non-traditional" labor, ie. Housekeeping, child raising, etc. will be accounted for in a voucher system.

A lottery system encourages the development toward a total free access economy. Your labor is entirly social and for the good of society as opposed to being a means to obtain scarce goods.

[robbo203]

This point, I think, above all, undercuts this proposal that you have. No one (at least I'm not) is denying the importance of housing, but I am saying that it is not of the magnitude that you're emphasizing. The labor, materials and time that goes into upgrading housing isn't that great at all. And when you factor in how labor would be cooperative, rather than competitive, the issue of how much time it would be to raise or upgrade housing for people becomes much less of an issue. Far less of an issue than you're making it to be, no issue at all to be making the basis of a rationing system. I'm sorry, but this is just an absurd standard by which to ration non-scarce goods as a whole. Not the least of which is that not all of our goods are tied to housing to begin with. It just doesn't make any sense from a logical or practical standpoint. Again, you might as well peg rationing to people building water desalination plants, since a good part of human society is hard up for potable water, just like they are with housing.



Rednoise, I will be brief here because Im bogged down with other things and kind of regretted being dragged into a long, albeit interesting, discussion. So forgive me if I dont respond to all your other points. Its not that I dont have a response its just that I dont have the time.

I just dont think you've got the hang of what I was proposing. You are saying that the fact that there are millions of empty houses etc "undercuts" everything I am proposing. No it doesn't in the least and this demonstrates to me that you haven't grasped the point. The solution to the housing problem in the sense of the elimination of homelessness has no bearing on what Im suggesting. What I am suggesting as a metric around which to fashion a system of rationing is quality of housing stock. It is my contention that there will remain deep and entrenched inequalities in housing stock for a long time into socialism and hence the notion of a compensation model of rationing - to "compensate" those who have to put up with having to live in relatively poorer quality accommodation by affording them priority access to to rationed goods.

Two quick point then I must go.


Firstly, you say "but this is just an absurd standard by which to ration non-scarce goods as a whole" . But Im not at all proposing to ration non-scarce goods as a whole". Thats the whole point. Non scarce goods dont get to be and dont need to be, rationed! Here the principle of free access applies. What I am proposing is a dual system of free accesss goods being made available alongside rationed goods. Free access goods will tend to be essential goods that meet basic needs. There will be no scarcity of such goods becuase of the inherent bias built into the communist allocation of inputs which will prioritise essential goods over non essential goods whereever and whenever any supply bottlenecks arise. Non essential goods will therefore be more of a residual nature - such as luxury items.

If inputs are in sufficient supply all round then even non essential luxury goods will be cease to be rationed. In that case everything will be based on free acceess. But you have to have a system in place that enables you to discriminate between high priority and low priroty end uses. Im sure even you would agree with that, no?

Secondly, you seem to finally, grudgingly, acknowlege that it is possible to to employ straightforward objective critera for the purposes of grading housing stock but then go on to say You're not proposing just having a set objective standard to ensure running water and making sure leaks are plugged up, etc. As you've admitted in your post above, you want to include "access to amenities," "desirable location" as well as anything else, all of which are incredibly subjective criteria"

Well some of these things like access to amenities are actually rather objective and defined by distance in kilometres or miles to the amenities in question. Desirable location, I agree, is more subjective but in practice regional planners and cartographers do use such categories. I dunno what its like in the US but in the UK you have your "areas of outstanding natural beauty" and your SSSIs etc which are assessed on the basis of certian criteria. Here in Spain we have our natural parks and national parks. My little shack is situated in a mountainous natural park and needless to say my access to amenities is pretty poor!

Ill leave the rest of your post for others . Incidentally you should try to calm down and not get so hot under the collar with that OTT hyperbole of yours. This is only a friggin internet forum. Have a nice day :)

[Tim Cornelis]

The scale of bureaucracy would presumably be the size of the current managerial machinery in capitalism. We need a consumer's deputy for each workspace to monitor impartially. There's presently a manger for each workspace. That'd be, if we take the numbers for the Netherlands, 120,000 managers on a working population of 7-8 million.
There will be no taxation in communism. Impossible. Taxation is when you receive income and the state takes a certain percentage. In communism, the deduction is made beforehand and you never receive the labour credits in the first place.

The difference is, under conditions of scarcity, that with labour credit type rationing, general equilibrium can be approximated. Ideally, I'd want 5 units of milk and two TVs, as I said before. Since this is impossible, I'd want 2 units of milk and 2 TVs. In your vision, I would get 5 units of milk and 1 TV – sub-optimal. With labour credits, I can choose how to use them and use them on 2 units of milk and 2 TVs.

The problem with your system arises when to decide how to distribute resources amongst different branches of production, which genres of goods to prioritise over others. Saying, only when a consumer good is in short supply will it be rationed presupposes omnipotence about consumer preferences when allocation resources. But there is no quantifiable basis for establishing this without work points. So it's a leap in the dark, guesswork. In liberal capitalism and state-capitalism, guesswork happens at least on some quantifiable basis, allowing some degree of accuracy – it is an educated guess. Not so in your system. In your system, the production units decide where to prioritise. But lacking any adequate quantifiable data about consumer preferences to compare, they need to rely on guesstimating (intuition as you call it). Sure it can work. But it will be less efficient, less effective than capitalism. It will not have the other drawbacks of capitalism like poverty and unemployment, so all in all I would still prefer free access communism over capitalism; but it is an inferior communism – ironically.

I'm familiar with the Law of the Minimum. What I meant is, a higher phase communism, lacking knowledge about the distribution of consumer preferences, would result in misallocation of resources – or, it would suffer from allocative inefficiency. This means that it will inevitable waste a huge amount of resources. To compensate, it would simply need to ensure that every branch, every type of productive activity is almost oversupplied. When everyone gets, well, a shit ton of resources, you don't need to flesh out tediously how much each branch is due in accordance with consumer demand relative to other consumer preferences.

So yeah, free access communism will work, but it will only work when we have increased the productive forces of society tremendously and sustainably in terms of ecology.


Having not read the many volumes that this thread has already produced, I am just going to focus on one aspect that I saw popping up.

I do not believe that labor vouchers are an adequate form of distribution of scarce goods.

First off, and I assume everyone agrees, those who have an immediate need for a scarce good should receive priority in receiving said good; such as a scarce medical treatment.

Other scarce goods that do not have an immediate need should be distributed in a lottery system as opposed to being exchanged via labor vouchers. Labor vouchers hold the baggage of the capitalist system; an exchange of labor for goods, and the alienation of self from one's labor. Working becomes a means of obtaining scarce goods as opposed to being an expression of social labor. Not to mention I have a hard time grasping how "non-traditional" labor, ie. Housekeeping, child raising, etc. will be accounted for in a voucher system.

A lottery system encourages the development toward a total free access economy. Your labor is entirly social and for the good of society as opposed to being a means to obtain scarce goods.

It's not all or nothing. The process from initial, lower to later, higher communism is a process, they are not distinct societies where at one point everything will be rationed via labour tickets or credits, and then a revolution of sorts will occur and then everything will be freely accessible. As has been thoroughly dealt with, a social fund will be used to take care of these things. We can use labour time accounting (flawed, as it hides information) to divide the social product up into activities of production, as so for example:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=1364&pictureid=11834

The 'vouchers' would be the personal consumption aspect. Presumably, education, healthcare (cure and care) would be freely accessible. The percentages would be expressions of labour time. I borrowed GVP from Cockshott and Cotrell (Gross Value Product), not sure how accurate that is since there's no value in socialism.

And the hell I'm ever going to work for "the good of society"! I'm not a hippie.

[Creative Destruction]

Tim, where is that chart from?

[Tim Cornelis]

From... me..

[Creative Destruction]

could you provide the larger document that you wrote then? i noted the endnote/footnotes and was interested in what else there was.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's from this book-ish thing I'm writing. It's basically starts with historical materialism, then materialist exposition of capitalism, how it contains the seeds for socialism, then the revolutionary transformation, and then the post-revolutionary society. This chart is part of me sort of spitballing about macro-economic planning in communism. But since it's far from finished, I'm not going to upload it yet. In any case, it doesn't contribute anything new, it just distils what's already been said loads of times.
The footnotes are mostly sources. The data is based on OECD and the Dutch statistical bureau (CBS). Or this "(236) Presently, the Dutch government spends 4 million on student's financial aid (3 million for post-secondary students). There are just under 670,000 Dutch post-secondary students, if given a 550€ student financial aid a month, this would amount to 4,422,000,000, or 0.7% of GDP (GDP 2012, 607 billion). In terms of GVP this would be the equivalent 0.7%, evidently, and students would receive the equivalent of “550€” in labour credits."

[Creative Destruction]

Well, regardless, once you do finish the book, I expect that it would be an interesting read. Looking forward to it, even as a distillation.

[Creative Destruction]

Firstly, you say "but this is just an absurd standard by which to ration non-scarce goods as a whole" . But Im not at all proposing to ration non-scarce goods as a whole". Thats the whole point. Non scarce goods dont get to be and dont need to be, rationed!

Then I'm afraid, at the base of all of your proposal, is nothing more than utopian, idealistic scheming. You're starting with idealistic assumptions and going from there, which is no better than the Fourierian utopians. The fact that, previously, you tried employing an LTV conception on a period where the LTV is completely irrelevant (as trying to criticize the labor voucher proposal), shows that you don't realize basic facts or theoretical start points. Again, this is all just completely ass-backwards, with bad assumptions. You need to start over again.


Secondly, you seem to finally, grudgingly, acknowlege that it is possible to to employ straightforward objective critera for the purposes of grading housing stock but then go on to say You're not proposing just having a set objective standard to ensure running water and making sure leaks are plugged up, etc. As you've admitted in your post above, you want to include "access to amenities," "desirable location" as well as anything else, all of which are incredibly subjective criteria"

I don't "grudgingly" acknowledge anything. It's never been an issue for me that there are basic points for suitable housing. And that's fine, those should be taken into consideration when we're upgrading housing, alongside other projects that aren't tied to housing, such as trying to automate the means of production, so we can have true free access.

Rather, my point was to show that this is all just utopian scheming on your part. You're not just proposing a "tick box" method of upgrading housing, as if to say we just need running water, electricity and no leaks, or what have you. You're trying to say that we should come up with a "standardized" housing code that takes into consideration things which are not in the least objective. If they're not in the least objective, they, by definition, cannot be standardized. So, not only is it utopian, but it's entirely incoherent from the get-go. And this still does not cover the massive amount of bureaucracy it would take to keep track of all these wants and needs vis a vis individualized housing, which you completely fail to recognize or consider.

[ckaihatsu]

Ok, so I think i have that right. Ive known for a while that in a true marxist society there would be no money (or rather capital), but I want to know how exactly would that work? On a barter system? Wouldn't that collapse in todays world which is just so large? Why did it fail in Soviet Russia? After all even Lenin had to "reform" the economy.


A barter system implies exchange, *after* the process of production has already taken place -- it would be extraneous in a system of workers control of production. Simple direct distribution would be preferable and doable. (Consider the process of ordering online today, from mega retailers like Amazon -- it's implicitly an argument for the collectivization of production since such distribution to the consumer is already highly centralized and goes directly, without lower-level exchanges or barter.)





[W]hat about when the bananas run out? Whats stopping me from slapping someone in the face and stealing their Banana?





Other people, presumably. I mean, how does money prevent you from "slapping someone in the face and stealing their banana"?

In socialism, there would be no need for slapping people in the face (unless they want and like it),


That's why I became a socialist, btw -- in the hopes of a world where people could be slapped in the face and have their bananas stolen. (grin) (PM me.)


x D





There would be two things necessary for such a realization of a pure gift economy:

Greed must be tempered
A post-scarcity society


We have to temper greed, because that is the first prong in tackling scarcity. Scarcity can be tackled next with automation.




The gift economy is ideal. It also only feasible if you are post-scarcity. You can't really get to post-scarcity unless you are post-greed.


I'll actually make a principled argument here in *favor* of 'greed', since it's in reality a double-edged-sword. While the word has *connotations* of 'anti-social', 'imbalanced', and 'destructive', the *positive* side of the behavior is that it can be socially *progressive* in being an impetus to further demand, necessitating new development and production.

Someone's who's 'greedy' is implicitly dealing with materials and situations at a faster pace than the norm, and so would also gain insight into the complexities of such, through raw experience. (Consider an Old-World explorer and navigator, or pirate, here as an example.) Such people may possibly -- though not necessarily -- wind up benefitting greater numbers of people by being 'cutting-edge' and finding shortcuts into new terrain, saving many from duplications of effort.

Also I find it shortsighted that comrades often talk as though the scientific and technological achievements of today are the final resting point of *all* science and technology, forever-more. 'Scarcity' will always exist, in *some* form, because there will always be new developments that will quickly become popular and sought-after in a common way, while not being readily accessible in an equitable way. That could be commercialized space flight, for today's world, for example.


---





Relatively recently it was discovered by anthropologists that it was the gift economy, rather than barter, that drove trade in the ancient world.

Which is what Marx told us 100+ years ago by simply looking at how productive forces had developed into what there is now from the feudalist system. That's astute as fuck


Here's the historical 'gift economy' that *I'm* familiar with, which *differs* from the meaning of the term as used by us, in revolutionary leftist *political* contexts -- in pre-industrial societies it's been a ritualized practice of rotating goods, for the sake of communal and inter-communal social ties:





Anthropological research into gift economies began with Bronislaw Malinowski's description of the Kula ring[3] in the Trobriand Islands during World War I.[4] The Kula trade appeared to be gift-like since Trobrianders would travel great distances over dangerous seas to give what were considered valuable objects without any guarantee of a return.




Gift vs prestation[edit]

Malinowski's study of the Kula ring[21] became the subject of debate with the French anthropologist, Marcel Mauss, author of "The Gift" ("Essai sur le don," 1925).[5] In Parry's view, Malinowski placed the emphasis on the exchange of goods between individuals, and their non-altruistic motives for giving the gift: they expected a return of equal or greater value. Malinowski states that reciprocity is an implicit part of gifting; there is no such thing as the "free gift" given without expectation.[22]

Mauss, in contrast, emphasized that the gifts were not between individuals, but between representatives of larger collectivities. These gifts were, he argued, a "total prestation." A prestation is a service provided out of a sense of obligation, like "community service".[23] They were not simple, alienable commodities to be bought and sold, but, like the "Crown jewels", embodied the reputation, history and sense of identity of a "corporate kin group," such as a line of kings. Given the stakes, Mauss asked "why anyone would give them away?" His answer was an enigmatic concept, "the spirit of the gift." Parry believes that a good part of the confusion (and resulting debate) was due to a bad translation. Mauss appeared to be arguing that a return gift is given to keep the very relationship between givers alive; a failure to return a gift ends the relationship and the promise of any future gifts.




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


---





Besides prices of the most products are going down comparing to income due to technological progress. Then price of them is less and less relevant. Them there will come a time that charging for all items will give more effort than giving them free. Money will just become obsolete.


As I mentioned above, I don't think we can validly anticipate a point of *economic* (technological) progress at which time all technology would be virtually free due to decreased manufacturing costs -- new technology continually supersedes older technology, and that new curved-TV has a premium price on it compared to any regular-old flatscreen TV. (Etc.)





[R]esources as simple as bananas would never run out. When we get into stuff like super-rare earth metals, there just isn't enough of it on the surface of the Earth. So even in communism, sorry, you can't have a pure yttrium 100 carat ring.

This kind of stuff isn't falsely scarce (like almost every resource in capitalism), it is literally scarce.


Yes, and this reinforces my point -- my favorite examples for this are truffles and fine wine.





The no money state is final, it will take decades if not centuries to reach that. In the meantime, there will be many ways in which society will evolve - other ssytems may also come into place. Point is, it wont be a sudden transformation from the current stage to a money less stage.


I don't know on what basis you're making this claim -- many RLers casually posit a timeline of decades and centuries for any revolutionary proletarian transformation of society, and it always just sounds arbitrary and spurious.

If anything, I think *social* transformations tend to be of the same dynamic as *natural* ones -- that of 'punctuated equilibrium':





Punctuated equilibrium in social theory is a method of understanding change in complex social systems. The method studies the evolution of policy change,[1] including the evolution of conflicts.[2] The theory suggests that most social systems exist in an extended period of stasis, which are later punctuated by sudden shifts in radical change. The theory was largely inspired from the biological theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould.

The punctuated equilibrium model of policy change was first presented by Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones in 1993,[1] and has increasingly received attention in historical institutionalism.[3] The model states that policy generally changes only incrementally due to several restraints, namely the "stickiness" of institutional cultures, vested interests, and the bounded rationality of individual decision-makers. Policy change will thus be punctuated by changes in these conditions, especially in party control of government, or changes in public opinion. Thus policy is characterized by long periods of stability, punctuated by large—though less frequent—changes due to large shifts in society or government.




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

[Comrade #138672]

Ok, so I think i have that right. Ive known for a while that in a true marxist societyThere is no such thing as a Marxist society. You are probably talking about a communist society. Marxism is a scientific mode of analysis.


there would be no money (or rather capital),Indeed, that is the idea of transcending capitalism, to transcend capital, and, therefore, money.


but I want to know how exactly would that work?Distribution on the basis of needs and contribution? Instead of our current system, that is rooted in private ownership and exploitation?


On a barter system? Wouldn't that collapse in todays world which is just so large?No, why?


Why did it fail in Soviet Russia? After all even Lenin had to "reform" the economy.Because the revolution was isolated and Russia was backwards compared to the more advanced capitalist countries.

[robbo203]

The difference is, under conditions of scarcity, that with labour credit type rationing, general equilibrium can be approximated. Ideally, I'd want 5 units of milk and two TVs, as I said before. Since this is impossible, I'd want 2 units of milk and 2 TVs. In your vision, I would get 5 units of milk and 1 TV – sub-optimal. With labour credits, I can choose how to use them and use them on 2 units of milk and 2 TVs.


Well lets look at this shall we? "General equilibrium" is a term that usually refers to an idealised market situation where demand and supply requirements of all buyers and sellers have been satisfied without creating surpluses or shortages. It is very telling that you should choose to use this particular term becuase one of the big problems (amongst several) with the labour voucher or labour credit scheme you advocate is precisely that it is more than likely to result in wasteful disequilibria. Why? Because as I pointed out before, if you are going to use such a scheme you are also going to have price goods. How do you that? In term of their labour values of labour content.

The problem is that in order to prevent any serious mismatch between the supply and demand for goods (which could prove to be extremely wasteful and inefficient ) you would have to ensure that the combined face value of all labour vouchers issued somehow equalled or approximated the combined face value of the consumer goods available in the stores. Now this in itself would be no easy task to accomplish and would require an enormous amount of data compilation and collation. This would be further complicated by the fact that the economy is not something that is static but constantly changing. Moreover, and unlike in the case of a money-based economy, any miscalculation, any discrepancy between the overall labour values of products, on the one hand, and vouchers issued, on the other, could result, for instance, in a situation of systemic underconsumption since both sets of values are fixed and supposedly equivalent at the outset. One could, in other words, literally end up with consumers not having enough vouchers to buy back the products produced. You could of course abandon the idea of pricing goods in terms of labour values but then I would suggest to you that you would then be on a one way street back to market capitalism


Now let us look at your simplified two-good economy of TVs and milk. You say that under conditions of scarcity, though you might ideally prefer to have 5 units of milk and 2 TVs, this is not possible so you would settle for 2 units of milk and 2 TVs. Fine, but on what basis are we putting forward our respective and different proposals? What criteria are we using to judge their relative merits? To the extent that they meet your particular needs as a particular individual, regardless of the needs of others? Surely not. We are surely advancing our resepective arguments on the basic utilitarian grounds of what is best overall for most people.

If most people decide on ratio of TVs to milk that is markedly different from yours then who are you to say their judgements is flawed or sub-optimal. And please note that the ratio of milk to TVs I am talking about is what most people would decide upon assuming conditions of scarcity where you couldnt satisfy everyones demand for TVs and everyones demand for milk and so have to settle for a compromise. What you call sub-optimal is solely from the perspective of your own needs as an individual. But say if the ratio of TVs to milk where along the lines that you favour imposed on society generally well then then from the perspective of most other people that would be decidedly sub-optimal.

The point I want to stress is that we have to make choices of this nature. Everything that we decide to do in a socialist society will have opportunity costs. The question is on what basis do we make these decisions. I take it as given that we should make these on a social and democratic basis






The problem with your system arises when to decide how to distribute resources amongst different branches of production, which genres of goods to prioritise over others. Saying, only when a consumer good is in short supply will it be rationed presupposes omnipotence about consumer preferences when allocation resources. But there is no quantifiable basis for establishing this without work points. So it's a leap in the dark, guesswork. In liberal capitalism and state-capitalism, guesswork happens at least on some quantifiable basis, allowing some degree of accuracy – it is an educated guess. Not so in your system. In your system, the production units decide where to prioritise. But lacking any adequate quantifiable data about consumer preferences to compare, they need to rely on guesstimating (intuition as you call it). Sure it can work. But it will be less efficient, less effective than capitalism. It will not have the other drawbacks of capitalism like poverty and unemployment, so all in all I would still prefer free access communism over capitalism; but it is an inferior communism – ironically.



Sorry but this is very confused, Tim. Lets try and unpick or unpack what you are trying to say here. I dont think youve really got the hang of what I am proposing at all


Your first point about deciding "which genres of goods to prioritise over others" is, I agree, a problem in my schema but not an insurmountable one. It can be countered by the reductio ad absurdum argument that at the end of the day a production unit faced with several competing claims on the particular scarce input it is responsible for prpducing will have to allocate the input in some way and there is no reason to suppose that it would not distribute that input among these competing claims in a manner that reflected some sense of priorities i.e. it would not be just randonly allocated. The only real question is whether this sense of priorities is likely to broadly reflect or match the values and prorities of the society as a whole in which it is embedded. Again I dont see any compelling reason why it should not. Afterall there will be a general ethos of open dialogue and continuous flow throughout the production system

You then go on to claim that there is no quantifiable basis on what to judge consumer preferences in my schema, But this is nonsesne Tim and you should know that if youve read through what Ive written. The quantification of demand is effected precisely through the self regulating system of stock control which responds to stock shortages automatically by transmitting fresh orders for stock to suppliers. People dont have to vote on what goods they want; they show that through their selection of goods they take.

There is precise quantifiable calculation in kind that is being employed here. A store observes that over the course of a month 122 timns of baked beans have been removed from its shelves. It transmiuts an order to the suppliers for the same or perhaps a little more if it notes that the rate of take up has been rising lately. Maybe people dont eat so much baked beans during the summer months so come the summer the stores reduces its order to 100 per month. There is most certainly in this arrangement a definite quantifiable basis upon which to assess consumer preferences with perhaps a margin for quesswork. But mainly it is clear cut and predictable. So I am totally at a loss to know what it is you are on about





I'm familiar with the Law of the Minimum. What I meant is, a higher phase communism, lacking knowledge about the distribution of consumer preferences, would result in misallocation of resources – or, it would suffer from allocative inefficiency. This means that it will inevitable waste a huge amount of resources. To compensate, it would simply need to ensure that every branch, every type of productive activity is almost oversupplied. When everyone gets, well, a shit ton of resources, you don't need to flesh out tediously how much each branch is due in accordance with consumer demand relative to other consumer preferences.

So yeah, free access communism will work, but it will only work when we have increased the productive forces of society tremendously and sustainably in terms of ecology..

Again, free access does not - repeat not - lack "knowlege about the distribution of consumer preferences" and once you see that all the rest of your argument falls away. You say you are familiar with the Law of the Minimum but do you understand its impliucations for allocative efficiency under a system of free access communism? What it means basically is that you economise most on what is most relatively scarce.

The self regulating system system of stock control provides you with all the necessary data upon which to make a judgement of this nature. Say, a production unit produces a good called X, made out of 3 differnent components or inputs - A B and C - such that I unit of X consists of 2 units of A, 1 unit of B, and 3 units of C. Say this production unit discovers that there are 10 units of A , 6 units of B and 21 units of C. What do you think would be the limiting factor here? The answer is of course A. If you can solve that why cannot production units under free access communism do the same? With this particular technical ratio involving A, B and C the most units of X that this prioduction unit could conceivably produce would be 5. If only 5 units of X was demanded that would be no problem. But if 6 were demanded what then? If the production unit changed the technical ratio such that only 1 Unit of A was needed to purduce 1 unit of X then B would become the new limitiing factor. With that it would be able to prpduce 6 units of X. And so on and so forth.

Point is this is precisely what prpduction units in a free access communist society would be doing 0 trying to economise most on what is most scarce almost of necesity in order to meet the multifarious demands placed upon them. Yes, there is the kind of default argument that production units in general would aim to ensure as far as possible a buffer stock of everything they need so as to give them time to assess the situation properly and respond to rates of stock depletion adequately. You night call that being oversupplied - "When everyone gets, well, a shit ton of resources" as you put it.


But I am assuming this might not always be possible. The question is whether in that situation such a society has the means to respond appropriately to a condition of real or actual scarcity. I believe it has. I believe the application of the law of the minimum as well as the application of a braod value based hierarchy of production goals in the face of resources bottlenecks will provide the most rational and effective solution possible

Free access communism is not only the most rational option available; it is by far the most efficient in terms of its utilisation of resources and its minimisation of waste

[Q]

There would be no money (capital or otherwise). It would however not be a barter system, because there would not be exchanged in kind.
You may appear to contradict yourself here. After all, how could you have exchange-in-kind without any kind of money and without reverting to a barter system? Surely this needs more elaboration.

Money, as Marx explained in Capital (and given the OP, that seems a fair definition to take) is defined as a universal equivalent (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm#S3c), a concept that Marx sets out to explain in the first few chapters of Capital.

Now, one of the consequences of this definition is that money may be used as capital, which is a specific process of commodity production in order to create more capital, more money that repeats the cycle ad infinitum.

This topic discusses however another function of money entirely: It as a medium of payment. That is, to exchange money of a certain value for a product of that same value. The money is acquired (typically under capitalism anyway) via the process of selling labour, in which products are created of that same value (I'll leave untouched the whole notion of wage labour and surplus value for a second). So, money has a socially useful, in fact essential, function: It is the grease that makes macro-economics possible.

So, the question of how this would work under communism then is perfectly legitimate. What will the grease be like?

Now, of course I don't have a crystall ball, nor does anyone else. But I do think that we'll see some kind of "money", that is, something like the labour vouchers (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch18.htm) Marx was suggesting. A more modern equivalent to that would be the labour hour notes which Paul Cockshott et al suggest in this paper (http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/Berlinpaper.pdf). This could in turn be completely automated and, as productivity rises, be used solely for macro-economic accounting and planning. You would stop bothering about it in daily life. Such a system, as needs repeating, would not be money: It couldn't be hoarded, used as investment or the like. It would not be a universal equivalent.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm sure this is a debate which has been had many times before but, in the transitional period between capitalism and communism how would wages actually work? And how would paying for goods work when things are owned collectively? Obviously, use values that are in great enough abundance to be provided for everybody would not have any kind of ties to currency at all, but in general how would currency work, I doubt we could jump straight to a moneyless system...what would replace private capital?


Actually we *should* be looking to jump to a moneyless system as quickly as possible, due to the intractable-ness of use-values-vs.-exchange-values. Retaining *any* kind of system of exchange values, as for exchangeability with (liberated) labor, would just create more political and logistical issues than it would be worth in practice.










What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.


With all due respect, the shortcoming in this proposal -- as enlightened in spirit as it may be -- is that there's no way to equitably qualitatively value *labor effort*, and especially so in relation to its actual material productivity.




Pies Must Line Up

http://s6.postimg.org/5wpihv9ip/140415_2_Pies_Must_Line_Up_xcf_jpg.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/erqcsdyb1/full/)


(In brief this could be summed up as the coal-mining-vs.-picking-berries problem of *quality* -- and hazard/difficulty -- of liberated labor.)

(And in terms of *productivity*, we have the problem of raising-kids-vs.-creating-electricity-supplies, for example.)

I'm not optimistic that *any* kind of abstraction of work-value could be reasonably determined, as for exchangeability with the further-abstracted realm of consumer-type items and materials. (See 'Pies Must Line Up' illustration, above.)

I've found that the only reasonable approach to this question is to make sure that the realm of liberated labor is *detached* from the realm of material goods, altogether, with *no* exchangeability whatsoever between the two. This, then, allows for a gift-economy type of material abundance, with free-access and direct-distribution, without having to try to 'account' for any valuations for the same.

See my blog entry:


A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11269





Rationing, I suspect. It may not be possible to do this for everything but I'd like to see the revolutionary dictatorship go towards rationing as soon as possible in as many fields as possible.

I'm sure our Technocrats will be along to say that's completely wrong and inefficient, but I think it's the only sensible solution.

Of course, what I mean is rationing by need, as opposed to rationing by price or rationing by work. Until we reach a free-access society, it's all rationing in some form.


While I'm *also* opposed to rationing by price, or by work, due to logistical practicalities, I don't think that a consistent rationing by *need* is possible, either.

The problem is in how 'needs' would be validated and responded-to by a liberated labor. Once off of market-based valuations there would have to be a method for *prioritizing* 'needs' on a relative basis -- as for favoring basic human requirements for existence, like food -- while *de-*prioritizing all else, on a sliding scale, and somehow matching that all up to what liberated labor is able and willing to do.

An example here could be a sudden mass popularity for wearing furs, to keep warm -- how much of a valid concern would, or should that be, in the eyes of a liberated labor -- ? The equitable-minded 'everyone gets a fur' could certainly conflict with the willingness of liberated labor (its collective self-determination) to fulfill such a labor-intensive mass demand.





And other things? without capitalist exchange value being nearly as prevalent, there might be enough of SOME luxury items to give one to almost everyone who wants one, but how would things that can't be rationed or provided for all be distributed? Labour credits or something?

Personally I think that in the very beginning post-revolution I think there should be two currencies - money that is held only by the state and used for international trade, to make sure that the state can sustain itself until the revolution is widespread enough, and money in the form of labour credits that is used for payment and exchange. This probably wouldn't work, but it's my humble opinion as a young Communist. I'm open to anyone else's more informed ideas though.


This approach begs the *political* question as to why the revolution isn't being actively spread internationally (and is instead backsliding to a reliance on capitalist currencies and exchanges for international social relations).





one of the very first steps should be getting rid of "luxury" items and the concept of "luxury" as an exclusivity altogether. occurring in the revolution is also a social revolution where things of that nature won't hold so much importance, either. from the beginning, that concept, i suspect, would be rendered moot.


Then the unresolved question would be who *does* get access to things like pre-existing luxury homes, naturally spectacular viewing spots, rare consumables like caviar and truffles, and time-aged goods like fine wines.

No one could or should be expected to carry on political agitation 24/7, and in anyone's 'downtime' they may express a personal preference for such quality goods -- in no case should such things be routinely *destroyed*, in the name of a forced, base social commonality.

[robbo203]

Then I'm afraid, at the base of all of your proposal, is nothing more than utopian, idealistic scheming.

I dont follow this at all. This comment of yours is a direct response to my comment as follows:

Firstly, you say "but this is just an absurd standard by which to ration non-scarce goods as a whole" . But Im not at all proposing to ration non-scarce goods as a whole". Thats the whole point. Non scarce goods dont get to be and dont need to be, rationed!


Are you saying that for me to say goods that are not scarce need not be rationed is to engage in... erm... utopian, idealistic scheming??? I kinda of thought what I was saying above was pretty much universally endorsed in Marxian cricles. Check out what Charlie has to say on higher communism in the Critique of the Gotha programme for instance

In my experience people who accuse of others of "utopian, idealistic scheming" which seems to be quite a common practice on this particular forum - I wonder why? - are those who seem to have run out of ideas and arguments. Its not particularly helpful, you know.. .



I don't "grudgingly" acknowledge anything. It's never been an issue for me that there are basic points for suitable housing. And that's fine, those should be taken into consideration when we're upgrading housing, alongside other projects that aren't tied to housing, such as trying to automate the means of production, so we can have true free access.

Rather, my point was to show that this is all just utopian scheming on your part. You're not just proposing a "tick box" method of upgrading housing, as if to say we just need running water, electricity and no leaks, or what have you. You're trying to say that we should come up with a "standardized" housing code that takes into consideration things which are not in the least objective. If they're not in the least objective, they, by definition, cannot be standardized. So, not only is it utopian, but it's entirely incoherent from the get-go. And this still does not cover the massive amount of bureaucracy it would take to keep track of all these wants and needs vis a vis individualized housing, which you completely fail to recognize or consider.

Well, lets for the sake of argument, say that your are right about one or two of the other criteria I mentioned as an afterthought - namely that they are "subjective" and therefore not amenable to standardisation - why are you so dismissve about , if not downright hostile to, the basic point I was making about the feasibility of grading housing according to what you yourself seem to acknowlege would be objective criteria? The argument still basically stands, does it not? So why get into such a hissy fit and throw the baby out with the water, You are going way over the top by way of overreacting here frankly. Calm down, mate. Jeez....

Incidentally, Im not sure you are correct about subjective criteria being unamenable to standardidation, Opinion polls seems to contradict this. But perhaps I oughtn't to risk going down this road for fear of being once again dismissed as a utopian idealistic schemer :)

[Comrade #138672]

This subject is very similar to:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/no-moneyi-whati-t190908/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-each-according-t191402/index.html

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You may appear to contradict yourself here. After all, how could you have exchange-in-kind without any kind of money and without reverting to a barter system?

Takayuki clearly said there would be no exchange in kind. And indeed, in socialism, there is no exchange of commodities or, more generally, of products. Objects are produced for social consumption, not for exchange.


So, the question of how this would work under communism then is perfectly legitimate. What will the grease be like?

Nonexistent. A socialist society involves explicitly and consciously planning the process of production; there is no need for any "grease", particularly not to keep track of value, as value doesn't exist in socialism.

[Q]

This subject is very similar to:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/no-moneyi-whati-t190908/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-each-according-t191402/index.html
Yes they are, I'm considering to merge them. What do others think?

[Q]

Takayuki clearly said there would be no exchange in kind. And indeed, in socialism, there is no exchange of commodities or, more generally, of products. Objects are produced for social consumption, not for exchange.
You are correct, a misreading on my part. My apologies to Takayuki.


Nonexistent. A socialist society involves explicitly and consciously planning the process of production; there is no need for any "grease", particularly not to keep track of value, as value doesn't exist in socialism.Both correct and false. You are correct that value wouldn't exist under a socialist society, as such a notion is nonsensical without a context of surplus exploitation. However, any economy of reasonable size would need an efficient way to utilise labour time. In fact, that is what economics (any economics) is really about. I disagree that all we need is simply say "democracy" and "planning" and be done with it. For any social planning to really work, you will need some accounting system of labour time.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Both correct and false. You are correct that value wouldn't exist under a socialist society, as such a notion is nonsensical without a context of surplus exploitation. However, any economy of reasonable size would need an efficient way to utilise labour time. In fact, that is what economics (any economics) is really about. I disagree that all we need is simply say "democracy" and "planning" and be done with it. For any social planning to really work, you will need some accounting system of labour time.

I'm not sure economics as such would exist in socialism.

Now, concerning labour time, in socialism, without the constraints imposed on the growth of the productive forces by capitalism, the average socially useful labour time needed to produce any commodity would presumably experience a sharp fall. So the demand for labour would go down while at the same time the supply would grow with the population, as the overwhelming majority of people would probably want to do something in life. So if anything, I suspect there will be problems putting everyone to useful work.

But let's ignore that. Let's say that society needs to minimise the expenditure of labour time. (What kind of labour time? The average for a given product or the aggregate in one planning period? These are two distinct concepts.) We can assign a labour-time cost to every product, but this does not mean that it's a good idea to have the products be literally bought. In fact that would at best be a useless simulation of class society. Furthermore, labour-time (any of the two) is not the only quantity which we might wish to minimise, depending on the circumstances. If we're short on iridium we might want to minimise the expenditure of iridium. Or greenhouse gas emissions. And so on.

The point is we can keep track of all these factors explicitly, something capitalism can not as it encodes several separate pieces of information into one number, the price.

[Illegalitarian]

Here's the historical 'gift economy' that *I'm* familiar with, which *differs* from the meaning of the term as used by us, in revolutionary leftist *political* contexts -- in pre-industrial societies it's been a ritualized practice of rotating goods, for the sake of communal and inter-communal social ties:


The nature of gift giving in that particular tribe was disputed for some time, but as it says, it is generally believed that it was not a simple system of "rotating goods". Even so, in most pre-industrial societies of this nature, their gift system was more akin to Kropotkin's idea of mutual aid.

[ckaihatsu]

The nature of gift giving in that particular tribe was disputed for some time, but as it says, it is generally believed that it was not a simple system of "rotating goods". Even so, in most pre-industrial societies of this nature, their gift system was more akin to Kropotkin's idea of mutual aid.


This part contradicts your assertion:





Gift ideology in highly commercialized societies differs from the "prestations" typical of non-market societies. Gift economies must also be differentiated from several closely related phenomena, such as common property regimes and the exchange of non-commodified labour.




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

[Illegalitarian]

Of course gift economics in giant, industrialized societies differs from how gift economics worked for some tribes of old, but the nature of both would be/were essentially the same, with reciprocation of goods based on the acquisition of previous goods between parties in a socialized manner.

Most tribes still used this form of mutual aid:


his view traces back at least to Peter Kropotkin, who saw in the hunter-gatherer tribes he had visited the paradigm of "mutual aid".[61]


Daniel Everett, a linguist who studied a small tribe of hunter-gatherers in Brazil,[88] reported that, while they are aware of food preservation using drying, salting, and so forth, they reserve the use of these techniques for items for barter outside of the tribe. Within the group, when someone has a successful hunt they immediately share the abundance by inviting others to enjoy a feast. Asked about this practice, one hunter laughed and replied, "I store meat in the belly of my brother."[89][90]



There are countless other examples, of course, but most anthropologists will tell you that contrary to popular belief, it is this form of mutual aid that guided most of the ancient world.

[Red Star Rising]

Actually we *should* be looking to jump to a moneyless system as quickly as possible, due to the intractable-ness of use-values-vs.-exchange-values. Retaining *any* kind of system of exchange values, as for exchangeability with (liberated) labor, would just create more political and logistical issues than it would be worth in practice.
Yes, exchange value would not exist but I was referring to labour credits or something. I couldn't think of an appropriate term for "money" that serves only as a measure of labour and not an objectification of exchange value.





Pies Must Line Up

http://s6.postimg.org/5wpihv9ip/140415_2_Pies_Must_Line_Up_xcf_jpg.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/erqcsdyb1/full/)[/spoil]


(In brief this could be summed up as the coal-mining-vs.-picking-berries problem of *quality* -- and hazard/difficulty -- of liberated labor.)

(And in terms of *productivity*, we have the problem of raising-kids-vs.-creating-electricity-supplies, for example.)

I'm not optimistic that *any* kind of abstraction of work-value could be reasonably determined, as for exchangeability with the further-abstracted realm of consumer-type items and materials. (See 'Pies Must Line Up' illustration, above.)

I've found that the only reasonable approach to this question is to make sure that the realm of liberated labor is *detached* from the realm of material goods, altogether, with *no* exchangeability whatsoever between the two. This, then, allows for a gift-economy type of material abundance, with free-access and direct-distribution, without having to try to 'account' for any valuations for the same.

Still don't quite get what this graphic is supposed to mean - is it saying that supply and demand must be in equilibrium in order for a labour credit system to work or something?



This approach begs the *political* question as to why the revolution isn't being actively spread internationally (and is instead backsliding to a reliance on capitalist currencies and exchanges for international social relations).

Pure practicality I expect -you can't expect a revolution to suddenly spread internationally all at once. Those within a post-revolutionary society do not place any exchange value on the money - it would just be used for trade with other nations in the event of emergencies so the state can acquire goods without having to be totally self-sufficient. There could still be an active effort to spread the revolution globally.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm not sure needs are subjective. I think they're socially-determined.

What criteria would you use for rationing Tim? The only alternatives I know are rationing by price, and rationing by work. Why should someone who works 40 hours get preferential access to a wheelchair that they don't need, rather than someone who works 20 hours but needs a wheelchair?

Needs seem objective to me. I've no idea what socially determined means. Regardless, we're talking generally, of course there's exceptions. Access to care and cure should obviously be according to needs. But, for instance, the Kibbutzim distributed according to needs. That can invoke real perceptions of unfair distribution and protest. I recall reading that specialised workers actually struck for better wages, and they compelled the, syndicates whatever, to concede in the Spanish Civil War.

I would ration, probably according to work, but with some differentials just enough to co-opt any sentiment of strike action of specialised workers. I would look at how rationing was done in other situations, like Israel, to make a definite statement about what I'd advocate in such a situation.

[Blake's Baby]

Needs seem objective to me. I've no idea what socially determined means. Regardless, we're talking generally, of course there's exceptions. Access to care and cure should obviously be according to needs. But, for instance, the Kibbutzim distributed according to needs. That can invoke real perceptions of unfair distribution and protest. I recall reading that specialised workers actually struck for better wages, and they compelled the, syndicates whatever, to concede in the Spanish Civil War...

Seroiusly, you have no idea what 'socially determined' means? Come on. What is necessary for the community is decided by the community. Everyone's part of that decision-making process.

If people are striking against their own communes then that's a sign that something is going seriously wrong. 'I think we should go on strike against us!''

If they're striking for higher wages against their own 'syndicates' (unions?) then, obviously, not much has changed.


... I would ration, probably according to work, but with some differentials just enough to co-opt any sentiment of strike action of specialised workers. I would look at how rationing was done in other situations, like Israel, to make a definite statement about what I'd advocate in such a situation.

I would advocate the abolition of money, personally.

[Creative Destruction]

Yes they are, I'm considering to merge them. What do others think?

i was thinking the same thing.

[Creative Destruction]

With all due respect, the shortcoming in this proposal -- as enlightened in spirit as it may be -- is that there's no way to equitably qualitatively value *labor effort*, and especially so in relation to its actual material productivity.


...


(In brief this could be summed up as the coal-mining-vs.-picking-berries problem of *quality* -- and hazard/difficulty -- of liberated labor.)

(And in terms of *productivity*, we have the problem of raising-kids-vs.-creating-electricity-supplies, for example.)

I'm not optimistic that *any* kind of abstraction of work-value could be reasonably determined, as for exchangeability with the further-abstracted realm of consumer-type items and materials. (See 'Pies Must Line Up' illustration, above.)

I've found that the only reasonable approach to this question is to make sure that the realm of liberated labor is *detached* from the realm of material goods, altogether, with *no* exchangeability whatsoever between the two. This, then, allows for a gift-economy type of material abundance, with free-access and direct-distribution, without having to try to 'account' for any valuations for the same.

See my blog entry:


A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11269

This is incoherent. If we're worried about strawberry pickers vs. coal miners, there is not material abundance to begin with. But, that aside, both of these jobs can be automated using current technology. If it weren't for the cost of automation vs. continuing to use labor, the only labor that would go into coal mining is monitoring to make sure the thing doesn't collapse or explode. But all that aside, it's a crap comparison anyway. Have you ever picked strawberries in the middle of the goddamned summer? In a field that's been sprayed with all sorts of horrible chemicals? You're right about one thing; there is no way to quantify the intensity of one job over another, which is why we don't do it. There's no reason to. Work that is refused to be done, either for danger or whatever, should be automated as quickly as possible. I, frankly, don't give a shit about comparing jobs, because there's no reason to in the first place. I don't hate marketers because they have a job that I find to be easier and more rewarding than mine; I hate them because their chosen jobs are direct support for wasteful capitalist consumerism. I don't hate CEOs because they get paid more to do less work; I hate CEOs because they live off of exploited labor of everyone else.

There's this idea that is going around these forums (and elsewhere it seems) where people have some bugaboo about comparing the intensity and resultant compensation for their jobs. This has never been a real world issue I've run into, talking to co-workers and what ever. I mean, who really gives a shit? It's not the point at all. It's not even close to the point of anything we're trying to work toward. There's nothing wrong with using an objective measurement of work -- hours contributed into the general social product.

I mean, Christ, do y'all (people with whom this is even a shadow of concern) sit around and compare dick sizes, too? I would've never though such superfluous things would have been any concern of communists. We're not trying to accommodate social ills from the previous system; we're trying to destroy them.


Then the unresolved question would be who *does* get access to things like pre-existing luxury homes, naturally spectacular viewing spots, rare consumables like caviar and truffles, and time-aged goods like fine wines.

Caviar and truffles aren't necessarily prized for anything other than the luxurious tag that they're stuck with. If we can grow beef in labs, we can grow caviar. We're getting close toward in-house grown truffles. But these sorts of things change with society itself. When we move into an era where we don't put social significance on the ability to obtain this crap, it won't be an issue. Not just ~200 years ago, lobster was considered cruel and unusual to feed to prisoners, and now it's a sought after item and a mark of social prominence.

As for things like "pre-existing luxury homes," take them down. We don't need mansions, where we can build excellent housing for everyone. Or if it's absolutely necessary, turn them into social centers or museums, like the Parisians did with opulent churches.

[Tim Cornelis]

Seroiusly, you have no idea what 'socially determined' means? Come on. What is necessary for the community is decided by the community. Everyone's part of that decision-making process.

Which is what I expected, but it didn't make sense since people determining what they need for themselves is not controlled externally. Basically, what you say is that 'needs are not subjective, they are subjective, but we will aggregate the subjective perceptions of needs, and then make them an objective reality' which was my initial criticism. So we've gone in a circle, and not moved forward in the discussion.


If people are striking against their own communes then that's a sign that something is going seriously wrong. 'I think we should go on strike against us!''

Exactly.


If they're striking for higher wages against their own 'syndicates' (unions?) then, obviously, not much has changed.

How do you propose to resolve that? Saying it's a problem is not really helpful.

Almost the only problem Sana had not had to deal with was the 'single' wage introduced in the theatre. It came to a rapid end in dramatic circumstances one day when the famous tenor, Hipolito Lazaro, arrived at the Tivoli theatre where the union was organizing a cycle of operas at popular prices. He was to sing the lead. Before the audience arrived, he got up on stage and addressed the company. '"We're all equal now," he said, "and to prove it, we all get the same wage. Fine, since we're equal, today I am going to collect the tickets at the door and one of you can come up here and sing the lead." That did it, of course. There had been several previous protests. That night several of us union leaders met and decided at the very start that we couldn't leave until we had come up with a worthy solution.' It didn't take long. Top actors and singers, like Lazaro and Marcos Redondo, were to be paid 750 pesetas a performance - a 5,000 per cent increase over their previous 15 pesetas a day. Second- and third-category artists received large, but differential increases, while even ushers were given a raise.


I would advocate the abolition of money, personally.

Already this is starting to annoy me.

We are talking about a situation of revolutionary reconstruction, and therefore a situation where productive establishments are not yet integrated into a whole, that is, not directly social. In other words, a society where the social character of labour is contained within private labour. Consequently, we are talking about a society which still has (remnants of) commodity production to varying extends, and hence currency. If you want to approach this with a flare of Hegelian idealism, and from the perspective of materialism, putting the cart before the horse, and just demand the instantaneous abolition of money, then it reveals, other than your idealism, utopianism: you want to build a moneyless society on the objective basis which requires commodity production, beyond and worse than labour-money! Leaving aside the issue of socialism in one country which you are seemingly proposing. Of course, (I'm assuming), you don't actually want to do that, but you wanted to make a snide remark at my expense.

[Red Star Rising]

There's this idea that is going around these forums (and elsewhere it seems) where people have some bugaboo about comparing the intensity and resultant compensation for their jobs. This has never been a real world issue I've run into, talking to co-workers and what ever. I mean, who really gives a shit? It's not the point at all. It's not even close to the point of anything we're trying to work toward. There's nothing wrong with using an objective measurement of work -- hours contributed into the general social product.

[QUOTE=rednoise;2805463]I mean, Christ, do y'all (people with whom this is even a shadow of concern) sit around and compare dick sizes, too? I would've never though such superfluous things would have been any concern of communists. We're not trying to accommodate social ills from the previous system; we're trying to destroy them.

I agree completely - no qualitative difference in types of expenditure of labour are intense enough to yield such differences in attitudes (and thus wages). Especially in a capitalist system. Communists advocate the equalisation of all members of society; why the fuck should it matter what exactly your job is? Difficulty, or at least desirability is completely subjective, the outcome of labour is not.


As for things like "pre-existing luxury homes," take them down. We don't need mansions, where we can build excellent housing for everyone. Or if it's absolutely necessary, turn them into social centers or museums, like the Parisians did with opulent churches.

No need to demolish them, just make them public communal palaces or something.

[Comrade #138672]

Which is what I expected, but it didn't make sense since people determining what they need for themselves is not controlled externally. Basically, what you say is that 'needs are not subjective, they are subjective, but we will aggregate the subjective perceptions of needs, and then make them an objective reality' which was my initial criticism. So we've gone in a circle, and not moved forward in the discussion.



Exactly.



How do you propose to resolve that? Saying it's a problem is not really helpful.

Almost the only problem Sana had not had to deal with was the 'single' wage introduced in the theatre. It came to a rapid end in dramatic circumstances one day when the famous tenor, Hipolito Lazaro, arrived at the Tivoli theatre where the union was organizing a cycle of operas at popular prices. He was to sing the lead. Before the audience arrived, he got up on stage and addressed the company. '"We're all equal now," he said, "and to prove it, we all get the same wage. Fine, since we're equal, today I am going to collect the tickets at the door and one of you can come up here and sing the lead." That did it, of course. There had been several previous protests. That night several of us union leaders met and decided at the very start that we couldn't leave until we had come up with a worthy solution.' It didn't take long. Top actors and singers, like Lazaro and Marcos Redondo, were to be paid 750 pesetas a performance - a 5,000 per cent increase over their previous 15 pesetas a day. Second- and third-category artists received large, but differential increases, while even ushers were given a raise.



Already this is starting to annoy me.

We are talking about a situation of revolutionary reconstruction, and therefore a situation where productive establishments are not yet integrated into a whole, that is, not directly social. In other words, a society where the social character of labour is contained within private labour. Consequently, we are talking about a society which still has (remnants of) commodity production to varying extends, and hence currency. If you want to approach this with a flare of Hegelian idealism, and from the perspective of materialism, putting the cart before the horse, and just demand the instantaneous abolition of money, then it reveals, other than your idealism, utopianism: you want to build a moneyless society on the objective basis which requires commodity production, beyond and worse than labour-money! Leaving aside the issue of socialism in one country which you are seemingly proposing. Of course, (I'm assuming), you don't actually want to do that, but you wanted to make a snide remark at my expense.I sympathize with your struggle against idealist conceptions of the transition to communism, but sometimes I get the feeling that you just cannot give up the concept of money, the concept of markets, etc. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Creative Destruction]

I sympathize with your struggle against idealist conceptions of the transition to communism, but sometimes I get the feeling that you just cannot give up the concept of money, the concept of markets, etc. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Nothing that I've seen Tim say notes that he "cannot give up the concept of money" or "markets." Where did he show support for either?

[ckaihatsu]

Yes, exchange value would not exist but I was referring to labour credits or something. I couldn't think of an appropriate term for "money" that serves only as a measure of labour and not an objectification of exchange value.


Okay. (That would be *my* 'labor credits', which can only be applied to liberated-labor labor hours, and are not exchangeable whatsoever for anything material, like goods.)





Still don't quite get what this graphic is supposed to mean - is it saying that supply and demand must be in equilibrium in order for a labour credit system to work or something?


Start with the caption:





Many who argue for a post-commodity world economy only get part of the way through a line of reasoning for it, and usually wind up leaving crucial aspects unaddressed that are fundamental to such a system.

This graphic depicts the objective reality that the material "pies" must line up, so that the totality of any one economic component corresponds to the totality of each of the others.


---





This approach begs the *political* question as to why the revolution isn't being actively spread internationally (and is instead backsliding to a reliance on capitalist currencies and exchanges for international social relations).





Pure practicality I expect -you can't expect a revolution to suddenly spread internationally all at once.


It certainly *could* spread internationally all at once, depending on actual conditions.





Those within a post-revolutionary society do not place any exchange value on the money - it would just be used for trade with other nations in the event of emergencies so the state can acquire goods without having to be totally self-sufficient. There could still be an active effort to spread the revolution globally.


Sorry, but I can't agree. These two statements are contradictory, since the efforts at strengthening *economic* ties, for trade, would, by their nature, preclude and exclude revolutionary *political* efforts to generalize production and distribution by the world's proletariat on an equitable basis.

[Comrade #138672]

Nothing that I've seen Tim say notes that he "cannot give up the concept of money" or "markets." Where did he show support for either?Well, like I said, I could be wrong. In any case, I think Tim will know what I am talking about, whether I am right or wrong. I can remember Tim saying that he could not imagine the possibility of distribution without some kind of market system.

[Tim Cornelis]

I sympathize with your struggle against idealist conceptions of the transition to communism, but sometimes I get the feeling that you just cannot give up the concept of money, the concept of markets, etc. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Bij deze. I've said I think central planning is fundamentally flawed, and I've said that I think the higher phase of communism is still quite far beyond reach given the current technological and productive capacities. Maybe one of those points lead to confusion.

As I said, commodity production arises out of private labour. The social character of labour, taking place in separated, reciprocally independent enterprises and businesses, can only manifest/express itself through monetary-commodity exchange. In socialism, which is based on freely associated labour, the social character of labour is taking place within what is one association, labour, then, is directly social and commodity production does not arise. So money, as universal equivalent to regulate the exchange of commodities, cannot arise either. So necessarily, I can't uphold socialism and money or markets simultaneously. Rest assured comrade!

[Comrade #138672]

Bij deze. I've said I think central planning is fundamentally flawed, and I've said that I think the higher phase of communism is still quite far beyond reach given the current technological and productive capacities. Maybe one of those points lead to confusion.

As I said, commodity production arises out of private labour. The social character of labour, taking place in separated, reciprocally independent enterprises and businesses, can only manifest/express itself through monetary-commodity exchange. In socialism, which is based on freely associated labour, the social character of labour is taking place within what is one association, labour, then, is directly social and commodity production does not arise. So money, as universal equivalent to regulate the exchange of commodities, cannot arise either. So necessarily, I can't uphold socialism and money or markets simultaneously. Rest assured comrade! Bedankt, Tim.

Still, I seem to recall quite clearly something that you said about the necessity of some kind of market, for the purpose of exchange, for any kind of society.

[Blake's Baby]

Which is what I expected, but it didn't make sense since people determining what they need for themselves is not controlled externally. Basically, what you say is that 'needs are not subjective, they are subjective, but we will aggregate the subjective perceptions of needs, and then make them an objective reality' which was my initial criticism. So we've gone in a circle, and not moved forward in the discussion...

Now we're arguing about definitions.

Sure, if you mean 'collectively subjective', then needs are subjective. Perhaps I'm being over-narrow by assuming that by 'subjective' you meant 'individual'. But, as this is what I thought you meant, then this is what I was arguing against.

I don't care if one person says 'I need a Ferrari!'. They can say it all they want, it doesn't change the fact that they won't be getting a Ferrari.

If the community decides it needs a Ferrari, that's something else.



...

How do you propose to resolve that? Saying it's a problem is not really helpful.

Almost the only problem Sana had not had to deal with was the 'single' wage introduced in the theatre. It came to a rapid end in dramatic circumstances one day when the famous tenor, Hipolito Lazaro, arrived at the Tivoli theatre where the union was organizing a cycle of operas at popular prices. He was to sing the lead. Before the audience arrived, he got up on stage and addressed the company. '"We're all equal now," he said, "and to prove it, we all get the same wage. Fine, since we're equal, today I am going to collect the tickets at the door and one of you can come up here and sing the lead." That did it, of course. There had been several previous protests. That night several of us union leaders met and decided at the very start that we couldn't leave until we had come up with a worthy solution.' It didn't take long. Top actors and singers, like Lazaro and Marcos Redondo, were to be paid 750 pesetas a performance - a 5,000 per cent increase over their previous 15 pesetas a day. Second- and third-category artists received large, but differential increases, while even ushers were given a raise...

And do you think this a good thing, Tim? I would rather have said 'fine, you can collect the tickets for 15 pesetas a day, who wants to sing the lead?' and then told the audience that the singer they were coming to see had decided he didn't want to sing for them for 15 pesetas a day. Before they bought their tickets of course.



...
Already this is starting to annoy me.

We are talking about a situation of revolutionary reconstruction, and therefore a situation where productive establishments are not yet integrated into a whole, that is, not directly social. In other words, a society where the social character of labour is contained within private labour. Consequently, we are talking about a society which still has (remnants of) commodity production to varying extends, and hence currency. If you want to approach this with a flare of Hegelian idealism, and from the perspective of materialism, putting the cart before the horse, and just demand the instantaneous abolition of money, then it reveals, other than your idealism, utopianism: you want to build a moneyless society on the objective basis which requires commodity production, beyond and worse than labour-money! Leaving aside the issue of socialism in one country which you are seemingly proposing. Of course, (I'm assuming), you don't actually want to do that, but you wanted to make a snide remark at my expense.

The organs of the revolutionary dictatorship (ie the factory committees, workers' councils and the neighbourhood assemblies) should take over all production and distribution that they can. Distribution should be on the basis of need, not money or work, wherever possible. Production should be geared towards what people decide is necessary (socially-determined need). But, it will not be possible to do this with everything immediately, I agree. I suspect that things will be very messy for a while. I don't think that's either utopian or idealistic, but I do think that rapid progress towards collectivisation needs to be made.

If it isn't being made, it's because the revolution is failing. That isn't just to state a problem and not propose a solution - there is no solution beyond extension of the revolution. There is no 'socialism in one country', so there is no 'solution' to the problem of a failed revolution (ie, a revolution that fails to spread).

[Q]

This subject is very similar to:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/no-moneyi-whati-t190908/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-each-according-t191402/index.html
Ok, after some deliberation and some feedback here I've merged the three threads.

[Creative Destruction]

I dont follow this at all. This comment of yours is a direct response to my comment as follows:

Firstly, you say "but this is just an absurd standard by which to ration non-scarce goods as a whole" . But Im not at all proposing to ration non-scarce goods as a whole". Thats the whole point. Non scarce goods dont get to be and dont need to be, rationed!


Are you saying that for me to say goods that are not scarce need not be rationed is to engage in... erm... utopian, idealistic scheming???

No, I deduced what you were meaning and attacked that as utopian, idealistic scheming. Maybe we're talking past each other, but I don't think so. You're proposing (at least, as far as I can discern) upgrading housing stock as a replacement for the idea of a one-to-one labor accounting system. The idea of a one-to-one labor accounting system is specifically to deal with the fact that we will have scarce goods in society that will need to be rationed. It has nothing to do with rationing non-scarce goods, as I've pointed out more than a few times in this very thread.

What I'm trying to tell you is that upgrading housing should be a principal concern, but not the only concern. We have other projects that need to be done that have nothing to do with housing whatsoever, and many of those projects require the use of scarce goods. Scarce goods that need to be rationed. The only objective way to do such a thing is to apply the principle of taking out of the social product (or the social product that is scarce) in proportion to what you put in.

If you're arguing that you didn't intend for that to be a replacement for that sort of model, then I have no clue what we're arguing over, because I never once said that we need to ration non-scarce goods. Frankly, what you're proposing is unwieldy in concept and you haven't really explained it that well, if that's the case.


I kinda of thought what I was saying above was pretty much universally endorsed in Marxian cricles. Check out what Charlie has to say on higher communism in the Critique of the Gotha programme for instance

Maybe you need to re-read what he says in the Critique? Almost the only thing I've been doing here is summarizing what he said in that work, which you apparently have some (at this point, unknown to me) issue with.


In my experience people who accuse of others of "utopian, idealistic scheming" which seems to be quite a common practice on this particular forum - I wonder why? - are those who seem to have run out of ideas and arguments. Its not particularly helpful, you know.. .

If that's your experience, maybe you need to examine the way in which you present your ideas?


Well, lets for the sake of argument, say that your are right about one or two of the other criteria I mentioned as an afterthought - namely that they are "subjective" and therefore not amenable to standardisation - why are you so dismissve about , if not downright hostile to, the basic point I was making about the feasibility of grading housing according to what you yourself seem to acknowlege would be objective criteria? The argument still basically stands, does it not? So why get into such a hissy fit and throw the baby out with the water, You are going way over the top by way of overreacting here frankly. Calm down, mate. Jeez....

I'm responding to your, what seem to me to be, ridiculous arguments for how we should ration scarce goods, which, at first, seemed like you were trying to peg it to the project of upgrading housing stock, and as a replacement or counterproposal to just using a one-to-one labor hour system. That's the only issue I'm dealing with here. I've already said before that we shouldn't have to ration non-scarce goods from the get-go, because there'd be no reason to, housing included.


Incidentally, Im not sure you are correct about subjective criteria being unamenable to standardidation, Opinion polls seems to contradict this. But perhaps I oughtn't to risk going down this road for fear of being once again dismissed as a utopian idealistic schemer :)

The fact that you have to have opinion polls about aesthetic and amenities inherently shows that it is a subjective standard that can't be transformed into an objective one. You wouldn't have opinion polls on running water or the need to make sure the roof doesn't leak, would you? No, because those are things we can objectively discern that would lessen the quality of life for everyone. But aesthetics and "access to amenities" is completely different. For example, I don't want your three-hundred-year old Chinese wallpaper in the place that I live. If I saw that shit in my living space, I'd tear it off the walls and burn it. I also don't think we should allow people to just freely build in environmentally sensitive lands, like beaches, and have to build "amenities" up around them just to satisfy that desire. This needs to be a social consideration because it involves the wellbeing of everyone. There's a point here where we can't do something for the reason of wrecking the environment we live in...otherwise, this system is no better than the wasteful degradation of capitalism. (Incidentally, part of the reason for a labor accounting system for scarce goods is to ensure that we're not just producing those things into oblivion, based on how much people want them.)

[ckaihatsu]

I would ration, probably according to work, but with some differentials just enough to co-opt any sentiment of strike action of specialised workers.


Having *any* specialized workers ('professionals') around is implicitly a partial failure of the proletarian revolution since it means that such positions / work roles haven't yet been fully automated or 'reverse-engineered' to the point where virtually anyone could step up to readily dispatch such duties. It's a kind of labor elitism, and the revolutionary politics would be *backsliding* if it allowed such elitism to fester, and would be *further* kowtowing in favoring the labor-hours of specialized labor, particularly, by rewarding proportionately greater rations for it.

Rationing according to work is just another dead-end, for the reason just stated, and also generally because work ability / productivity is not necessarily correlated to humane *need* -- BB already made the correct argument:





[In] rationing by work [w]hy should someone who works 40 hours get preferential access to a wheelchair that they don't need, rather than someone who works 20 hours but needs a wheelchair?

[ckaihatsu]

This is incoherent. If we're worried about strawberry pickers vs. coal miners, there is not material abundance to begin with. But, that aside, both of these jobs can be automated using current technology. If it weren't for the cost of automation vs. continuing to use labor, the only labor that would go into coal mining is monitoring to make sure the thing doesn't collapse or explode. But all that aside, it's a crap comparison anyway. Have you ever picked strawberries in the middle of the goddamned summer? In a field that's been sprayed with all sorts of horrible chemicals?




You're right about one thing; there is no way to quantify the intensity of one job over another, which is why we don't do it. There's no reason to. Work that is refused to be done, either for danger or whatever, should be automated as quickly as possible. I, frankly, don't give a shit about comparing jobs, because there's no reason to in the first place.


High-minded words, all, but it's the kind of thing that's easily *said*. *Of course* we want everything to be automated so that we don't have to revisit this topic *ever again*, preferably after this very thread is finished.

But in the meantime there could very well be sewer lines that get clogged, electrical circuits that get shorted, traffic patterns of congestion, supplies to be delivered, and so on.

I'm sorry you're not more conducive to the examples I used. You can certainly fill-in-the-blank yourself, if only you get the larger *point* that society -- even a post-revolutionary one -- will most likely continue to retain distasteful, gruntwork-type duties that will have to be dispatched for the greater social good.

All it takes is for a significant subset of the population to say 'Fuck that, there's no way *I'm* going to be the one to work in that shit,' and, *boom*, all semblance of an egalitarian-minded social order is out-the-window, since *some other* poor slobs are going to be the ones sacrificing a good portion of their lives doing what *no one* should really have to do *at all*.

You've glossed over the proposed model I developed that *handles* this very kind of situation -- it does so by establishing ratios of equivalency among all actual work roles, per liberated-labor-hour.

Here's a sample scenario, from a past thread, for the sake of illustration:




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.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2782636&postcount=76


---





I don't hate marketers because they have a job that I find to be easier and more rewarding than mine; I hate them because their chosen jobs are direct support for wasteful capitalist consumerism. I don't hate CEOs because they get paid more to do less work; I hate CEOs because they live off of exploited labor of everyone else.

There's this idea that is going around these forums (and elsewhere it seems) where people have some bugaboo about comparing the intensity and resultant compensation for their jobs. This has never been a real world issue I've run into, talking to co-workers and what ever. I mean, who really gives a shit? It's not the point at all. It's not even close to the point of anything we're trying to work toward. There's nothing wrong with using an objective measurement of work -- [i]hours contributed into the general social product.


Nice rant, but again, it's a little *too* easy for anyone to fall off a log, *or* to pontificate about how people should "just" be rewarded appropriately for their actual labor contribution to the social good.

You've phrased it as 'hours contributed into the general social product', but I'm not seeing anything along the lines of an *implementation* for this, while I *have* done such a thing, for anyone's consideration -- see my blog entry.





I mean, Christ, do y'all (people with whom this is even a shadow of concern) sit around and compare dick sizes, too?


Jesus, I don't think you even want to go there.... First off, my full prowess is on display 100% of the time -- I'm talking 24/7. And with *that*, let me tell you that it *opens doors* for me -- *literally*. This thing is like an elephant's trunk, and I don't even have to use my hands for doorknobs anymore. Shall I continue -- ?!





I would've never though such superfluous things would have been any concern of communists. We're not trying to accommodate social ills from the previous system; we're trying to destroy them.


Granted, but do you really think that full automation would happen overnight, or should we perhaps instead be prepared for any contingencies where *someone* would have to do *some* kind of gruntwork, *somewhere* -- ? I'd rather err on the side of caution and have a *plan* ready to go, just in case the latter is the reality, if only for awhile.





Caviar and truffles aren't necessarily prized for anything other than the luxurious tag that they're stuck with. If we can grow beef in labs, we can grow caviar. We're getting close toward in-house grown truffles. But these sorts of things change with society itself. When we move into an era where we don't put social significance on the ability to obtain this crap, it won't be an issue. Not just ~200 years ago, lobster was considered cruel and unusual to feed to prisoners, and now it's a sought after item and a mark of social prominence.

As for things like "pre-existing luxury homes," take them down. We don't need mansions, where we can build excellent housing for everyone. Or if it's absolutely necessary, turn them into social centers or museums, like the Parisians did with opulent churches.


Again you're being evasive by attempting to throw a hasty "solution" at these *specifics*, thereby *sidestepping* the overall point, which you obviously don't see as valid to begin with, anyway....

Don't you think that, in *any* social paradigm, there will *always* be certain goods that are 'rare' -- that definitely can't be supplied to *everyone* on the planet, and even doubtfully to those who actually would *want* them -- ?

(I'll proffer the example of a much-anticipated, single-event music concert, since any given musical venue is necessarily constrained in physical size for accommodations. There's also certain fine wines which perhaps were made in limited quantities, then aged for decades. Again, feel free to fill-in-the-blank here.)

I actually take *exception* to your 'brute-force groupthink' approach here -- social engineering, basically -- *and* to your 'forced base commonality' line, by destroying and/or co-opting anything pre-existing, like mansions, that might offend your communal-kitchen mentality.

On this point I have another illustration from a past thread:







[H]ere's a thought-experiment, for the sake of argument:

What if someone was used to living in a room that's full of family heirlooms, which also happen to have world-historical significance from before the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism -- ? It would be a bed, paintings, tables, chairs, rugs, etc. -- all made of the finest artistry and workmanship -- and now, without having personally offended anyone that person wants to take occasional trips to other places and wants to return to find those personal possessions unscathed.

What if the room was rather sizeable, the number of objects rather numerous, was located in a fairly large building (mansion), and a certain upkeep / maintenance was required on a regular basis just to prevent undue deterioration and/or incursions -- ?

Should that person have a kind of special / privileged access to that room for their entire lifetime, no matter how long they may unexpectedly be away on travel? Should collective resources, even liberated-labor, be allocated to the room's upkeep while the person is away? What if the person was more on the elderly side of their years and couldn't properly tend to all of the duties of upkeep while they were present? And, finally, what special privileges, if any, should their *descendants* have to that room?

I'll even go so far here with a *second* line of argumentation as to cast doubt on my political credentials in the eyes of some....

Consider that, post-revolution, there could be varying use-cultures among various geography-specific communal groupings -- some might set the boundary between individual and society fairly tightly so that personal sentiment isn't favored, and so that almost all efforts would be additions to the collective enterprise.

But *other* groupings, on the other hand, might be fairly *tolerant* of individual self-determination, and would give each person a *wide latitude* over the direction of their own efforts.

Could there, over time, develop a kind of inter-factional / 'tribal' conflict based on 'personality differences' among these varying cultures, as over how to generalize production on larger scales -- ?

If, in the event of something catastrophic and unpreventable like a meteor that comes crashing through the earth's atmosphere, would the-grasshopper-and-the-ant narrative come to the fore, to socially horrendous results -- ?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2788162&postcount=15

[Creative Destruction]

That's a whole lot of words to say essentially nothing. To this, though:


Granted, but do you really think that full automation would happen overnight, or should we perhaps instead be prepared for any contingencies where *someone* would have to do *some* kind of gruntwork, *somewhere* -- ? I'd rather err on the side of caution and have a *plan* ready to go, just in case the latter is the reality, if only for awhile.

No, and I never said that. In fact, I explicitly have said that's not the case, several times in this thread and other places; which is the reason for the necessity of the one-to-one labor-hour proposal.

[ckaihatsu]

That's a whole lot of words to say essentially nothing.


You're being opaquely antagonistic.





To this, though:





Granted, but do you really think that full automation would happen overnight, or should we perhaps instead be prepared for any contingencies where *someone* would have to do *some* kind of gruntwork, *somewhere* -- ? I'd rather err on the side of caution and have a *plan* ready to go, just in case the latter is the reality, if only for awhile.





No, and I never said that. In fact, I explicitly have said that's not the case, several times in this thread and other places;


So you're saying that there *should* be a formal, systematic acknowledgement of differentials in labor hazards and difficulty -- ?

Because the only other approach is to *not* acknowledge inherent variations in labor roles.





which is the reason for the necessity of the one-to-one labor-hour proposal.


This makes no sense, and I think you've being evasive -- if society is to formally acknowledge differences in the hazards and difficulty of various labor roles then that means all (liberated-) labor hours would *not* be seen as equivalent, or 'one-to-one'.

And if a 'one-to-one labor-hour proposal' is a 'necessity', then that means society thinks all labor roles are basically *equivalent*, to the laborer, and in terms of contribution to the social good.

You can't have a social order in which gruntwork-type roles may continue, but then not acknowledge that they're distasteful and even hazardous kinds of labor. So if society *does* acknowledge a range of differentials over labor roles, it *cannot* treat all labor-hours as being equivalent, since they aren't.