Work Voluntary

[adipocere12]

I've been recently describing socialism (by which I mean the SPGB type) as a society where everything is free and all work voluntary. I like it because it immediately forces the listener to think differently in terms of what industries are important and alternative ways of organising production and distribution, as well as the affect money has on our behaviour toward social problems.

Recently someone I was discussing this with said the classic "sounds like Communism" but was immediately corrected by someone else "no, no he said work was voluntary"!

This got me thinking that "a society where everything is free and all work voluntary" is quite a neat way of packaging these ideas in a way that avoids toxic words like socialism and communism. They tend to lead you into a two hour battle of definitions.

However, how voluntary would work be under socialism? If expect there would be societal pressures in much the same way kids were made to help out with the harvest in the old days but is that so dissimilar to the pressure to find work to feed yourself we have now?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

There is no "SPGB type of socialism"; for most of us, socialism is defined by the socialisation of the means of production, the abolition of money and the market, voluntary labour, conscious planning of production, and statelessness. And to be fair, I don't think the SPGB claims their conception of socialism is in any way unique.

Second, I think that trying to avoid the term "socialism" is pointless. People aren't stupid, they're going to figure out what you're talking about sooner or later, and it will just make you look like someone who tried to swindle them. And why would you do it? Socialism has a rich history, that no self-proclaimed socialist should be ashamed of.

As for work, no, I don't think there will be any pressure to work. If someone doesn't want to work, alright, what's the problem? In any case, at any given moment, most people will want to work. I don't know if you've ever been forced to be inactive for an extended period of time, but if you have, you probably know how unpleasant it is. Work is a human need just as much as food or companionship is, and while in capitalism work is odious to most people because it is hard, unrewarding, and forced, in socialism work will be an expression of our needs and our creativity. So we can expect that people will work, and that their work will be of high quality. If anything, there will be a slight problem finding meaningful work for everyone.

Of course, leisure is also a human need. If people are being psychologically pressured to work when they would rather rest, that is bad. Really bad. If anything, overt physical pressure is more honest than psychological pressure.

[adipocere12]

I would agree with all that Xhar-Xhar but it's not shame that makes me avoid the term but rather boredom with defining it to people who (mostly) believe it has something to do with either nationalisation or Stalin, depending on who you're talking to.

However I do think you're right about the differences in types of work - I hadn't thought of it like that. Whilst the compulsion I was referring to might exist in one form or another the nature of the work is such that it's not a burden.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I would agree with all that Xhar-Xhar but it's not shame that makes me avoid the term but rather boredom with defining it to people who (mostly) believe it has something to do with either nationalisation or Stalin, depending on who you're talking to.

Fair enough, but that raises the question, who are you talking to? Because quibbling over definitions sounds more like the sort of think people do in those awful tedious online political debates, than the sort of thing someone would do if you were to talk to them about socialism in person.


However I do think you're right about the differences in types of work - I hadn't thought of it like that. Whilst the compulsion I was referring to might exist in one form or another the nature of the work is such that it's not a burden.

But why do you think compulsion will still exist? If we're in agreement that both work and leisure are human needs, what's the point of forcing someone to forgo the fulfillment of one need in order to fulfill another on terms that are objectionable to them?

[cyu]

how voluntary would work be under socialism?


We can get into semantic arguments all day. What is work? What is play? Are they mutually exclusive? Can they intersect? Can anything be considered neither work nor play?

Semantic arguments aside, I think it's always valuable to examine your motivations for doing the things you *want* to do. Why do you want to play video games? What makes watching a movie fun? Why do you like hiking in the mountains? Why do people volunteer to run marathons?

It's probably pretty easy to come up with surface answers to each of those questions, and those answers would all appear unrelated. But if you dig deeper into those answers, I think these motivations are all rooted in common psychological and social drives among humans.

[ckaihatsu]

I've noted before that revolutionary leftism has the aims of *both* self-determination *and* collectivism -- these, if juxtaposed, are *contradictory*, yet we don't treat them that way.

I'll maintain that there is always going to be the potential for untethered individualism to conflict with greater collective social needs, and vice-versa. (Think of the rock star's career right after a hurricane hits the whole area.)

It's easy to pretend that, with the removal of the bourgeoisie's shoe off our necks, everything will just socially balance out, with people's inherent passions also fitting perfectly into the greater good.

I don't share this optimism and would recommend some kind of societal incentives for the encouragement of hazardous and distasteful liberated-labor, if the post-capitalist social order still required such work roles -- liberated-labor might very well turn out to be the only component left that would tend towards scarcity. (See my blog entry.)

[cyu]

I've noted before that revolutionary leftism has the aims of *both* self-determination *and* collectivism -- these, if juxtaposed, are *contradictory*, yet we don't treat them that way.

I'll maintain that there is always going to be the potential for untethered individualism to conflict with greater collective social needs, and vice-versa. (Think of the rock star's career right after a hurricane hits the whole area.)



I remember someone drawing a distinction like this:

1. Community with conformity: Being accepted into a larger sea of humanity, who are a source of help for whatever you may need, whether for physical needs or to make life enjoyable. In exchange, there are certain things you are forced to accept, perhaps a role requires you to do certain things for others.

2. Alienation with individuality: You are cast out by others; you will get help from no one. In exchange, you are free to do your own thing - there are no demands from anyone, as long as you leave others alone.

3. Alienation with conformity: You can expect help from no one, yet there are still roles forced upon you. Perhaps you are a slave or a prisoner.

4. Community with individuality: You are part of a larger family of humanity, who want what's best for you. Yet you are free to be your own person, and grow up to be the person you want to be.



It's easy to pretend that, with the removal of the bourgeoisie's shoe off our necks, everything will just socially balance out, with people's inherent passions also fitting perfectly into the greater good.

I don't share this optimism


Agreed - I don't think it would be guaranteed. Just because we're saved from the road to hell, that doesn't automatically mean our next destination is heaven on earth. Regardless of whether people want to go to A, B, or C, they'd still need to find a path there, and start walking.

[ckaihatsu]

I remember someone drawing a distinction like this:

1. Community with conformity: Being accepted into a larger sea of humanity, who are a source of help for whatever you may need, whether for physical needs or to make life enjoyable. In exchange, there are certain things you are forced to accept, perhaps a role requires you to do certain things for others.

2. Alienation with individuality: You are cast out by others; you will get help from no one. In exchange, you are free to do your own thing - there are no demands from anyone, as long as you leave others alone.

3. Alienation with conformity: You can expect help from no one, yet there are still roles forced upon you. Perhaps you are a slave or a prisoner.

4. Community with individuality: You are part of a larger family of humanity, who want what's best for you. Yet you are free to be your own person, and grow up to be the person you want to be.


This is nice and everything, but it's an elementary-school kind of treatment that lends itself to tribalism.

The world has been operating on the commodification of labor for centuries now, so 'alienation' has an *economic* basis, for anyone who might want to participate in the *global* economy:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation#Type_of_alienation





Agreed - I don't think it would be guaranteed. Just because we're saved from the road to hell, that doesn't automatically mean our next destination is heaven on earth. Regardless of whether people want to go to A, B, or C, they'd still need to find a path there, and start walking.


Hence the part of my post that you omitted:





[I] would recommend some kind of societal incentives for the encouragement of hazardous and distasteful liberated-labor, if the post-capitalist social order still required such work roles -- liberated-labor might very well turn out to be the only component left that would tend towards scarcity. (See my blog entry.)

[cyu]

I remember another thread asking what would be the difference for coal miners before and after the end of capitalism.

My answer was that if miners controlled company finances, they probably won't be spending profits on cocaine and prostitutes for the CEO. Instead, they'd probably use the money to make their work as pleasant as possible.

There is also the issue of competition in the capitalist's vision of society. Even if a mine CEO weren't wasting money on private jets and mansions, he's still forced to cut costs if he's trying to compete with other coal mines, often resulting in dangerous working conditions.

In post-capitalist society, you'd have to ask just why they are competing. If there simply isn't much demand for coal any more, miners shouldn't be forced into unemployment-induced poverty. Either there's other stuff that needs to be done, and they could easily find work elsewhere, or the economy is already producing enough stuff, and they can just relax and get free stuff.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't know how many people will still be willing to go down into a mine shaft for hours on end under communism. If something requires some outside incentive it necessarily means that the community does not feel the activity has merit on it's own. If the community cannot see the merit in performing the task, then it's ridiculous to assume that free labor would ever agree to perform the task in the first place. Free labor is either really free or it's not, incentive under communism can only be seen as a smokescreen for compulsion. It implies that a body separate from the rest of the community exists to hand out these incentives, and presumably punishments and coercion if they are not enough to get people back to work.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't know how many people will still be willing to go down into a mine shaft for hours on end under communism. If something requires some outside incentive it necessarily means that the community does not feel the activity has merit on it's own. If the community cannot see the merit in performing the task, then it's ridiculous to assume that free labor would ever agree to perform the task in the first place. Free labor is either really free or it's not, incentive under communism can only be seen as a smokescreen for compulsion. It implies that a body separate from the rest of the community exists to hand out these incentives, and presumably punishments and coercion if they are not enough to get people back to work.

I agree with much of this - I would, however, replace "the community" with "society", because surely, in socialism it is society that controls the means of production, not some sort of autonomous "community" (to talk about autonomous communities in socialism is to miss the point, I think).

There is, mind you, nothing inherently unpleasant about working in a mine. I have been in several mines - rock salt, gold etc. - and found it an interesting experience. In capitalism, of course, or some sort of "socialist" labour money scheme like our good friend NGNM85 is advocating in another thread, working in a mine would be unpleasant. After all, the chief determinant would be profit. But in socialism, one would hope, the boundary between work and play would be thin if it would even exist. You wouldn't go down to the mines to work in cramped conditions for hours only to be killed because installing safeguards costs too much labour-bucks.

You would go into a mine that was (re)designed with comfort in mind, even if that means we aren't getting as much coal or whatever per labour-hour, then work a bit because you like the work you're doing. And yes, I think it is possible to like that sort of work.

Generally, I think, people are asking the wrong sort of question. They assume some jobs might be avoided by a worker free of compulsion and pressure, and they ask themselves what's wrong with the worker. I would think the more socialist question is what's wrong with the job.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Every workplace and community is necessarily autonomous. A tire factory and a car factory for example may pool resources and planning along with every other workplace and community on the planet but ultimately the tires are produced by the people making the tires. If the tires are produced from one specific community which then never gets access to automobiles for some reason, this is an instance where incentive would probably be necessary according to some schemes. But the real issue is why would people in that community produce tires if they never reap the benefits of using them anyway? They would likely come to a conclusion that their labor would be better spent on something they can actually use, rather than producing for those fat cats in community B who hog all the goddamn cars. This is an imperfect example, there are obviously other ways to address the issue or to avoid it in the first place, I'm just trying to illustrate what I mean.

[Thirsty Crow]

Generally, I think, people are asking the wrong sort of question. They assume some jobs might be avoided by a worker free of compulsion and pressure, and they ask themselves what's wrong with the worker. I would think the more socialist question is what's wrong with the job.
It surely makes sense to ask this question. In fact, I think it's important.

But going off of the remarks about mining; thing is, I don't believe that concluding there is nothing inherently unpleasant about it is useful because it is reasonable to assume that many people would, even under conditions of free association of labor, find it to some extent unpleasant. So the assumption that it is possible that there could be problems here isn't unreasonable; however, what is unreasonable is to tacitly assume the forms of "incentive" modelled along capitalist lines are appropriate for such social relations. They're not; instead, even though some may speak of "coercion", one can argue for a comprehensive approach to social encouragement (through upbringing, culture and so on) which would work as a lever for persuasion for people to do this kind of work (especially in conjunction with the shortened labor time for a person).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Every workplace and community is necessarily autonomous. A tire factory and a car factory for example may pool resources and planning along with every other workplace and community on the planet but ultimately the tires are produced by the people making the tires. If the tires are produced from one specific community which then never gets access to automobiles for some reason, this is an instance where incentive would probably be necessary according to some schemes. But the real issue is why would people in that community produce tires if they never reap the benefits of using them anyway? They would likely come to a conclusion that their labor would be better spent on something they can actually use, rather than producing for those fat cats in community B who hog all the goddamn cars. This is an imperfect example, there are obviously other ways to address the issue or to avoid it in the first place, I'm just trying to illustrate what I mean.

Well, no, not really, in the modern world it's more like no workplace and no community is autonomous. Every one of them needs something produced by the rest of the world, and if they can't play nice (say, by hogging all cars even though they don't use them), the rest of the world is probably going to tell them to piss off - and stop using machinery made by the rest of the world while they're at it.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

There's a difference between independence and autonomy. An independent community wouldn't need outside help of any form, but that's not what I mean. An autonomous community still has control over their direct decision making, which of course includes what kind of labor they're going to perform on a given day.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It surely makes sense to ask this question. In fact, I think it's important.

But going off of the remarks about mining; thing is, I don't believe that concluding there is nothing inherently unpleasant about it is useful because it is reasonable to assume that many people would, even under conditions of free association of labor, find it to some extent unpleasant. So the assumption that it is possible that there could be problems here isn't unreasonable; however, what is unreasonable is to tacitly assume the forms of "incentive" modelled along capitalist lines are appropriate for such social relations. They're not; instead, even though some may speak of "coercion", one can argue for a comprehensive approach to social encouragement (through upbringing, culture and so on) which would work as a lever for persuasion for people to do this kind of work (especially in conjunction with the shortened labor time for a person).

Well, to be honest, I don't think there will be a need for that. Here my Fourierist influences probably show, but I think people tend to be drawn to work, all kinds of work (not just the kinds that are depicted as desirable by the bourgeois media), without any external pressure, as an expression of their personality, interests, desires etc.

Of course, persuasion might still be used. But persuasion is not the same thing as coercion, not even "soft" coercion that some people advocate.


There's a difference between independence and autonomy. An independent community wouldn't need outside help of any form, but that's not what I mean. An autonomous community still has control over their direct decision making, which of course includes what kind of labor they're going to perform on a given day.

I think that in socialism, every individual worker will be able to decide freely if and how they are going to work (not "the community"; it's not as if "the community" deciding I need to go work in the mines would be any good).

But surely any individual "community" does not have the prerogative to just use the means of production that are located nearby as they please and to distribute the products produced as they please. I mean, people not deciding to work is one thing. People going into mines - mines which were built with resources originating around the world, mind - and mining in a way that makes further mining difficult, or produces more pollution than the rest of the world is willing to tolerate, is another. I don't think they have any kind of right to do so. And they don't have the right to hoard the rock salt (for example) that they mine.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Well of course it's left up to the individual, but any sort of large scale production is going to require community input. It's not as if people from China, egypt and south africa are going to commute each day to a shoe factory in arkansas. The people in arkansas are going to work there and make decisions about it in a more direct fashion than someone who lives on the other side of planet. I think pollution is a self correcting issue; who is going to directly poison the place where they live, I agree with you though.

[ckaihatsu]

I remember another thread asking what would be the difference for coal miners before and after the end of capitalism.

My answer was that if miners controlled company finances, they probably won't be spending profits on cocaine and prostitutes for the CEO. Instead, they'd probably use the money to make their work as pleasant as possible.

There is also the issue of competition in the capitalist's vision of society. Even if a mine CEO weren't wasting money on private jets and mansions, he's still forced to cut costs if he's trying to compete with other coal mines, often resulting in dangerous working conditions.

In post-capitalist society, you'd have to ask just why they are competing. If there simply isn't much demand for coal any more, miners shouldn't be forced into unemployment-induced poverty. Either there's other stuff that needs to be done, and they could easily find work elsewhere, or the economy is already producing enough stuff, and they can just relax and get free stuff.




If there simply isn't much demand for coal any more


Well, the whole *topic* of this thread is about whether work would be entirely voluntary, or not -- so, it may not necessarily be *coal*, but there could very well be *something* that would be in mass demand, and maybe even life-critical, that the average person (and most people) would rather *not* do at all, if they really didn't have to.

(Granted, I'm racking my brain to think of a decent example, because I personally don't think there would be much, if anything, left that would be technologically crude, as for energy sourcing. Certainly a liberated world would quickly overcome whatever technological hurdles remained from the labor-exploitative era of human history.)

For the sake of argument, we might say that it could be about *logging*, since most, post-capitalism, would probably rather *not* have to cut down trees, yet society might still have a very real need for wood and wood products. (And, yes, there are already tree farms, etc.)

So if the scenario is it's-them-or-us regarding trees, and no one really *wants* to cut trees, and it has to be done manually, then what would such a society do -- ? Sure maybe as much as a century or two could go by and most wood-made things would be fine, but at some point people start to realize that -- it's unavoidable -- we have to start cutting trees again.

Should people just be left to their own efforts, to where this post-capitalist society can do no better than to say 'd.i.y.' to everyone, or could it actually *coordinate* to some degree, for a more-efficient and effective social organization of labor -- ?

So tree-cutting is now the world's biggest current news topic, and everyone's talking about how it might potentially be done, and who exactly would be doing it, since everyone has many, many things they'd *rather* be doing in such an enlightened, unburdened futuristic society.

How would this social order 'encourage' or 'incentivize' this kind of (liberated) labor that no one really wants to do -- ?

Here's my approach, described concisely in a recent post from another thread:





[A] gift economy / communism would necessarily be the context for the use of labor credits since commodity production and exchanges would be unnecessary, and would be superseded by collective production and direct-distribution.

'Labor credits' can be thought of as paradigm damage-control, in that their use allows a *controlled slippage* back to a formal quantification and qualification of liberated labor (hours), wherever and whenever the simpler gift-economy *cannot* be used, for whatever real-world, logistical-type contingencies that might arise.




[I]n such a situation [a society of over-abundance wherein all commodities are free and available] the labor credits would most likely be *superfluous* and unneeded -- *however*, it's quite possible, and even likely, that not *all* goods would be in a constant state of over-abundance, as with the examples of fine wine, truffles, a one-time public (musical) event, or any other specialty-type items. Admittedly these would probably be *peripheral* economic matters, but they could be soundly handled with the labor credits method.


And here's from the blog entry:





A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits

To clarify and simplify, the labor credits system is like a cash-only economy that only works for *services* (labor), while the world of material implements, resources, and products is open-access and non-abstractable. (No financial valuations.) Given the world's current capacity for an abundance of productivity for the most essential items, there should be no doubt about producing a ready surplus of anything that's important, to satisfy every single person's basic humane needs.

[I]t would only be fair that those who put in the actual (liberated) labor to produce anything should also be able to get 'first dibs' of anything they produce.

In practice [...] everything would be pre-planned, so the workers would just factor in their own personal requirements as part of the project or production run. (Nothing would be done on a speculative or open-ended basis, the way it's done now, so all recipients and orders would be pre-determined -- it would make for minimal waste.)

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


---





I don't know how many people will still be willing to go down into a mine shaft for hours on end under communism. If something requires some outside incentive it necessarily means that the community does not feel the activity has merit on it's own.


I'll politely note that this is simply a matter of 'groupthink', or inter-subjectivity, and will not necessarily correspond to objective material reality. So, to rephrase, 'If something requires some outside incentive it necessarily means that there is more *demand* for it than what liberated labor is willing to do voluntarily, as a part of a larger gift-economy / communistic social order.'





If the community cannot see the merit in performing the task, then it's ridiculous to assume that free labor would ever agree to perform the task in the first place.


I'm frankly *astonished* at this since it smacks of *authoritarianism* -- why should it matter what the fuck the 'community' thinks of task X, Y, or Z -- ? Why would 'free labor' require a detached clearinghouse of judgment-making, to decide what it wants to do of its own will, or not -- ?





Free labor is either really free or it's not, incentive under communism can only be seen as a smokescreen for compulsion.


No, not necessarily at all -- my labor credits model confers liberated-labor-selection and -organizing power, based on one's own past work done for labor credits.





It implies that a body separate from the rest of the community exists to hand out these incentives, and presumably punishments and coercion if they are not enough to get people back to work.


No, 'incentive' doesn't automatically imply compulsion, bureaucratic collectivism, elitism, punishments, and coercion.

Here's from earlier in the thread:





[I] would recommend some kind of societal incentives for the encouragement of hazardous and distasteful liberated-labor, if the post-capitalist social order still required such work roles -- liberated-labor might very well turn out to be the only component left that would tend towards scarcity. (See my blog entry.)


If liberated labor couldn't be 100% guaranteed in supply for the immediate fulfillment of any person's impromptu whim, then it would be 'scarce' in material terms, and could very well fetch a 'premium' for its use since it's necessarily voluntary, by definition -- what could a person possibly / potentially do to earn someone's labor for a certain time period when that person is under no obligation whatsoever to work for anyone else -- ? Well, to work *oneself*, on a voluntary basis, likewise, to earn the ability to select others' liberated labor on a proportional basis. Hence the 'labor credits' model, at the blog post link above.


---





You would go into a mine that was (re)designed with comfort in mind, even if that means we aren't getting as much coal or whatever per labour-hour, then work a bit because you like the work you're doing. And yes, I think it is possible to like that sort of work.

Generally, I think, people are asking the wrong sort of question. They assume some jobs might be avoided by a worker free of compulsion and pressure, and they ask themselves what's wrong with the worker. I would think the more socialist question is what's wrong with the job.


Agreed, and this would fit under the category of 'automation', in the sense of rationalizing all societal work positions away from *commodity*-type roles, and more towards *humane*-type roles (though material considerations of objective productivity would still remain, of course).





Every workplace and community is necessarily autonomous. A tire factory and a car factory for example may pool resources and planning along with every other workplace and community on the planet but ultimately the tires are produced by the people making the tires. If the tires are produced from one specific community which then never gets access to automobiles for some reason, this is an instance where incentive would probably be necessary according to some schemes. But the real issue is why would people in that community produce tires if they never reap the benefits of using them anyway? They would likely come to a conclusion that their labor would be better spent on something they can actually use, rather than producing for those fat cats in community B who hog all the goddamn cars. This is an imperfect example, there are obviously other ways to address the issue or to avoid it in the first place, I'm just trying to illustrate what I mean.


I appreciate the general 'bottom-up' process you're indicating here, EGTFAA, and I personally would like to see you and XXB go at it in a 'cage match' over the topic of 'bottom-up vs. top-down'. It would be epic and would undoubtedly go pay-per-view. (grin)





But surely any individual "community" does not have the prerogative to just use the means of production that are located nearby as they please and to distribute the products produced as they please. I mean, people not deciding to work is one thing. People going into mines - mines which were built with resources originating around the world, mind - and mining in a way that makes further mining difficult, or produces more pollution than the rest of the world is willing to tolerate, is another. I don't think they have any kind of right to do so. And they don't have the right to hoard the rock salt (for example) that they mine.


Agreed -- my own model takes this factor into account with a reiterating bottom-up mass-prioritizing process that would yield a formal 'policy package' detailing the specific uses of all (collectivized) productive assets and resources, including work roles.





Infrastructure / overhead

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




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

[ckaihatsu]

(See tinyurl.com/global-planning-matrix) (Some details have changed.)

Sam Smith and Pat Jones are separate individuals who both happen to live in 'New Physicalia', a locality in the Great Lakes region of North America. Sam Smith is late-middle-aged, lives alone, and finds kumquats to be the most delectable kind of food ever.

That's why, for the date of January 5, 2015, Sam put in an order for food item #09149, 'kumquats, raw', as the most-prioritized item for the day. (That's how most days' lists are for Sam.) Furthermore, the number-*two* item for that day was a political *demand*, intended for the local distribution entity, for *fresher* kumquats, since Sam has become something of a connoisseur of the fruit, over time.

The next day Sam got to brainstorming and whipped up a quick, brief initiative on how cooperative social planning could take place at the most-aggregated scales, meaning worldwide. Sam got very excited and confident about it and put it at the very first rank position for the personal prioritization list for January 6, 2015, calling it 'Global Planning Matrix'. Upon receipt from Sam, the Locality of New Physicalia automatically timestamped the items, two from the 5th and one from the 6th.

Pat Jones is a year younger than Sam, has always been socially active in one way or another, as far as memory serves, and has always been attentive to cutting-edge-type developments that would be worth supporting and improving-on.

Pat Jones happened to see Sam Smith's initiative for a 'Global Planning Matrix', from January 6, 2015, and right away -- almost instinctively -- included a duplicate-named initiative the very next day, at rank position #1 on the personal daily prioritization list.

Because the title-description of 'Global Planning Matrix' occurred twice in New Physicalia within a 7-day period, the tallying software automatically created a formal-item ('initiative') for it, thus making it a formal item for anyone else's future reference.

Chris Williams is two years older than Sam Smith and three years older than Pat Jones, living and working in the locality of 'Middle Mentalia', in the Ellim region of Antarctica. Chris only got around to socio-political involvement recently, after deciding to browse the public formal-item listings for a few major localities, including that of New Physicalia. The 'Global Planning Matrix' formal initiative popped up there one day and Chris read-up on it and then decided to personally include it as a supportive initiative for the date of January 8, 2015.

Even though the 'Global Planning Matrix' initiative was formalized (as formal-item '20150107.001') in the locality of New Physicalia, Chris, in the far-off continent of Antarctica, was able to reference it by number, and "updated" it as being intended for the *global* level ('GBL'). Chris could certainly have just joined in with discussions about the original initiative, for the locality of New Physicalia, but in that context would have been an 'outsider' with an inherent limitation on meaningful participation. By 'going global' with it Chris will need someone else to also put forth an identical 'Global Planning Matrix' personal list-item within seven days at the global level or else it will not become a formal item there.

Back in New Physicalia someone named Alex Johnson, two years younger than Sam Smith, has noticed and read-up on the '20150107.001' formal-item and, a few weeks later, decided to support it as a personal 'demand' item at rank position 5 (for the date of February 1, 2015).


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

http://s6.postimg.org/nfpj758c0/150221_labor_credits_framework_for_communist_su.jp g (http://postimg.org/image/p7ii21rot/full/)

[OnFire]

Sam Smith and Pat Jones are separate individuals who both happen to live in 'New Physicalia', a locality in the Great Lakes region of North America. Sam Smith is late-middle-aged, lives alone, and finds kumquats to be the most delectable kind of food ever.

That's why, for the date of January 5, 2015, Sam put in an order for food item #09149, 'kumquats, raw', as the most-prioritized item for the day. (That's how most days' lists are for Sam.) Furthermore, the number-*two* item for that day was a political *demand*, intended for the local distribution entity, for *fresher* kumquats, since Sam has become something of a connoisseur of the fruit, over time.

The next day Sam got to brainstorming and whipped up a quick, brief initiative on how cooperative social planning could take place at the most-aggregated scales, meaning worldwide. Sam got very excited and confident about it and put it at the very first rank position for the personal prioritization list for January 6, 2015, calling it 'Global Planning Matrix'. Upon receipt from Sam, the Locality of New Physicalia automatically timestamped the items, two from the 5th and one from the 6th.

Pat Jones is a year younger than Sam, has always been socially active in one way or another, as far as memory serves, and has always been attentive to cutting-edge-type developments that would be worth supporting and improving-on.

Pat Jones happened to see Sam Smith's initiative for a 'Global Planning Matrix', from January 6, 2015, and right away -- almost instinctively -- included a duplicate-named initiative the very next day, at rank position #1 on the personal daily prioritization list.

Because the title-description of 'Global Planning Matrix' occurred twice in New Physicalia within a 7-day period, the tallying software automatically created a formal-item ('initiative') for it, thus making it a formal item for anyone else's future reference.

Chris Williams is two years older than Sam Smith and three years older than Pat Jones, living and working in the locality of 'Middle Mentalia', in the Ellim region of Antarctica. Chris only got around to socio-political involvement recently, after deciding to browse the public formal-item listings for a few major localities, including that of New Physicalia. The 'Global Planning Matrix' formal initiative popped up there one day and Chris read-up on it and then decided to personally include it as a supportive initiative for the date of January 8, 2015.

Even though the 'Global Planning Matrix' initiative was formalized (as formal-item '20150107.001') in the locality of New Physicalia, Chris, in the far-off continent of Antarctica, was able to reference it by number, and "updated" it as being intended for the *global* level ('GBL'). Chris could certainly have just joined in with discussions about the original initiative, for the locality of New Physicalia, but in that context would have been an 'outsider' with an inherent limitation on meaningful participation. By 'going global' with it Chris will need someone else to also put forth an identical 'Global Planning Matrix' personal list-item within seven days at the global level or else it will not become a formal item there.

Back in New Physicalia someone named Alex Johnson, two years younger than Sam Smith, has noticed and read-up on the '20150107.001' formal-item and, a few weeks later, decided to support it as a personal 'demand' item at rank position 5 (for the date of February 1, 2015).


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

IMG

Very informative chart, thank you!

[ckaihatsu]

Very informative chart, thank you!


Thanks. It's the culmination of much discussion and the going-over of issues pertaining to a plausible post-capitalist political economy.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Voluntary work seems like a pretty hilarious notion to me indeed

[QueerVanguard]

Voluntary work seems like a pretty hilarious notion to me indeed

Why is that, Mises?

[ckaihatsu]

Voluntary work seems like a pretty hilarious notion to me indeed





Why is that, Mises?


I'll estimate that what ВП probably means is that a post-capitalist social relations might not be able to work out if everyone *only* does whatever their first inclination is, for work. It would be too far on the 'self-determination' side of things in the balance between self-determination-vs.-collectivism.

[ckaihatsu]

After some additional thought on the topic, I'd like to add that maybe voluntarism is a less-than-equitable approach to the subject of work.

Of course we have the conception of anyone who does anything voluntarily as being exceptionally giving, generous, and enlightened, but if we expand and extrapolate that out to a general *principle*, it may not work quite the same -- with all else being equal, those who *would* do work voluntarily for everyone else would effectively be *exploited*, because the rest of the population *isn't* working strictly voluntarily.

Often in revolutionary leftist thought the sheerly voluntaristic 'gift economy' is held in high esteem, the model of what it is that society should aspire to, with revolution that overthrows wage-slavery -- it's often considered to be *synonymous* with communism itself.

But if gift-economy voluntarism was realized, literally, it could very well boil down to a black-and-white distribution of those who do the work to keep society running, versus those who simply *don't* work, and are under no obligation or material necessity *to* work in any socially cooperative way. Again, this would effectively *be* exploitation, however unobtrusive it may happen to be, or however otherwise-enlightened the overall society might be.

So, voluntarism may simply be too individualistic and self-determining on the scale of self-determination-vs.-collectivism. Society as a whole has a general collective interest in a more *broad-based* approach to social productivity and coordination for production.

I'll shamelessly tie this in here to my model at post #19, since it posits the use of circulating labor credits with which to mobilize liberated labor *only*, for the sake of production that eliminates scarcity (no commodity production or material exchanges). In this way only *past* liberated-labor would be sufficient, in proportion, to socially motivate a like proportion of *new* liberated-labor-effort, going forward. While people *could* always validly abstain, there could also very well be the pooling of *vast* amounts of labor credits, from a very broad base of past efforts, to coordinate and focus new projects at the largest scales imaginable.

[Artiom]

I agree that it's to utopian to think that work will be completly spontanious and "voluntary" under communism. The leading phrase is still: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Going back to in the thread to the part about unpleasent job's, I don't see that there will be hard to recruite ppl for trades and production. From own experience many ppl enjoy being mechanic's, doing construction and forestry. Besides, these tasks have such a direct impact that theire necessity will be obvious.

I'm more conserned about how to recruite ppl to things like healthcare (with a increasing number of old ppl, many western countrie's have a hard time to get enough staff in this sector, specially young one's) and service job's.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Your position is a contradiction. Work being voluntary is supposedly "utopian", but then you go on to use the word recruit. If I'm recruited for something, it implies that I've volunteered for it in the first place. The word you actually seem to want to use is conscript. The question then becomes; who is doing the conscription? And by what authority?

[ckaihatsu]

I agree that it's to utopian to think that work will be completly spontanious and "voluntary" under communism. The leading phrase is still: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


It's an unobjectionable *slogan*, but, if taken *literally*, could be interpreted as a prescription for *busywork* -- everyone is mandated to contribute according to their *ability*, regardless, correct -- ?

You've provided the missing phrasing here, I think -- we should think of work (at societal scales) as being 'non-spontaneous' under communism, or 'pre-planned', in other words.

'Voluntary' is lacking in descriptive power for this context, unfortunately -- a genuinely *liberated* labor would only work voluntarily, but of course there would be material realities and social-reality at play in actuality, which would mitigate a strictly literal sense of 'voluntary', but without tipping it over into 'involuntary'.





Going back to in the thread to the part about unpleasent job's, I don't see that there will be hard to recruite ppl for trades and production. From own experience many ppl enjoy being mechanic's, doing construction and forestry. Besides, these tasks have such a direct impact that theire necessity will be obvious.


I find 'recruit' to be problematic, since it may imply some kind of bureaucratic-type *management*, like that of today. If specialized managerial-type roles even exist *at all*, they could very well be the basis of a structural *elitism* and social privilege, which would negate socialism / communism.

Yet what you're describing *would* be a valid concern: How would parts of a liberated-labor be 'planned' or 'motivated' if all of society's needs weren't fulfilled from people's first inclinations for self-chosen labor roles -- ?

My own approach uses a framework of circulating labor-hour *credits* so that social need for work effort, *and* that work-effort supplied, confers the laborer with a certain quantity of liberated-labor selection *power*, but only in direct proportion to one's own supply of past labor input, with their labor credits.





A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits

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


(Also part of the model at post #19.)





I'm more conserned about how to recruite ppl to things like healthcare (with a increasing number of old ppl, many western countrie's have a hard time to get enough staff in this sector, specially young one's) and service job's.


I'll suggest that society's *practices* are bourgeoisified, and may not be the optimal practices for actual, desired *results* -- perhaps, with the sea change in overall *culture* from the overthrow of exchange-value relations, many areas of social concerns could be satisfied without requiring the use of human labor.

[QueerVanguard]

I agree that it's to utopian to think that work will be completly spontanious and "voluntary" under communism.

Anything short of precisely that isn't Communism, that's what you don't get. Just because Ludwig von Cheese Dick and other bourgie propagandists think Communism is unworkable doesn't make it so, and people like you calling it "utopian" left and right without explaining why does not an argument make.

[Artiom]

Huh? this discussion is about semantic's now?

Ethic Gradient, english is not my native laguage so yeah, I might use the wrong words some times. So ok, it's called conscripion, and yes I think it wil be necessary in order to organize and distribute labor. On whos athority? In order to make things fair, or make sure that evrybody who can will contribute, and that necessary tasks get's done.

I'm ot saying that it's gong look anything like today, probably more that a workers council will have meetings to plan and sort things out where evryone will have things to say about the whole thing.


QueerVanguard, Lol! I'm not falling for your strawman. Just because I think it's worth discussing obvious problems doesn't mean I don't think that communism would work (would I be here then?), that's your interpretation. So yeah, you go and enjoy your borgeous cheese dick's.

[ckaihatsu]

[I]t's called conscripion, and yes I think it wil be necessary in order to organize and distribute labor. On whos athority? In order to make things fair, or make sure that evrybody who can will contribute, and that necessary tasks get's done.

I'm ot saying that it's gong look anything like today, probably more that a workers council will have meetings to plan and sort things out where evryone will have things to say about the whole thing.


Just as with the slogan of 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need', I'm all for the workers council *in spirit*, but in actuality I think a little more refinement / specificity is called-for.

My concern here is about 'groupthink', especially over economic matters, since a workers council formulation implies a workerist -- albeit collective -- determination over social values, meaning what exactly is given priority for actual production.

At the smallest, most-constrained scales -- a single factory, say -- it's easy to see that this formulation could easily give way to a local workerist elitism, or a bad kind of syndicalism, in other words. There's nothing to guarantee that *broader* social needs, as for those not immediately at the point of production, will be heard and considered as valid for production and fulfillment.

Worse still would be adding this policy of *conscription* within such a context, where a kind of workerist *tribalism* could be the result, with the possibility of organizational politics taking hold, possibly devolving into petty strongman-type determinations emerging from this fiefdom-like social environment of production.

It's fair to say that, with today's immense ratios of mechanically-leveraged productivity, a future post-capitalist mass production would probably *not* require most people to take part in labor efforts, going by the numbers. It's this productivity prowess that could all-too-readily set the stage for some kind of workerist elitism, as I've just described.





I agree that it's to utopian to think that work will be completly spontanious and "voluntary" under communism.


So the logistical issue remains of how does our politics address the question of productivity vs. participation vs. population, since all *three* of these components would need to be equitably correlated somehow.

My own treatment is at post #19, of course.

[Artiom]

Just as with the slogan of 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need', I'm all for the workers council *in spirit*, but in actuality I think a little more refinement / specificity is called-for.

My concern here is about 'groupthink', especially over economic matters, since a workers council formulation implies a workerist -- albeit collective -- determination over social values, meaning what exactly is given priority for actual production.

At the smallest, most-constrained scales -- a single factory, say -- it's easy to see that this formulation could easily give way to a local workerist elitism, or a bad kind of syndicalism, in other words. There's nothing to guarantee that *broader* social needs, as for those not immediately at the point of production, will be heard and considered as valid for production and fulfillment.

Worse still would be adding this policy of *conscription* within such a context, where a kind of workerist *tribalism* could be the result, with the possibility of organizational politics taking hold, possibly devolving into petty strongman-type determinations emerging from this fiefdom-like social environment of production.

It's fair to say that, with today's immense ratios of mechanically-leveraged productivity, a future post-capitalist mass production would probably *not* require most people to take part in labor efforts, going by the numbers. It's this productivity prowess that could all-too-readily set the stage for some kind of workerist elitism, as I've just described.





So the logistical issue remains of how does our politics address the question of productivity vs. participation vs. population, since all *three* of these components would need to be equitably correlated somehow.

My own treatment is at post #19, of course.


Well I'm aware of the problem with this tribalistic/"bad syndicalism", but workers council (or whatever you want to call it, peoples commune?)
doens't need to limit itself to just a singel factory but more like a district of a city or a whole town. Ofc it will be higher levels then that in order to co-operate on a global scale.
As you say technology will probably liberate us from some labor, so with that and evrydody contributing there wont be so many hours on each individual. So if some ppl don't want to contribute for just, let's say, two hours a day it's not just going to be more work to do for the non-lazy people, and it will lead to a conflict and a new exploitation (like you menthiond earlier).

[ckaihatsu]

Well I'm aware of the problem with this tribalistic/"bad syndicalism", but workers council (or whatever you want to call it, peoples commune?)


Okay.

But there *would* be a difference between a workers council and a peoples commune, going by the definitions -- if one had to choose between one or the other, the workers council (at whatever scale) should definitely be favored, since it's the workers themselves, of course, who are the ones doing the labor for society and social production.

A 'peoples commune' on the other hand would potentially be an even *worse* kind of tribalism than one with its group identity based on collective labor (the workers council) -- one can't help but think right away of the infamous Salem, Massachusetts, when it was still a colony, as a worst-case for this.

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





doens't need to limit itself to just a singel factory but more like a district of a city or a whole town. Ofc it will be higher levels then that in order to co-operate on a global scale.


Good -- I think the factor of scale would matter as much then as it does now, meaning that individuals are better-off if they have recourse to *larger groupings* for any matter of social life, governance, or commerce (think cities, federalism, and international trade, respectively).





As you say technology will probably liberate us from some labor, so with that and evrydody contributing there wont be so many hours on each individual. So if some ppl don't want to contribute for just, let's say, two hours a day it's not just going to be more work to do for the non-lazy people, and it will lead to a conflict and a new exploitation (like you menthiond earlier).


I'm glad you appreciate my argument from post #25, but, to clarify, I was arguing it (a clean distinction between those who participate in social labor and those who don't) on the basis of *an emergent scenario* and nothing else.

To *counter* this, humanity could very well realize a society of such advanced technological development that maybe all that would be required would be a single modest office-type building, from which the entire world's productive apparatuses were controlled. Maybe things became so technologically leveraged that, if anyone anywhere *did* have the slightest concern, it could immediately be registered at this one office building, and in actuality the number of such concerns from all over the world added up to fewer than a dozen per year, with 100% transparency and resolution.

So, with all of humanity's basic humane needs readily covered with full automation, all remaining social production (labor) became sheerly *discretionary*, with 95% of the world's population *never* having to do even an hour of work in their entire lives. And yet no one developed any hard feelings over it and people didn't really care if someone had a history that included some historical past labors, or not -- though there would probably be some social curiosity and cachet if one *did*, undoubtedly.

Your stock suggestion of 'Hey, everyone just do 2 hours a day and be cool with it, braw' is the conventional, *facile* position on this issue -- no offense intended.

'2 hours a day' necessitates some kind of social authority to *designate* 2-hours-a-day-worth of tasks for everyone, which can easily tip over into a regime that utilizes *busywork*-type tasks -- and more-desirable ones -- in a bureaucratic network of patronage and favoritism -- Stalinism, in other words.