How are rare items disributed in communism?

[Jacob Cliff]

It's obvious we have enough produced to supply all with their needs; we can have free access and not run short in things like food. But what of rare commodities? What of diamonds? Of that which will always be scarce? How are scarce things distributed, basically?

[Creative Destruction]

Diamonds aren't actually scarce, so..

And our productive agricultural capacity could (or is close to) feeding everyone in the world, on demand, for most food items. What we'd have to figure out is how to deal with the ridiculous amount of food waste that we produce.

[RedBlackStar]

The main attraction of rare things is that they're valuable, obviously that doesn't apply anymore. Outside of that I think the 'to each according to his need' rule works fairly well here. If you want to make a drill to fulfill your contribution to society then you need that diamond, but if you want to just make yourself look pretty with a new necklace or a fancy new vajazzle (not judging ;) ) you don't really need it.

[Slavic]

The main attraction of rare things is that they're valuable, obviously that doesn't apply anymore. Outside of that I think the 'to each according to his need' rule works fairly well here. If you want to make a drill to fulfill your contribution to society then you need that diamond, but if you want to just make yourself look pretty with a new necklace or a fancy new vajazzle (not judging ;) ) you don't really need it.

To each according to their need only applies in situations where said goods are scarce. Diamonds are artificially scarce due to a monopoly over their mining and production.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/18/russian-diamond-smorgasbord

If the OP is talking about goods that are exceedingly rare, ie. paintings, vintage cars, ect. Then there is only one good method with dealing with such goods.

http://cdn2.business2community.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/231256701.jpg

[RedBlackStar]

how to deal with the ridiculous amount of food waste that we produce.

I imagine the waste would be reduced by not letting kids in Africa starve to death like Capitalism does... but yeah you have a point. I suppose the fact that people are cooperating to produce food for one another then they would probably have a better idea of how much is needed, and they wouldn't be producing for maximum profits anymore...

Interesting dynamic, and one which I hadn't considered. Gold star (or red as the case may be)


TIf the OP is talking about goods that are exceedingly rare, ie. paintings, vintage cars, ect. Then there is only one good method with dealing with such goods.

You are wonderful.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I actually have wondered about this topic before.

For example, one of the greatest (if controversial) delicacies in the world is shark fin soup. Shark fin is expensive, of course, due to the risks involved in commercial fishing, the increasing rarity of certain shark species, government regulations, etc. Due to the factors of the profit motive and shady government-corporate practices, the practice of shark finning (i.e. catching sharks only to cut off their fins and then releasing them back into the water, rather than selling the entire shark for consumption, fin included) has endangered the shark population in ways that are unprecedented.

So, in a socialist society, if one wanted to eat shark fin soup (and I do recommend that everyone try it just once), you would have two options.

You could either obtain a fishing boat, get some friends, and go fishing for sharks (and why wouldn't you? Fishing is quite enjoyable). You could then take the fin this way, and bring the shark back to the local commune to feed family and friends.

OR

You could wait for special occasions, perhaps certain holidays, where the commune may decide to have fancy dishes like shark fin soup during a communal feast. You know, in between the holiday games and the communal fucking.

[ckaihatsu]

A more long-winded (and also more-comprehensive) treatment of this topic is here:


Luxuary in a Planned Economy

http://www.revleft.com/vb/luxuary-planned-economy-t190193/index.html

[consuming negativity]

well right now they're distributed via the lottery of birth so really anything you can think of would probably be just as good

my question to you, denizen of the learning forum, is what kind of system could possibly be worse than birth lottery, other than just giving all of the shit to a few people and....

wait a minute.

---

but (more) seriously, it would probably depend on the good.

diamonds: not rare
gold: not really rare
priceless artifacts: museum that shit

three examples already in this thread. another two could be like

expensive tea from across the world in some special tea region: lottery for those who actually want some
[product that is not being produced enough]: sign up on a list and first come first serve

i mean there are a billion ways to do it i don't get why people ask these questions but hopefully that answers yours. you seem to have a lot of them! ;)

[RedBlackStar]

i don't get why people ask these questions but hopefully that answers yours. you seem to have a lot of them! ;)

Reason 1) When you envision the perfect world (the Communist world for most of this forum I would assume) and you come across even one little tiny problem it will drive you crazy. You've got to find a solution.

Reason 2) These are the sort of problems people will try and find in a Communist society, because they have very few legitimate flaws to poke at.

Reason 3) BANTER!

[Comrade #138672]

Communism is more interested in the distribution of goods that we actually need. Rare items will probably be distributed in some way, but this is not a primary concern for communists.

[Red Star Rising]

When it comes to "rare items" like gold much of their value comes only from the fact that their rarity is a source of exchange value. Socialism abolishes exchange value so...

[ckaihatsu]

Communism is more interested in the distribution of goods that we actually need. Rare items will probably be distributed in some way, but this is not a primary concern for communists.


I personally think that *any* -- even the most seemingly trivial -- gap in our revolutionary theory only makes our case *weaker* overall.

Rare items like truffles and time-aged fine wine may not be social *necessities*, but a revolutionary order *will* inevitably be confronted with the administrative question of 'Who gets to have that stuff, and on what basis?'





expensive tea from across the world in some special tea region: lottery for those who actually want some
[product that is not being produced enough]: sign up on a list and first come first serve


The problem with 'first come first served' and 'lottery' is that while both are potentially doable and expedient -- as for new technological devices, and timeshares for vacation lodges, respectively -- neither approach is 100% fail-proof, and neither is really *politically satisfying* since they're both algorithmic instead of being socially-consciously hands-on. (One prime 'getaway' vacation spot could potentially become overbooked, regardless, during a certain time of the year which would be a *failure* of the entire political approach and ethos of egalitarianism. And if a sudden shortage of key materials for the production of a new device cropped-up unexpectedly, for whatever reason, it would become impossibly difficult to determine just who exactly is 'first' in the 'first come first served' lineup, due to crushing numbers of virtually simultaneous requests.)




[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://s6.postimg.org/q2scney29/10_Supply_prioritization_in_a_socialist_transi.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/9rs8r3lkd/full/)


Fortunately I'm pleased to say that I developed a sound approach to this area of problems, and fairly recently -- see 'additive prioritizations', at this post:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2784665&postcount=34

[Jacob Cliff]

Great visual chart. I'm a very visual learner so this helps, thank you.

[Comrade #138672]

I personally think that *any* -- even the most seemingly trivial -- gap in our revolutionary theory only makes our case *weaker* overall.

Rare items like truffles and time-aged fine wine may not be social *necessities*, but a revolutionary order *will* inevitably be confronted with the administrative question of 'Who gets to have that stuff, and on what basis?'
You are probably right about that, but, in any case, it will be a secondary issue. This must be stressed even in revolutionary theory.

[ckaihatsu]

You are probably right about that, but, in any case, it will be a secondary issue. This must be stressed even in revolutionary theory.


I'll say yes-and-no to this. Of course I understand where you're coming from, but in reply I'll note that people have individual personal needs for 'self-actualization', or 'self-determination', in their *own lives*.

Besides the obvious point that many luxury-type goods would just *continue to exist* beyond the happenings of a worldwide proletarian revolution, there's the question of one's own individual self-determination, and the socially-acceptable access to whatever materials might be required for one's own self-fulfillment:





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

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

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

[Comrade #138672]

I'll say yes-and-no to this. Of course I understand where you're coming from, but in reply I'll note that people have individual personal needs for 'self-actualization', or 'self-determination', in their *own lives*.

Besides the obvious point that many luxury-type goods would just *continue to exist* beyond the happenings of a worldwide proletarian revolution, there's the question of one's own individual self-determination, and the socially-acceptable access to whatever materials might be required for one's own self-fulfillment:I am not sure whether I agree with lumping luxury and rare items together, as if they were one and the same thing. Luxury items are not necessarily rare, nor do rare items necessarily constitute as luxury items.

[ckaihatsu]

I am not sure whether I agree with lumping luxury and rare items together, as if they were one and the same thing. Luxury items are not necessarily rare, nor do rare items necessarily constitute as luxury items.


Actually, for all matters of *political* context, these meanings *are* one-and-the-same -- anything that's scarce, in relation to outstanding organic demand, should be considered a 'luxury good', since it's not abundant and readily available.





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

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

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

[Sinister Intents]

Yeah, give me all ur stuff and I'll keep it safe in a bank for a special monetary fee. Come on give me ur jewelry n shit I'll take good care of it ;)

Nah, actually I could care less about the distribution of rare, scarce, specialty, and luxury items. Let them be distributed according to what people want and need. People will also produce things to be distributed and so forth.

This subject isn't my specialty, so there is my two cents

[ckaihatsu]

Yeah, give me all ur stuff and I'll keep it safe in a bank for a special monetary fee. Come on give me ur jewelry n shit I'll take good care of it ;)

Nah, actually I could care less about the distribution of rare, scarce, specialty, and luxury items. Let them be distributed according to what people want and need. People will also produce things to be distributed and so forth.

This subject isn't my specialty, so there is my two cents


(I'll refer you to post #12.... There could realistically be more sincere mass demand -- as for a newly developed tech device -- than could be readily fulfilled, early-on. A post-commodity social order would have to be able to differentiate, or 'prioritize', among the many claims to new production, on some kind of socially egalitarian basis.) (Etc.)

[Illegalitarian]

The vast majority of goods are not scarce or rare.. just because we won't exactly know what to do with all of the diamonds doesn't really mean much to me. People would find some sort of arrangement, I'm sure.

If you want to go mine a diamond, do it. No one is stopping you. Go on, get it.

[ckaihatsu]

The vast majority of goods are not scarce or rare.. just because we won't exactly know what to do with all of the diamonds doesn't really mean much to me. People would find some sort of arrangement, I'm sure.

If you want to go mine a diamond, do it. No one is stopping you. Go on, get it.


Absolutely -- no argument.

But the only complication inherent to all of this is that a *post*-capitalist political economy should *at least* be able to do what the capitalist economy of former times did -- (and more). What you're suggesting is the 'd.i.y.' aspect of a post-private-property social order, but if everyone was *limited* to just 'No one is stopping you. Go on, get it', then that's not much of a *socialized* economy at all -- would everyone also be stuck on a set piece of land and have to produce all the foodstuffs they consumed on *family farms*, too -- ?

I'll borrow from the 'rock star' type of socialist who wants socialism basically so that they can do what they really *want* to do -- play music and be a rock star. Should this type of person *have* to put down the guitar so as to 'Go on, get it' in terms of farming for their own food, or would a socialist society have some kind of material distribution that allows the person's *music* to be recognized as having some kind of social value, with the reciprocity of food (etc.) for living, in "return" -- ?

An individual's own composed and performed *music* would be -- in economic / material terms -- 'rare', since there's *no one else* like them making that particular kind of music (or art, etc.).

What would a socialist social order do if that person's 'rare' music became somewhat popular and there was a large-ish demand for attendance at a concert put on by that musician / performer -- ? The physical space at any given musical venue is inherently limited, so the calendar event for a concert of any kind would potentially have to be 'rationed'. And how would a communist-type collectivist administration differentiate from among a mass of fans that *all* say 'I'm their #1 fan, and *I* want to be at that concert!' -- ?

[Sinister Intents]

Let's let CKaihatsu deal with all of this after the revolution

[ckaihatsu]

Let's let CKaihatsu deal with all of this after the revolution


No, that would be *specialization*.


= D

[Sinister Intents]

No, that would be *specialization*.


= D

Would specialization cease to exist?

I specialize in concrete work and know how to do many specific applications and many different tasks pertaining to concrete work and masonry

[ckaihatsu]

Would specialization cease to exist?

I specialize in concrete work and know how to do many specific applications and many different tasks pertaining to concrete work and masonry


I'd say that the workers' collectivized self-determination over social production would *indisputably* be non-specialized -- that's the very *definition* of 'revolution', and is the whole point of being politically active (in whatever way) as a revolutionary.

It may be a little more ambiguous in terms of post-commodity *work roles*, though, though I think that the *ethos* should be one of 'anti-specialization', so as to prevent any kind of elitism or turf-building. Consider that the *social* ethos would at least be that of Wikipedia -- and more -- in terms of freeing knowledge and allowing full collaboration over knowledge-production. (I would imagine *all* workplaces / factories to self-coordinate production among participants over basic wiki-page websites.)

[ckaihatsu]

Let's let CKaihatsu deal with all of this after the revolution


Actually, as far as I'm concerned, this has all already been solved -- again, post #12. You're welcome.


= D

[Illegalitarian]

But the only complication inherent to all of this is that a *post*-capitalist political economy should *at least* be able to do what the capitalist economy of former times did -- (and more). What you're suggesting is the 'd.i.y.' aspect of a post-private-property social order, but if everyone was *limited* to just 'No one is stopping you. Go on, get it', then that's not much of a *socialized* economy at all -- would everyone also be stuck on a set piece of land and have to produce all the foodstuffs they consumed on *family farms*, too -- ?

You're universalizing a phenomenon that only applies to very rare products. Of course most of the economy would be socialized, but for rare items that could not be socialized such as this, well, if someone wanted to bother with them, let them bother with them. It's not a big deal, just because a communist gift economy wouldn't be able to give diamonds to everyone doesn't mean much


I'll borrow from the 'rock star' type of socialist who wants socialism basically so that they can do what they really *want* to do -- play music and be a rock star. Should this type of person *have* to put down the guitar so as to 'Go on, get it' in terms of farming for their own food, or would a socialist society have some kind of material distribution that allows the person's *music* to be recognized as having some kind of social value, with the reciprocity of food (etc.) for living, in "return" -- ?


re: above, not what I'm talking about. If you want to play guitar, that's fine too. Socially necessary labor and all other labor wouldn't require that every member of society toil, just enough to get what needs to be done done.






What would a socialist social order do if that person's 'rare' music became somewhat popular and there was a large-ish demand for attendance at a concert put on by that musician / performer -- ? The physical space at any given musical venue is inherently limited, so the calendar event for a concert of any kind would potentially have to be 'rationed'. And how would a communist-type collectivist administration differentiate from among a mass of fans that *all* say 'I'm their #1 fan, and *I* want to be at that concert!' -- ?


We're dealing with a physical limitation in this example. If a concert building can't old any more people, then it simply can't, access would probably be based on a first-come-first-serve basis.

[Sinister Intents]

What about my specialization?

[Illegalitarian]

Cat rationing

[ckaihatsu]

You're universalizing a phenomenon that only applies to very rare products.


Possibly. I like to think of it as 'extending the logic or line of reasoning that you've put forth'.





Of course most of the economy would be socialized, but for rare items that could not be socialized such as this, well, if someone wanted to bother with them, let them bother with them. It's not a big deal, just because a communist gift economy wouldn't be able to give diamonds to everyone doesn't mean much


It's not so much the *material fulfillment* that's of importance here -- since diamonds are just an arbitrary example, after all -- but rather the *overall political approach* that's worth going-over in the here-and-now.

You're indicating that 'luxury'-type / discretionary items would be in a kind of 'gray area', where the overarching socialist political economy may or may not have a consistent process for dealing with such materials.

This is fair, of course, but in the interests of completeness and a *comprehensive* approach to political logistics we do have options now. Post #12.





re: above, not what I'm talking about. If you want to play guitar, that's fine too.


Sure, you can easily *say* that, but what if objective circumstances were a little bit *rougher*, especially during the revolution itself, in the *transition* to a post-capitalist order -- ?

Who are *you* to arbitrarily, summarily say that 'Oh, yeah, that guy's okay -- let him play guitar', while everyone else may happen to be shouldering somewhat more *arduous* burdens, say for continuously ongoing political agitation, mass struggle, and the like -- ?

(As soon as we have to deal with *specifics* of any sort there are *decisions* inherently involved, and the decision-making for such should *not* be specialized, as into authority-type figureheads. Hence the objective need for a generic, systematic approach. Hence post #12.)





Socially necessary labor and all other labor wouldn't require that every member of society toil, just enough to get what needs to be done done.


Okay, again fair enough, but, what if the advent of a truly socialist global society happened to blow people's aspirations and enthusiasm through the stratosphere -- ? The 'ceiling' of mass / popular expectation might rise tremendously and suddenly the whole world is abuzz with 'Let's get to Mars. Now!' (Or whatever else.)

'Socially necessary labor' would take on a whole new meaning, and general social expectations would be for everyone to pitch in to a significant degree to help get humanity to Mars, as quickly as possible. Again, who the fuck would "you" be in such a situation to say 'Oh, all that really *needs* to get done is to pluck earthworms out of the ground, forage in the forest for greens, and then have the rest of my life to play guitar and be a rock star.' -- ?

Such a position would be in a dramatic *minority* in such a world -- 'socially necessary labor' is a *very* elastic term.





We're dealing with a physical limitation in this example. If a concert building can't old any more people, then it simply can't, access would probably be based on a first-come-first-serve basis.


People have access to online communications technologies -- what if literally 1 million people clicked the 'Attend' button for the concert at roughly the same time, say within about 6 hours or so -- ? That's the kind of circumstances where 'first-come-first-served' would simply break down due to logistical issues, exposing the weakness of the political / only-*quasi*-collectivist social order, since nothing more collectively robust was ever socially organized.

[ckaihatsu]

---





What about my specialization?





[I]t may be a little more ambiguous in terms of post-commodity *work roles*, though, though I think that the *ethos* should be one of 'anti-specialization', so as to prevent any kind of elitism or turf-building. Consider that the *social* ethos would at least be that of Wikipedia -- and more -- in terms of freeing knowledge and allowing full collaboration over knowledge-production. (I would imagine *all* workplaces / factories to self-coordinate production among participants over basic wiki-page websites.)

[Illegalitarian]

It's not so much the *material fulfillment* that's of importance here -- since diamonds are just an arbitrary example, after all -- but rather the *overall political approach* that's worth going-over in the here-and-now.

You're indicating that 'luxury'-type / discretionary items would be in a kind of 'gray area', where the overarching socialist political economy may or may not have a consistent process for dealing with such materials.

This is fair, of course, but in the interests of completeness and a *comprehensive* approach to political logistics we do have options now. Post #12.

I think you're looking for utopia where there is none. Socialists have this tendency to give in to the argumentation of conservatives, libs etc here, this absurd idea that just because we don't have an answer for literally everything that the system is a broken, or undesirable one. Maybe there is no way to distribute the small handful of rare items of this nature, maybe there is. All I'm saying is, why bother our heads with it?

You may, if you wish, as a simple thought exercise, but the fact that the vast majority of goods would be brought to anyone who needs or wants them is enough for me. Chill, my friend, it will be fine! :lol:






Sure, you can easily *say* that, but what if objective circumstances were a little bit *rougher*, especially during the revolution itself, in the *transition* to a post-capitalist order -- ?

Who are *you* to arbitrarily, summarily say that 'Oh, yeah, that guy's okay -- let him play guitar', while everyone else may happen to be shouldering somewhat more *arduous* burdens, say for continuously ongoing political agitation, mass struggle, and the like -- ?

(As soon as we have to deal with *specifics* of any sort there are *decisions* inherently involved, and the decision-making for such should *not* be specialized, as into authority-type figureheads. Hence the objective need for a generic, systematic approach. Hence post #12.)


We're talking about a post-revolutionary communist society. In a revolutionary situation, of course, it would vary. It's a bridge we'll have to cross together when we come to it, like all revolutionaries before us, in that regard.

If some guy playing his guitar is going to end the revolution, it probably wasn't a very good one to begin with, anyways.




Okay, again fair enough, but, what if the advent of a truly socialist global society happened to blow people's aspirations and enthusiasm through the stratosphere -- ? The 'ceiling' of mass / popular expectation might rise tremendously and suddenly the whole world is abuzz with 'Let's get to Mars. Now!' (Or whatever else.)

'Socially necessary labor' would take on a whole new meaning, and general social expectations would be for everyone to pitch in to a significant degree to help get humanity to Mars, as quickly as possible. Again, who the fuck would "you" be in such a situation to say 'Oh, all that really *needs* to get done is to pluck earthworms out of the ground, forage in the forest for greens, and then have the rest of my life to play guitar and be a rock star.' -- ?

Such a position would be in a dramatic *minority* in such a world -- 'socially necessary labor' is a *very* elastic term.



Then round you up a posse and live on Mars. Not me, though, I'm going to watch tv and play guitar and rip this hear bong. Who's going to stop me?

"socially necessary labor" means labor necessary to keep society functioning and meet the most basic needs of everyone in society. This inherently excludes space man visits.




People have access to online communications technologies -- what if literally 1 million people clicked the 'Attend' button for the concert at roughly the same time, say within about 6 hours or so -- ? That's the kind of circumstances where 'first-come-first-served' would simply break down due to logistical issues, exposing the weakness of the political / only-*quasi*-collectivist social order, since nothing more collectively robust was ever socially organized.


This is a purely philosophical thought experiment. It's like when ancaps say "well taxation is theft that keeps the truly brilliant from reaching the innovative capacity they're truly capable of, because they face so many rules and regulations and taxes that take their money, money they'll be thrown in a cage over if they don't cough it up to the statists!"

Except, you know, the number of bourgeois being thrown in jail at gun point for not paying their taxes is probably somewhere around zero. It's a useless thing to think about, just like the prospect of a million people all trying to buy Kid Rock tickets at once.

It's possible that something of this nature could happen, but will it? Will the system break down and go from being collectivist to only "quasi-collectivist?" I don't think so.

[RedBlackStar]

though I think that the *ethos* should be one of 'anti-specialization', so as to prevent any kind of elitism or turf-building

I fully disagree with you on this, which is a shame because I really liked your other idea, I'm like a sloth or something and two seperate things can't happen at once or else I'll get confused and just sleep.

On a serious note: the doctors know how to doctor best, the shoemakers know how to make shoes best, the builders know how to build best etc. They should be able to manage their workplace through some sort of union system, the farmers don't tell the builders how to build and the builders won't tell the farmers how to farm. To prevent elitism: obviously nobody will get paid more so that's that fixed. Furthermore the free and open access to education will make every job essentialy attainable.

[Illegalitarian]

Obviously not just anyone will be able to walk in and start cutting on someone's heart, or flying an airplane or something. There will still be professionals, probably far more of them for the reasons you highlighted.

When we talk about ending specialization, we mean ending the division of labor altogether, where applicable. There would be no such thing as a "job", there would be no more farmers, builders etc in the sense that you just get up every day and do the same thing. Work becomes social, with everyone contributing wherever they can, wherever they want to. Obviously if you wanted to do something you had no knowledge of you would be trained, as everyone is when they start a job, and there are exceptions, but for the most part, the division of labor would be no more.

Sure, you could do just one thing if that's your thing, but I don't think it would be uncommon to see people getting up one morning and, say, making shoes, then getting up the next and collecting trash, or working in a textile plant. Work would, again, be social, and collective in that way.

[Comrade #138672]

Actually, for all matters of *political* context, these meanings *are* one-and-the-same -- anything that's scarce, in relation to outstanding organic demand, should be considered a 'luxury good', since it's not abundant and readily available.OK, I see what you mean. So, anything that is abundant, cannot be a luxury item, according to your definition. Viewed in that way, luxury is completely independent of use-value.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

When it comes to "rare items" like gold much of their value comes only from the fact that their rarity is a source of exchange value. Socialism abolishes exchange value so...

Gold is soft, malleable, and non-toxic, which makes it perfect for things like jewelry and dental fillings, and it also happens to be an excellent conductor. I imagine that the demand for gold in a socialist society wouldn't be significantly smaller than the demand for gold today.

On the other hand, gold isn't really scarce, and neither are diamonds (in particular, we can actually produce diamonds as opposed to having to dig them up).

And actually, very few things are scarce in the sense that they can't be produced in sufficient numbers to satisfy demand. Those things that are scarce are, I think, best left to museums and the like, or organisations and clubs that would ensure that everyone interested has some form of access (e.g. a vintage car club that would ensure that anyone interested has at least one ride).


I actually have wondered about this topic before.

For example, one of the greatest (if controversial) delicacies in the world is shark fin soup. Shark fin is expensive, of course, due to the risks involved in commercial fishing, the increasing rarity of certain shark species, government regulations, etc. Due to the factors of the profit motive and shady government-corporate practices, the practice of shark finning (i.e. catching sharks only to cut off their fins and then releasing them back into the water, rather than selling the entire shark for consumption, fin included) has endangered the shark population in ways that are unprecedented.

So, in a socialist society, if one wanted to eat shark fin soup (and I do recommend that everyone try it just once), you would have two options.

You could either obtain a fishing boat, get some friends, and go fishing for sharks (and why wouldn't you? Fishing is quite enjoyable). You could then take the fin this way, and bring the shark back to the local commune to feed family and friends.

OR

You could wait for special occasions, perhaps certain holidays, where the commune may decide to have fancy dishes like shark fin soup during a communal feast. You know, in between the holiday games and the communal fucking.

Shark fin soup tastes like tears and failure. But disregarding that, again, this seems problematic in that it presupposes that production will be organised by "communes" and individual people doing whatever the hell they want, which is pretty much the opposite of how socialism is generally understood (the social control of the means of production). I imagine the demand for shark fin soup will be assessed somehow, and then targets for shark fins will be decided. Then the required sharks will be fished or raised or I have no idea, maybe we'll get lucky and the cartilaginous horror can be grown in a vat or something.


I fully disagree with you on this, which is a shame because I really liked your other idea, I'm like a sloth or something and two seperate things can't happen at once or else I'll get confused and just sleep.

On a serious note: the doctors know how to doctor best, the shoemakers know how to make shoes best, the builders know how to build best etc. They should be able to manage their workplace through some sort of union system, the farmers don't tell the builders how to build and the builders won't tell the farmers how to farm. To prevent elitism: obviously nobody will get paid more so that's that fixed. Furthermore the free and open access to education will make every job essentialy attainable.

It doesn't work like that.

Obviously if the builders want to use more material than society is willing to provide them, then the builders don't have some sacred guild prerogative to do what they want. If the farmers want to raise cabbages because it's easy, but no one wants to eat as many cabbages as they produce, again, it would be time for society to say to the farmers to get their act together or let someone else do it.

As for "the doctors knowing how to doctor best", I don't know if you're familiar with the practice of episiotomy. I'm not going to describe it here because ugh, but several studies show that routine episiotomy (as opposed to necessary episiotomy) is a bad practice with significant impact on the woman's health and sexual functions after birth. For that reason, routine episiotomy has mostly been abandoned, except in certain countries (from what I know, Croatia is among them). Should we say "well the doctors know how to doctor best" and let them continue a practice that is bad for their patients? What about doctors that prescribe quack treatments? It's not as simple as "each professional knows how to do his job". You also have to take into account that each customer knows what he wants.

[Comrade #138672]

What about my specialization?What? You can still build stuff, but that is not the point here.

[Sinister Intents]

What? You can still build stuff, but that is not the point here.

I'll help build things and do other productive tasks and things that directly benefit myself and others. Can't really say what we'd all do but we'd be free to do as we please, also CK's posts tend to be pretty clear and he addressed it well I think in which I realized I basically asked the sane question twice

[ckaihatsu]

I think you're looking for utopia where there is none. Socialists have this tendency to give in to the argumentation of conservatives, libs etc here, this absurd idea that just because we don't have an answer for literally everything that the system is a broken, or undesirable one. Maybe there is no way to distribute the small handful of rare items of this nature, maybe there is. All I'm saying is, why bother our heads with it?


I'll assure you that my motivations for providing a thorough treatment of revolutionary political logistics *isn't* some kind of knee-jerk response to right-wing-based provocations.

I'll take the place of your crude characterization by again repeating that 'additive prioritizations' is a *real* response to a *realistic* potential scenario, and even an entire *class* of scenarios -- wherever popular organic demand would easily be overwhelming, or anywhere that an algorithmic approach (first-come-first-served, lottery) would just be politically unsatisfactory and not robust enough to be called truly 'collectivist'.

You'd like to *think* that the only materials concerned would be a few stray diamonds scattered around the world, leading to a few minor squabbles, but this is just more of your casual opinion-making, with no concrete line of reasoning behind it.





You may, if you wish, as a simple thought exercise, but the fact that the vast majority of goods would be brought to anyone who needs or wants them is enough for me. Chill, my friend, it will be fine! :lol:


Hey, I appreciate the comraderie and comrade-liness here, but it also costs me the rigor of my stated position, if I forfeit it in favor of your 'just-chill' line. Thanks for the sentiments, though.





We're talking about a post-revolutionary communist society. In a revolutionary situation, of course, it would vary. It's a bridge we'll have to cross together when we come to it, like all revolutionaries before us, in that regard.


Okay, true -- fair enough.





If some guy playing his guitar is going to end the revolution, it probably wasn't a very good one to begin with, anyways.


Well, again, you're either negligently or deliberately missing the point, by focusing on the future "fulfillment" instead of taking the example as a more-general / universal case-in-point.

*Of course* one person playing guitar isn't going to make or break a revolution -- what's at-stake, though, could be the *proportion* of leisure time, to the overall 24-hour-day, that is generally socially seen as 'acceptable', in relation to labor time, and in relation to political / co-administrative time.




[2] G.U.T.S.U.C., Simplified

http://s6.postimg.org/byrw1a1gx/2_G_U_T_S_U_C_Simplified.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/wvo45xzhp/full/)


The more broad-based political participation there is -- then as now -- the stronger the revolution will be, which comes at the expense of productive labor time, and personal leisure time.





Then round you up a posse and live on Mars. Not me, though, I'm going to watch tv and play guitar and rip this hear bong. Who's going to stop me?


(See the previous part.)





"socially necessary labor" means labor necessary to keep society functioning and meet the most basic needs of everyone in society. This inherently excludes space man visits.


I wouldn't be so certain -- even the simplest task of 'provision of food' (which is inherently part of the social reproduction of labor) is open to a wide variety of interpretations and prevailing social norms.

I don't think it's too far-fetched to consider a world in which an overall global democratic trajectory takes hold and points humanity in a singular direction of forward-ness -- it may not be Mars, but it could be a worldwide tunnel system, or fully automated transportation, or -- you name it.





This is a purely philosophical thought experiment. It's like when ancaps say "well taxation is theft that keeps the truly brilliant from reaching the innovative capacity they're truly capable of, because they face so many rules and regulations and taxes that take their money, money they'll be thrown in a cage over if they don't cough it up to the statists!"

Except, you know, the number of bourgeois being thrown in jail at gun point for not paying their taxes is probably somewhere around zero. It's a useless thing to think about, just like the prospect of a million people all trying to buy Kid Rock tickets at once.

It's possible that something of this nature could happen, but will it? Will the system break down and go from being collectivist to only "quasi-collectivist?" I don't think so.


Obviously we have differences on this topic, and that's fine -- I'll concede that it's a relatively peripheral area in relation to the core of revolutionary theory, but I like to have all of the bases covered.

[ckaihatsu]

I fully disagree with you on this, which is a shame because I really liked your other idea, I'm like a sloth or something and two seperate things can't happen at once or else I'll get confused and just sleep.

On a serious note: the doctors know how to doctor best, the shoemakers know how to make shoes best, the builders know how to build best etc. They should be able to manage their workplace through some sort of union system, the farmers don't tell the builders how to build and the builders won't tell the farmers how to farm. To prevent elitism: obviously nobody will get paid more so that's that fixed. Furthermore the free and open access to education will make every job essentialy attainable.


What you're describing is essentially a return to the craft-guild system, which was *all about* turf -- it's a recipe for closed-off fiefdoms of labor expertise, with strict internal hierarchies. Not a good idea.

Nor is it "obvious" that all (liberated) labor should be considered as equivalent by-the-hour. I'll make the comparison of raising kids vs. creating electricity supplies as a suitable mind-exploder here.

Certainly I think those who have more personal interest and accumulated expertise will naturally, informally be granted more respect in their chosen field(s) generally, but this doesn't mean that people would *have* to specialize, or that 'specialization' to a field would necessarily be the overarching principle of labor organization.

Here's from a past thread:





[T]he privilege of working in a managerial position should be shared more equally, among highly skilled professionals.





This is still *reformist* in nature, leaving the overall hierarchy and the social norm of it, intact.

I'd say what's more to the point is the *production* itself -- we might go so far as to look at any given workplace generically, as a series of *situations* (events), through time, with corresponding *issues* from the same. Nowadays it would be entirely feasible to address the *issues* themselves, from a broad-based participation (even bringing in input from arbitrary persons who are so interested and relevant to the situation, over the Internet). The overhead of a hierarchical social relations can be obviated entirely, leaving a 'prevailing informed sentiment' (for lack of a better term) that would be the deciding / determining direction for any given issue.

Obviously this is more suited to a *post*-class-structured societal norm, but it's *logistically* doable, conceivably, at least.

[ckaihatsu]

Actually, for all matters of *political* context, these meanings *are* one-and-the-same -- anything that's scarce, in relation to outstanding organic demand, should be considered a 'luxury good', since it's not abundant and readily available.





OK, I see what you mean. So, anything that is abundant, cannot be a luxury item, according to your definition. Viewed in that way, luxury is completely independent of use-value.


Just did a web search and found this:





[T]he wage [that] workers receive can be above or below this level [of socially necessary labour time] depending on class struggle. It is here that 'natural needs' take on the more concrete form of 'necessary needs'. So if the wage or money received is greater than the value of labour-power the workers' 'necessary needs' increase. This may allow the new form of 'luxury needs' to come into existence and be satisfied. If the converse happens then workers could be forced back onto the lower limit of 'necessary needs'. If workers cannot sell their labour-power, they could fall even further to the level of 'natural needs' proper. 'Natural needs' take the form of 'necessary needs', which in turn take the form of 'luxury needs'. Those needs considered as luxury at one time can, with social development and increased wages, become necessary, and, due to changing circumstances, necessary goods may even become luxury goods. Similarly, depending on societal development, 'necessary needs' could become 'natural needs'. New needs are 'socially created' through developments in the production process, and these appear on the market in the form 'luxury needs'.




Hegel and Marx: The Concept of Need

By Ian Fraser




http://books.google.com/books?id=T807hm0IcIIC&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=Marx+luxury+goods&source=bl&ots=MgheLy-k47&sig=ESkAOQp3dr_QMXCjWdFSP4YvFqE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ePN8VKbBJYymNvH4gtAO&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Marx%20luxury%20goods&f=false

[Illegalitarian]

I'll take the place of your crude characterization by again repeating that 'additive prioritizations' is a *real* response to a *realistic* potential scenario, and even an entire *class* of scenarios -- wherever popular organic demand would easily be overwhelming, or anywhere that an algorithmic approach (first-come-first-served, lottery) would just be politically unsatisfactory and not robust enough to be called truly 'collectivist'.

You'd like to *think* that the only materials concerned would be a few stray diamonds scattered around the world, leading to a few minor squabbles, but this is just more of your casual opinion-making, with no concrete line of reasoning behind it.

My concrete line of reasoning is that you're looking for scarcity where it doesn't really exist.. we're not post scarcity with all goods, sure, but for the vast majority of them, we're already there and the "scarcity" problem is actually one that's socially constructed and enforced by wage labor and commodity production.

I'm not opinion-making, I thought I was poking hole in a hysterical fear that not everyone would get a diamond after the revolution, but for the sake of this pure thought experiment continuing I will concede.



Well, again, you're either negligently or deliberately missing the point, by focusing on the future "fulfillment" instead of taking the example as a more-general / universal case-in-point.


Future fulfillment is all there is. I see no point in focusing on extreme hypotheticals, that's all.



*Of course* one person playing guitar isn't going to make or break a revolution -- what's at-stake, though, could be the *proportion* of leisure time, to the overall 24-hour-day, that is generally socially seen as 'acceptable', in relation to labor time, and in relation to political / co-administrative time.


I don't think any of these concepts would exist in such a society. "Work" as we know it wouldn't exist anymore, the divide between leisure and "work" would be quite nil.




I wouldn't be so certain -- even the simplest task of 'provision of food' (which is inherently part of the social reproduction of labor) is open to a wide variety of interpretations and prevailing social norms.

I don't think it's too far-fetched to consider a world in which an overall global democratic trajectory takes hold and points humanity in a singular direction of forward-ness -- it may not be Mars, but it could be a worldwide tunnel system, or fully automated transportation, or -- you name it.


I don't think that's very far fetched either, but I also don't think it has any baring on "leisure time" as you put it, or any other forms of socially necessary labor




Obviously we have differences on this topic, and that's fine -- I'll concede that it's a relatively peripheral area in relation to the core of revolutionary theory, but I like to have all of the bases covered.


That's cool. If more people think like that, maybe all bases will truly be covered when the time comes. I'm just more of a simple pragmatist, I guess

[Jim Jones]

To prevent elitism: obviously nobody will get paid more so that's that fixed. Furthermore the free and open access to education will make every job essentialy attainable.

Hi all, newbie to the site. I've been reading comments, and the quote above jumped out as totally ludicrous.

If everyone is paid equally, why would anyone want a difficult, challenging, stressful job?

For example, say my job in the new society is an air traffic controller. Its one of the most stressful jobs in the world, lives are riding on my awareness and quick judgement everyday. What is my motivation to keep working at that job if I see my neighbor, the McDonalds cashier, earning the same pay as me for a much easier job?

[ckaihatsu]

we're not post scarcity with all goods, sure, but for the vast majority of them, we're already there and the "scarcity" problem is actually one that's socially constructed and enforced by wage labor and commodity production.


Yes, absolutely. I'm in full agreement on this in the context of capitalism.





My concrete line of reasoning is that you're looking for scarcity where it doesn't really exist..


I'd like to respectfully differ here.

What I'm *trying* to do is to posit that, in *any* social / historical paradigm there will *always* be a domain of goods and services that are necessarily 'scarce', or 'rare'. (My examples are a newly developed tech device, before mass production, and a much-anticipated music concert event, respectively.)

In such cases it would be better for society to have a consistent, systematized method for handling such 'scarcity' -- this is commonly referred to as 'rationing'. But 'rationing' or 'handling scarcity' only begs-the-question -- *how*, exactly, *should* such goods and services of this type be organized? What potential set system would be satisfactory?

So, once again -- see post #12.





I'm not opinion-making, I thought I was poking hole in a hysterical fear that not everyone would get a diamond after the revolution, but for the sake of this pure thought experiment continuing I will concede.




Future fulfillment is all there is.


Sure, of course, but from our standpoint in the here-and-now we're logistically unable to comment on any *specifics* of future fulfillment, because the actual social context for that is entirely *unknown* and *unknowable*, today.

What we *can* do, though, is speak to *generalities* of future cases, such as the generality of 'scarce resources', and how that *category* of material reality could or should be dealt with.





I see no point in focusing on extreme hypotheticals, that's all.


What you call an 'extreme hypothetical', I call a 'realistic potential social concern'.





I don't think any of these concepts would exist in such a society. "Work" as we know it wouldn't exist anymore, the divide between leisure and "work" would be quite nil.


Sure, I understand that, with full social co-empowerment the activities of collective planning, individual self-directed creative initiative, and personal-social enjoyment would all kind of merge together, combined in the direction of a common purpose.

But, for the sake of discussion and analysis in the here-and-now, it's valuable to be able to distinguish among these three fundamental modalities of social existence (co-administration, labor, pleasure).


---





"socially necessary labor" means labor necessary to keep society functioning and meet the most basic needs of everyone in society. This inherently excludes space man visits.





I wouldn't be so certain -- even the simplest task of 'provision of food' (which is inherently part of the social reproduction of labor) is open to a wide variety of interpretations and prevailing social norms.

I don't think it's too far-fetched to consider a world in which an overall global democratic trajectory takes hold and points humanity in a singular direction of forward-ness -- it may not be Mars, but it could be a worldwide tunnel system, or fully automated transportation, or -- you name it.





I don't think that's very far fetched either, but I also don't think it has any baring on "leisure time" as you put it, or any other forms of socially necessary labor


Well, you just asserted that the divide between 'work' and 'leisure' would blur away, so then the implication from that is that any mass project like organizing a trip to Mars would inherently be humanity's creative pleasure, and *also* 'socially necessary labor'.





That's cool. If more people think like that, maybe all bases will truly be covered when the time comes. I'm just more of a simple pragmatist, I guess

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Hi all, newbie to the site. I've been reading comments, and the quote above jumped out as totally ludicrous.

If everyone is paid equally, why would anyone want a difficult, challenging, stressful job?

For example, say my job in the new society is an air traffic controller. Its one of the most stressful jobs in the world, lives are riding on my awareness and quick judgement everyday. What is my motivation to keep working at that job if I see my neighbor, the McDonalds cashier, earning the same pay as me for a much easier job?

I don't know, what is your motivation?

I don't think society is required to provide motivation for you in the form of a graded pay scheme. Work if you like, if you don't, then don't - that's the rule of thumb in socialism.

And the point was presumably not that pays would be equal but that they wouldn't exist. Free access and all that.

[Comrade #138672]

Why would anyone want to do something that is challenging? I do not know. Maybe because they like being challenged?

[Jim Jones]

I don't know, what is your motivation?

I don't think society is required to provide motivation for you in the form of a graded pay scheme. Work if you like, if you don't, then don't - that's the rule of thumb in socialism.

And the point was presumably not that pays would be equal but that they wouldn't exist. Free access and all that.

I understand internal fulfillment can be a motivating factor when choosing a career path..take teachers for example. Most young people who get into teaching do so knowing the pay is not great, but the job is rewarding because supposedly they are molding the youth and preparing them to become productive members of society.

And because I've been a teacher, I tell you it can be a stressful job. Stressful to the point that after a year, I decided it wasn't for me. I was able to luckily find a rewarding job that paid well, where I was able to enjoy my work and support myself to a level that satisfied my needs and wants.

So my question is, if work is optional and people can decide not to work and still have their needs met, what provides the motivation for people to not just play all day, but to perform a productive societal task?

[RedMaterialist]

Hi all, newbie to the site. I've been reading comments, and the quote above jumped out as totally ludicrous.

If everyone is paid equally, why would anyone want a difficult, challenging, stressful job?

For example, say my job in the new society is an air traffic controller. Its one of the most stressful jobs in the world, lives are riding on my awareness and quick judgement everyday. What is my motivation to keep working at that job if I see my neighbor, the McDonalds cashier, earning the same pay as me for a much easier job?

You work as an air traffic controller because of your ability (that is yourpassion, as the kids say nowadays) to work at a high stress, skilled job. You are paid because of your need to feed your family, take care of yourself, etc.

Is an air traffic controller really that special? The whole system of controllers can be fired in one day and be replaced by untrained controllers. And most of the work is done by computers.

However, pay and work will be related in the initial transition from capitalism to socialism. Workers who are highly skilled, who received a higher education, etc. will be paid more than low skilled workers. This is a part of the old system which will carry over to socialism. The higher paid workers will be taxed at a progressive rate to pay for health care, education, old age care, etc.

The question you raise will be an issue only when all work for pay or wages will be abolished. Capitalists believe that unequal pay for unequal work is an eternal system that has always existed, except that humans have lived for hundreds of thousands of years without that system.

[Illegalitarian]

Ckaih you might actually be a bigger nerd over gift economics than I am :lol:

Good times, good times

[ckaihatsu]

Ckaih you might actually be a bigger nerd over gift economics than I am :lol:

Good times, good times


'Ckaih' -- that really rolls off the tongue, doesn't it -- ? (grin) (Considering the whole thing would be pronounced 'see-kie-hot-soo'.)

Everyone has to be a nerd about *something*, I guess.... Take a refreshing inhalation for me, dude -- !


= D

[RedBlackStar]

Hi all, newbie to the site. I've been reading comments, and the quote above jumped out as totally ludicrous.

If everyone is paid equally, why would anyone want a difficult, challenging, stressful job?

Hi Jim and welcome.

I defend my point by claiming that people's social attitudes will be different in a Communist society in the fact that they will be motivated to do the most possible with their skills to help their community; that's commonly accepted amongst revolutionary ideologies as socialism regards humans as 'plastic', which means that their attitudes are moulded by their environment. These people will also be encouraged to pursue a 'job' (note, the quotation marks are in place as a 'job' in Communism will be greatly different to a job as we know it) which they have a passion for, as stated above.

Furthermore, you make the incorrect assumption that people will be paid. This is not the necessarily the case, although some do envision it as such.