What's the best form of Communism

[Kingbruh]

What's the best form of Communism?

[ckaihatsu]

What's the best form of Communism?


Mine, of course....


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

http://s6.postimg.org/jjc7b5nch/150221_labor_credits_framework_for_communist_su.jp g (http://postimg.org/image/p7ii21rot/full/)

[Palmares]

This guy apparently has his own steezin' commie kult:

http://41.media.tumblr.com/a519f4ee5c3864fd4a6334f1c3f5dbd5/tumblr_mijhtrfZNk1s23q9jo1_1280.jpg

[Asero]

My version of Communist is the best form of Communism.

Why? Because I said so.

Also, fuck anyone who disagrees. Damn you bloody revisionists.

[G4b3n]

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-hoxhaism-Thirdworldism. And anyone who deviates is an agent of imperialism.

[Vogel]

What about WSDE-ism?

[VivalaCuarta]

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology)

“Communism is the doctrine of the conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat” (Engels, Principles of Communism) and thereby of all humanity. Communism is also the form of society that communists fight for: a classless, stateless society in which the planning of the economy to meet human needs has raised the productivity of labor and the rational utilization of the forces of production to the point where there is material abundance for all, and a radical increase in leisure time. Under communism, “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” (Communist Manifesto)

In other words there are not different forms of communism. There are different political parties that call themselves communist, but most of them act to reinforce the present state of things, rather than abolish it.

[ckaihatsu]

The one I coo about to infants


-- Or --


The one most reviled by our class enemy

[tuwix]

Mine, of course....


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/)

Your version is easy way to famine and counter-revolution due to a lack of incentive to do physically unpleasant jobs...

[ckaihatsu]

Your version is easy way to famine and counter-revolution due to a lack of incentive to do physically unpleasant jobs...


You raised this point already at a recent thread, and I responded:





IMHO it won't be a convincing incentive to work in very unpleasant conditions when everything is for free...





If everything that everyone needs and desires *could* be provided for, for free, then the societal problem is completely solved and the labor credits framework would *not* be needed whatsoever.

But if there *are* any unpleasant conditions involved in the providing of goods and services that people need and want, then the liberated labor required would necessarily *not* be easy and so-freely-given. With effort comes the reasonable expectation of recognition and reward, and understandably so -- at that point society should have a framework in place that meets those expectations in a standard, consistent way, for everyone, so that people know what to expect if they put in some kind of work effort that they wouldn't readily do for free, as a gift.

The labor credits provide a formal 'interchange' for all liberated-labor-hours, for freely accessible (non-commodity, pre-planned, pre-allocated) resources, materials, and goods for the public good.




The labor credits would represent past labor hours completed, multiplied by the difficulty or hazard of the work role performed. The difficulty/hazard multiplier would be determined by a mass survey of all work roles, compiled into an index.

In this way all concerns for labor, large and small, could be reduced to the ready transfer of labor-hour credits. The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession, and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.




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


Also:





[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.

[VivalaCuarta]

The above is a quack ideal to which reality must adjust itself, moreover, an ideal derived from bourgeois ideology, commodity fetishism.

[ckaihatsu]

The above is a quack ideal to which reality must adjust itself, moreover, an ideal derived from bourgeois ideology, commodity fetishism.


No, it's not, because there is no commodification of any kind involved, and no commodities.

[tuwix]

You raised this point already at a recent thread, and I responded:


And I responded to this, that your labor credits are good incentive for intellectuals. For simple people they won't have any real value. And this is why they aren't proper incentive to do physically unpleasant jobs...

[ckaihatsu]

And I responded to this, that your labor credits are good incentive for intellectuals. For simple people they won't have any real value. And this is why they aren't proper incentive to do physically unpleasant jobs...


Our exchange on these points is at these posts:


http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2824113&postcount=12

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2824173&postcount=17


You're making a false dichotomy out of 'intellectuals' versus 'simple people' -- this is as bad as distinguishing 'white collar' labor from 'blue collar' labor. In doing this you're only dividing the working class from within, as with 'town vs. country', 'men vs. women', or any other spurious distinction.

As already noted at those posts, the 'labor credits' model uses a mass survey to compile an index of multipliers for all work roles, on a scale of 1 to 10. This allows for a universal interchangeability among *all* work roles, through the labor-hour-based labor credits.

However, the actual reality may call for some flexibility *away* from the index-based multipliers -- this would be the 'supply' and 'demand' aspect of the model, as I've already described with the 'ham and yogurt' scenario:





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

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

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

[Vogel]

So what you're saying is the goods would be divided up based on supply and demand?
Sounds remarkably like "The market determines what needs to be made and what doesn't". Only you do it through polls, and guarantee a job.

Who pays the workers these Labor Credits?

[ckaihatsu]

So what you're saying is the goods would be divided up based on supply and demand?


No, I'm saying that goods would be produced for human need (and want), to eliminate scarcity -- that would be the social ethos.

Here's from that ham-and-yogurt scenario, again:





(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.)





Sounds remarkably like "The market determines what needs to be made and what doesn't".


No, it *isn't* a market for goods because labor credits have *no* exchangeability for materials / goods at all -- they only pertain to labor *hours* worked.





Only you do it through polls, and guarantee a job.


In this model there are *no* political representatives of any kind, aside from whatever people may want to do informally.





Who pays the workers these Labor Credits?





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




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

[Vogel]

alright, I think I understand more now. I just saw a parallel. You know how the people who love the Market say its based on what people want, and that was just a parallel i wanted to clear up.
Still seems like it could devolve back into capitalism. But there is always that chance, isn't there?

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

If i can put it in terms easy for me, current workers with accumulated LC (Is this not another way of saying with Capital) hire new positions in the place of work, and after the work is done,
and this is the part i need guidance in, The older workers pay the newer workers LC? Who makes the LC in the first place?

[ckaihatsu]

alright, I think I understand more now. I just saw a parallel. You know how the people who love the Market say its based on what people want, and that was just a parallel i wanted to clear up.


No prob.





Still seems like it could devolve back into capitalism. But there is always that chance, isn't there?


There's no sidestepping the realities of actual material productivities and socio-political composition -- today we have plenty of technologically leveraged productivity but the existing political economy is *retrograde* in comparison.

I'm confident in saying that once the world's working class finally takes control of the world's production we'll have a stable-enough material base to ensure its propagation indefinitely, without slipping back to capitalism's hegemony of private ownership.





When you say





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





If i can put it in terms easy for me, current workers with accumulated LC (Is this not another way of saying with Capital)


No, it's not capital, because the labor credits can only ever represent discrete quantities of liberated-labor hours worked (times the multiplier), going forward -- anything involving productive 'assets', and accompanying resources / materials / goods, has to be collectively decided-on:





Ownership / control

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

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




Material function

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




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


---





If i can put it in terms easy for me, current workers with accumulated LC [...]




hire new positions in the place of work,


Basically correct -- those who put in their liberated-labor, for (individual and/or social) needs and wants, receive labor credits in proportion to the work they put in. This *empowers* them with liberated-labor-selecting ability, to the extent of the labor credits they have earned from their own work.

Here's a tangible scenario from that other thread:





The *purpose* for the labor credits is as a *guarantee* that a certain amount of labor effort has already been put forth (or else it was issued as debt, on the reputation of an entire locality's population).

So, for example, perhaps the *easiest* kind of labor is as a work-from-home mattress tester. The multiplier on this kind of work would be a '1', meaning that one hour yields one labor credit.

If a person put in a full year of this kind of work, at 40 hours per week, for 50 weeks, that would yield them 2000 labor credits for the year. The point wouldn't be to *buy* stuff with them, because that would be unnecessary. With no more commodity production everything would be pre-planned and readily available, subject to the actualities of the political economy. This mattress-tester would have done the work basically for *political* involvement, since those 2000 labor credits can then be used to specify and precipitate that same amount of overall labor effort going forward.

Maybe they see that there's not enough communal bike repair going on, so, since the multiplier for bike repair happens to be a '4', those 2000 labor credits would be enough to empower 500 hours of bike-repair.


---





and after the work is done,
and this is the part i need guidance in, The older workers pay the newer workers LC? Who makes the LC in the first place?


Basically correct, again.

From just above:





The *purpose* for the labor credits is as a *guarantee* that a certain amount of labor effort has already been put forth (or else it was issued as debt, on the reputation of an entire locality's population).


The 'locality debt' aspect would be in *political* terms -- 'reputation' -- since a locality's act of issuing a new batch of labor credits through debt issuance would effectively be the *direct exploitation* of liberated labor since there's no reciprocity of labor effort on the part of those in that locality.

All that the locality's population would have to do to correct things would be to search out opportunities to earn labor credits from *outside* their own locality, and then to bring that 'x' amount of labor credits back to their locality to cancel out the debt.

Similarly, two localities could coordinate to issue identical numbers of labor credits at the same time, and then to 'earn' each other's labor credits at about the same time, thus nullifying both respective debts at once. (The physical labor credits would then remain in general circulation afterwards, unencumbered by any underlying debt.)

Here's from a past thread:





Given that a locality is treated as a cohesive entity for the purposes of political and economic needs and demands, and that a locality may not actually *remain* cohesive, as per the above, the question may arise how a locality's accumulated debt of labor credits would then be handled if its own population is continually dispersing and re-forming.




So one could argue that a locality could just announce all kinds of local projects and production runs, run up a sizeable debt of labor credits to pay the liberated laborers, and then after enjoying the benefits of that labor its residents would simply disperse from the locality, leaving it uninhabited and in debt.

To address this potential scenario there could be a regulation that ties all individuals, by name, to any given locality -- any individual who would want to leave the locality would have to either pay their individually-proportionate share of the locality's outstanding debt of labor credits, or else -- for exceptional circumstances -- that same portion of debt would be assigned to that individual for wherever they happened to be after leaving.

On the converse, if someone wanted to move *to* a locality that had a debt, they would implicitly be assuming their individually-proportionate share of that locality's total debt of labor credits.

Localities would only be able to *issue* and *work off* debts in their locality's name -- liberated laborers holding labor credits of their own in a locality that has no debt are considered as individuals with their own personal labor credits, with none of those labor credits seen as being with the locality as a whole, as might be imagined.


Also:





It *is* a gift economy, but only inasmuch as the locality's population *demands* the gifts *and* supplies the funding, actual labor (and collectivized assets and resources) for producing those gifts. Ideally these three factors would be present in the same locality, yielding a condition of self-sufficiency which would also allow the locality to grow politically and reach out to network with *other* localities for more complex arrangements of planning and coordination.

If a locality lacked, say, the funding of labor credits, then it would have to create them out of debt and that would be transparent to the world. The locality could pay up its debt by sending as many people from its environs as necessary to do the work hours *elsewhere*, for other localities (at certain multiplier rates), to bring back the needed number of labor credits to erase the debt.

Any localities that repeatedly tried to just issue additional debt without attempting to work off existing outstanding debt would wind up being looked upon unfavorably by its neighbors (and beyond) since it had, as an entire local population, decided to *use* others' labor time for its own local projects without having the means to pay for it.

All of this is *independent* of collectivized assets and resources, like factories and oil deposits. If a locality became *very* debt-ridden it certainly wouldn't be in a position to *utilize* any of its "own" (nearby) assets or resources, and so other localities would be able to prioritize *their* use of the assets and resources for actual, *funded*, *labor-ready* project plans for *their* localities.

This would mean nothing more than what it sounds like at face value -- since there would be no private property anyway there would be no *drastic* consequences to any of these scenarios. No one in the debt-ridden locality would be allowed to *starve* or go homeless or without electricity -- it's just that they would be politically at a standstill until they resolved their locality's problem in a *collective* way, the same way that got them into the mess.

Alternatively, workers from other areas who have built up their own personal accumulations of labor credits from past work done might hear about the debt-ridden locality and could offer to come together to put up their *own* stores of labor credits, in order to either pay off the debt and/or fund new projects or production runs. There would be no "in return", because there would be no power-brokering, outside of any arbitrary collection of those with accumulated labor credits, and there could be no *tangible material compensation* in return, either, because there would be no commodity production and thus no exchange value for anything. Any societal surplus around -- even factories and oil deposits -- could just be *taken* by *anyone*, but only for personal use, not for leveraging in any kind of "ownership" or private-accumulation kind of way.

Perhaps those workers who put up their own labor credits from outside might decide to move to the locality they helped out -- maybe to be closer to the implementation around their funding, as in selecting *specific* laborers, in proportion to the funding they're putting up -- or they may *not* move -- it wouldn't matter. *Anyone* could move *anywhere* for *any* reasons because such an action would *necessarily* be personal, while transportation would be readily available and new accomodations elsewhere would simply be first-come-first-served, and *not* dependent on any kind of personal wealth, not even labor credits. Political matters could always be taken care of from anywhere, anyway, over the Internet.

Finally, personal consumption would be premised on the planned political economy, but not necessarily limited to it, since any outstanding surpluses of *anything* would be openly available on a first-come-first-served basis. No matter what a person's political or work status they would *always* have a daily political prioritization list available to them, so as to make formal requests / demands from the larger society, including demands for labor, provided that labor is available and willing.




http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1608511&postcount=112

[Comrade #138672]

What do you mean by "best form"? I did not know you had different flavors.

[tuwix]

You're making a false dichotomy out of 'intellectuals' versus 'simple people' -- this is as bad as distinguishing 'white collar' labor from 'blue collar' labor.

And I think you haven't talked much in your life with simple people. They amaze me sometimes with their simple understanding of geopolitical situation that I had to consider by years, but they aren't able to understand a simple connection between taxes and social services that they want high social services and low taxes both. But the point is that they don't see any incentive to work hardly for points that don't have any material sense when they will have anything for free. You can believe or not but nobody will put a shit throughout a field to get points that can't buy anything material and especially when everything is going to be free. And this is why your version of communism would cause a famine and capitalist counter-reaction. People wouldn't do unpleasant jobs for something that is so immaterial to them as your points. Who of them would care that anybody will be employed anywhere for some strange points that can buy nothing?

[ckaihatsu]

And I think you haven't talked much in your life with simple people. They amaze me sometimes with their simple understanding of geopolitical situation that I had to consider by years, but they aren't able to understand a simple connection between taxes and social services that they want high social services and low taxes both. But the point is that they don't see any incentive to work hardly for points that don't have any material sense when they will have anything for free. You can believe or not but nobody will put a shit throughout a field to get points that can't buy anything material and especially when everything is going to be free.


Considering current technology and its capacities for abundant production, there would be nothing wrong with this whatsoever -- plenty of people could simply receive from the technological / material 'commons', as we do with web pages on the Internet today, and it wouldn't be deleterious to society in the least.

You're obviously just being antagonistic and impolite for whatever personal reason you may have, since I've covered all of these points of argument several times now.

Here it is, in detail:





And this is why your version of communism would cause a famine and capitalist counter-reaction.


You're being dramatic here without sufficient reasoning to back up this conclusion of yours.

My response is the 'ham and yogurt' scenario at post #14, which you'd rather ignore.





People wouldn't do unpleasant jobs for something that is so immaterial to them as your points.


You may want to call them 'labor credits', since that's what they are.

You have no grounds for making such a *blanket* statement as this -- as with anything, *some* people would, and others wouldn't.

The labor credits are *not* immaterial, since they empower the *selection* of liberated-labor, going forward.





Who of them would care that anybody will be employed anywhere for some strange points that can buy nothing?


Well, you're correct in that *you* wouldn't, since you're obviously only speaking for your own opinion here, with no *social* line of reasoning.

[tuwix]

Considering current technology and its capacities for abundant production, there would be nothing wrong with this whatsoever -- plenty of people could simply receive from the technological / material 'commons', as we do with web pages on the Internet today, and it wouldn't be deleterious to society in the least.


Well, I don't know any search engine like technology for food. As I know I can't type anywhere pizza to get free pizza. And I tell this because a food production doesn't work this way. Despite great technological advancement, nobody heard about fully automatic farm. I don't know how many farmers do you know(I suppose not many) but I know some of them and they do their job due to economic coercion only. There is no coercion to do it, they stop it. It's simple as that.



You're obviously just being antagonistic and impolite for whatever personal reason you may have, since I've covered all of these points of argument several times now.



If you take my words as impoliteness, I'm very sorry, but I only try to get you to face a reality. Office job it's not the same as hard physical job. Hatred to it doesn't come from capitalist oppression only but frequently from physical pain. Farmers usually are kind of free lancers who aren't enslaved by corporations. Nonetheless, they hate their jobs and your highly sophisticated labor credits won't give them any incentive to do this job any longer, when everything is going to be for free...

[ckaihatsu]

Well, I don't know any search engine like technology for food. As I know I can't type anywhere pizza to get free pizza. And I tell this because a food production doesn't work this way. Despite great technological advancement, nobody heard about fully automatic farm.


We're also not at communism yet, either.





I don't know how many farmers do you know(I suppose not many) but I know some of them and they do their job due to economic coercion only. There is no coercion to do it, they stop it. It's simple as that.


Your *tone* is one of difference and argumentation with me, yet you're making all the same kinds of points I would make, on *political* grounds.

*Of course* people work under capitalism due to economic necessity, and *that* wouldn't exist once workers are in control and can
collectively coordinate to utilize technology to finally bring about labor-less pizza-making, or anything else.





If you take my words as impoliteness, I'm very sorry, but I only try to get you to face a reality. Office job it's not the same as hard physical job. Hatred to it doesn't come from capitalist oppression only but frequently from physical pain. Farmers usually are kind of free lancers who aren't enslaved by corporations. Nonetheless, they hate their jobs and your highly sophisticated labor credits won't give them any incentive to do this job any longer, when everything is going to be for free...


Again, I'm *not* disagreeing. Here's what I actually said:





Considering current technology and its capacities for abundant production, there would be nothing wrong with this whatsoever -- plenty of people could simply receive from the technological / material 'commons', as we do with web pages on the Internet today, and it wouldn't be deleterious to society in the least.


I take issue with your characterization of labor credits as being 'sophisticated' -- here is their *actual* function:





The *purpose* for the labor credits is as a *guarantee* that a certain amount of labor effort has already been put forth (or else it was issued as debt, on the reputation of an entire locality's population).


And here's my position regarding the utility / usefulness of labor credits:





If everything that everyone needs and desires *could* be provided for, for free, then the societal problem is completely solved and the labor credits framework would *not* be needed whatsoever.




But if there *are* any unpleasant conditions involved in the providing of goods and services that people need and want, then the liberated labor required would necessarily *not* be easy and so-freely-given. With effort comes the reasonable expectation of recognition and reward, and understandably so -- at that point society should have a framework in place that meets those expectations in a standard, consistent way, for everyone, so that people know what to expect if they put in some kind of work effort that they wouldn't readily do for free, as a gift.

The labor credits provide a formal 'interchange' for all liberated-labor-hours, for freely accessible (non-commodity, pre-planned, pre-allocated) resources, materials, and goods for the public good.

[tuwix]

We're also not at communism yet, either.


Introducing a communism won't create fully automatic farm by itself. Furthermore, such farm must be created before abolishing a money IMHO to avoid a lack of incentive to do unpleasant jobs scenario.




The labor credits provide a formal 'interchange' for all liberated-labor-hours, for freely accessible (non-commodity, pre-planned, pre-allocated) resources, materials, and goods for the public good.


And here lies your idealism towards a labor credits. I don't see those crowds desiring to put a shit throughout a field (and this is frequently a farmers job) because labor credits exist. University professors will do it or just city hipsters?
Automate unpleasant jobs first and then abolish a money. Then it will work.

[ckaihatsu]

Introducing a communism won't create fully automatic farm by itself. Furthermore, such farm must be created before abolishing a money IMHO to avoid a lack of incentive to do unpleasant jobs scenario.


I don't disagree, but on a finer point, I'm wondering why you think that money would be a favorable form of incentive while labor credits wouldn't -- consider that once workers are in control and presumably working in their / our own interests to automate any and all tasks possible, the *benefits* from that automation would be immediately available, in the form of goods and automated services, like free food and self-driving tram tours of these newly automated farms, respectively.

If someone didn't want to do farmwork but wanted to drink beer, they could do *other* kinds of work and get the money needed to *buy* beer -- that's the conventional way that we're used to.

But *also*, in the same situation, the person could similarly just do other kinds of work and earn the *labor credits* necessary to *empower* the kind of farm labor necessary -- raising wheat, etc. -- for making beer.

In the *conventional* way, with money, people would still be in a *personal-acquisitive* kind of mode, even if it wasn't today's all-out, runaway primitive-accumulation kind of mode (building up limitless collections of private capital).

With *labor credits* the entire ethos changes, to where one could live perfectly fine with or without working, because all that society would require would be a 'core group' doing socially necessary labor for the benefit of all, regardless. Any tasks that *weren't* done this way would be enabled with the labor credits system, since one's unobligated liberated-labor would empower them to select a like / proportionate amount of liberated-labor elsewhere, going forward.

So if beer (or ham and yogurt) wasn't being freely produced, that would spur those who want beer to seek-out opportunities for providing their liberated-labor elsewhere, thus adding themselves to the actively participating workforce and growing the post-capitalist economy. Production wouldn't be *limited* / constricted to only the sum of dollars (money) that people were willing to spend for the basket of goods exchangeable for that sum of money -- instead liberated-labor would be working to the extent of their *hours* that are funded, with resulting production freely distributed to all who demand / request / order it (in advance, pre-planned).

In other words social distribution would *not* be defined by money-for-work -- with labor credits social production would conform much more to social *need*, rather than to the (effective) commodification of labor.





And here lies your idealism towards a labor credits. I don't see those crowds desiring to put a shit throughout a field (and this is frequently a farmers job) because labor credits exist. University professors will do it or just city hipsters?
Automate unpleasant jobs first and then abolish a money. Then it will work.


Yes, automation of distasteful and undesirable tasks would be paramount, undoubtedly -- this would be in the collective social interest, so that *no one* has to do such labor.

(Regarding your purported 'idealism' of labor credits, see above.)

[ckaihatsu]

Only you do it through polls, and guarantee a job.





In this model there are *no* political representatives of any kind, aside from whatever people may want to do informally.


I'd like to elaborate on this topic, in the context of the labor credits framework....

Under the conventional labor -> money -> goods framework there has to be some process for *selecting* specific individuals for specific work roles, or jobs. Even under the dotp / market socialism framework, with production goods / means of mass production entirely collectivized and collectively administrated, there would have to be some kind of standard approach for *how* certain laborers are selected for any given socially necessary work role.

The unavoidable implication of 'labor -> money -> goods' is that 'money buys labor', or that there would have to be a *market for labor*, since people will be willing to commit more of their earned dollars for specialty goods that are more difficult to produce, thus funding higher wages.

So, back to the beginning of this post, if the question is 'Who will get a job?', the market-socialism answer would *have* to be 'Whoever is willing to produce goods for the lowest cost in wages possible'.

I'll gladly acknowledge that this wouldn't be *exploitation*, though, since no one would be under any *duress* to produce anything -- anyone could always satisfy their basic needs for life and living from the world's collectivized commons, and/or directly from natural resources, but it *would* be a 'market' for job-creation and worker-selection, for anything that *would* be socially produced.

If the argument for a *union*-like organization of liberated labor is put forth, for the sake of a conscious, 'hands-on', *planned* selection of labor for work roles, then the result would be all of the complications that go with organizational politics -- would selection be based on age-seniority -- ? Work-seniority, in years -- ? Work-seniority, in actual hours -- ? By popularly elected officials and patronage -- ? By some kind of substitutionist bureaucratic administrative specialists -- ? (Etc.)

I'll again contend that the 'labor credits' framework at post #2 is able to *supersede* all of these logistical problematics, of markets and organizations, for the best interests of social need.

[ckaihatsu]

[I] don't see those crowds desiring to put a shit throughout a field (and this is frequently a farmers job) because labor credits exist. [...]


Sorry to go on even more, but I'll put forth a quick scenario for this example since it's warranted....

Let's say that 'work-from-home mattress testing' is the *easiest* work role ever known, and so the multiplier for it is a '1' -- one hour of liberated-labor yields 1 labor credit.

'Spreading manure on a field' happens to be a '4' according to the mass work-role exit survey, but, as things turn out, people have *not* yet automated this kind of farmwork, yet *many* people are demanding beer, which requires this role, and other kinds of farmwork, for its production.

While engineering students and a worldwide legion of hobbyists unobtrusively work in the background on automating this task once-and-for-all, some others note the disparity between supply and demand and opportunistically announce that *they* will do this kind of work, to produce an abundance of beer for the greater region, but only at a multiplier rate of '6'.

Why would *anyone* give a shit about labor credits and agree to do shitwork, even for an increased rate of labor credits, you ask -- ?

Because anyone who can command a *premium* of labor credits, as from higher multiplier rates, are effectively gaining and consolidating their control of society's *reproduction of labor*. Most likely there would be social ('political') factionalism involved, where those who are most 'socially concerned' or 'philosophically driven' would be coordinating to cover as much *unwanted* work territory as possible, all for the sake of political consolidation. Increased numbers of labor credits in-hand would allow a group to *direct* what social work roles are 'activated' (funded), going-forward.

Perhaps it's about colonizing another planet, or about carving high-speed rail networks that criss-cross and connect all seven continents underground. Maybe it's a certain academic approach to history and the sciences, with a cache of pooled labor credits going towards that school of educational instruction. Perhaps it's an *art* faction ascending, funding all kinds of large-scale projects that decorate major urban centers in never-before-seen kinds of ways.

Whatever the program and motivation, society as a whole would be collectively *ceding ground* if it didn't keep the 'revolution' and collectivism going, with a steady pace of automation that precluded whole areas of production from social politics altogether. Technology / automation empowers the *individual* and takes power out of the hands of groups that enjoy cohesiveness based on sheer *numbers* and a concomitant control of social reproduction in their ideological direction. The circulation and usage of labor credits would be a live formal tracking of how *negligent* the social revolution happened to be at any given moment, just as the consolidation of private property is today against the forces of revolutionary politics and international labor solidarity.

[tuwix]

I don't disagree, but on a finer point, I'm wondering why you think that money would be a favorable form of incentive while labor credits wouldn't

Because for money farmers can buy thing to survive and your labor credits won't be necessary for that. Other forms of labor credits than yours are usually just another form of money.

[ckaihatsu]

Because for money farmers can buy thing to survive


Understood, but at some point -- say, when major industries around dozens of the world's largest metropolitan centers have been taken over by revolutionary workers -- money itself would *quickly* become superfluous and meaningless, anyway.

Regular production quantities down the supply chains, as the workers have been used to working on already, under capitalism, would be familiar and would be the expected 'baseline' for a continuation of production under worker-collectivist control.

I guess I'm finding it difficult to believe that farmers *anywhere* would just suddenly be 'cut off' from regular supply chains once the revolution takes place, as you're implying here.





and your labor credits won't be necessary for that.


But again you're just summarily being *dismissive* of the labor credits, as compared to money, without putting forth any kind of line as to 'why'.





Other forms of labor credits than yours are usually just another form of money.


I'll note that my 'labor credits' is a *unique* formulation, only applying to liberated-labor *hours*, and nothing else, and so by that definition is *not* comparable to money -- there is no commodification possible with the labor credits.

[tuwix]

I guess I'm finding it difficult to believe that farmers *anywhere* would just suddenly be 'cut off' from regular supply chains once the revolution takes place, as you're implying here.


It's not the major problem. The problem lies in free access to all. When it is free, they won't have to do their unpleasant jobs.





But again you're just summarily being *dismissive* of the labor credits, as compared to money, without putting forth any kind of line as to 'why'.


When are need to survive, your labor credits not. This is why it isn't good incentive to do physically unpleasant jobs. As I said some time ago, many want to be actor, writer, pilot, but not many want to be cleaner, farmer and trash man...

[ckaihatsu]

I guess I'm finding it difficult to believe that farmers *anywhere* would just suddenly be 'cut off' from regular supply chains once the revolution takes place, as you're implying here.





It's not the major problem. The problem lies in free access to all. When it is free, they won't have to do their unpleasant jobs.


Unfortunately, tuwix, you're arguing both sides of the same coin, and showing yourself to merely be argumentative as a result.

If post-capitalist conditions allow for all (collectivist) production and distribution to be *free-access*, then the corollary to that is that nothing is *so* unpleasant that it can't be done for free. This would correlate to a highly developed, technologically leveraged collectivist social order, and would be the most-desirable kind of society.

But, on this thread of discussion you've clearly stated that 'unpleasant conditions' *may* possibly exist -- this would mean that not all labor could be freely gifted:





[A]s I said some time ago, many want to be actor, writer, pilot, but not many want to be cleaner, farmer and trash man...


So it's fair to say that if undesirable work roles like 'cleaner', 'farmer', and 'trash man' would somehow continue to exist in a post-capitalist social context, these kinds of labor would *not* be provided freely, in a sheerly voluntaristic kind of way -- anyone who voluntarily did these kinds of work *would* reasonably expect some kind of parallel social reciprocity, of some sort, for their special efforts.


---





But again you're just summarily being *dismissive* of the labor credits, as compared to money, without putting forth any kind of line as to 'why'.





When are need to survive, your labor credits not. This is why it isn't good incentive to do physically unpleasant jobs. As I said some time ago, many want to be actor, writer, pilot, but not many want to be cleaner, farmer and trash man...


Again:





But again you're just summarily being *dismissive* of the labor credits, as compared to money, without putting forth any kind of line as to 'why'.


All you're doing, tuwix, is repeating your out-of-nowhere assertion that 'labor credits wouldn't be a good incentive', but you're not bothering to say *why*.

My response to your groundless assertion is at post #27, where I take on the question of:





Why would *anyone* give a shit about labor credits and agree to do shitwork, even for an increased rate of labor credits, you ask -- ?

[tuwix]

If post-capitalist conditions allow for all (collectivist) production and distribution to be *free-access*, then the corollary to that is that nothing is *so* unpleasant that it can't be done for free.


If you ask whether can they, I answer in theory they can. In reality you'll have a shortage of people offering an unpleasant job and no way to replace them in short period.



anyone who voluntarily did these kinds of work *would* reasonably expect some kind of parallel social reciprocity, of some sort, for their special efforts.


But firstly why to do it when everything is for free regardless what you do?



All you're doing, tuwix, is repeating your out-of-nowhere assertion that 'labor credits wouldn't be a good incentive', but you're not bothering to say *why*.


Maybe I haven't expressed it clearly, but money are needed to survive and this is why they are good incentive to do physically unpleasant job. Your labor credits aren't needed to survive and this is why they aren't good incentive to do so.

[human strike]

There aren't different forms of communism. Communism is as communism does.

[1xAntifa]

Anarchist of course.:laugh:

[ckaihatsu]

If post-capitalist conditions allow for all (collectivist) production and distribution to be *free-access*, then the corollary to that is that nothing is *so* unpleasant that it can't be done for free.





If you ask whether can they, I answer in theory they can. In reality you'll have a shortage of people offering an unpleasant job and no way to replace them in short period.


Exactly -- so there's no disagreement that unpleasant jobs *may* continue to exist into a post-capitalist political economy.

You're only arguing with yourself on this one.





anyone who voluntarily did these kinds of work *would* reasonably expect some kind of parallel social reciprocity, of some sort, for their special efforts.





But firstly why to do it when everything is for free regardless what you do?


Well, you were saying earlier that there could be a *shortage* of people who are willing to do unpleasant jobs, and so everything *might not* be able to be produced for free -- so either it's [1] everyone-will-work-for-free, [2] everyone-will-not-work-for-free, or some *combination* of the two, meaning that [3] whatever *is* produced is produced for free, and freely available, but that there's still unmet demand, as for more-discretionary goods and services, since the labor for that is more unpleasant and people don't want to do it for free.

If society wants to find a way to make sure that *all* expressed demand is responded-to with the provision of liberated labor for its fulfillment, then it has to acknowledge that not all liberated-labor work roles are the same (in difficulty and/or hazard), and that liberated labor itself might tend towards scarcity, as regarding more-difficult and more-hazardous kinds of work.

If *no one* wants to do difficult or hazardous (unpleasant) kinds of labor, then that might still work if everyone is okay with not-having the material benefits from that kind of work (or else they automate it so that they can get the benefits without needing constant labor for it).

If everything that *is* produced is free-access and no one wants to do labor for unmet demand because it's too unpleasant, then that's where the 'labor credits' method would apply, since its use would effectively be allowing liberated labor to self-organize on an *emergent* basis, where actual hours of work put in would yield a proportionate control over the selection of specific liberated labor hours going-forward. (See post #27.)





Maybe I haven't expressed it clearly, but money are needed to survive and this is why they are good incentive to do physically unpleasant job.





Understood, but at some point -- say, when major industries around dozens of the world's largest metropolitan centers have been taken over by revolutionary workers -- money itself would *quickly* become superfluous and meaningless, anyway.

Regular production quantities down the supply chains, as the workers have been used to working on already, under capitalism, would be familiar and would be the expected 'baseline' for a continuation of production under worker-collectivist control.

I guess I'm finding it difficult to believe that farmers *anywhere* would just suddenly be 'cut off' from regular supply chains once the revolution takes place, as you're implying here.


---





Your labor credits aren't needed to survive and this is why they aren't good incentive to do so.


As I've already stated, the labor credits would most appropriately apply to situations where the free-access voluntaristic gift economy breaks down -- I doubt that their usage would revolve around tasks of *survival*, but if that were the case then they could certainly serve quite well in that capacity.

See the 'beer' scenario at post #25 and the 'ham and yogurt' scenario at post #14.

[tuwix]

If someone didn't want to do farmwork but wanted to drink beer, they could do *other* kinds of work and get the money needed to *buy* beer -- that's the conventional way that we're used to.


So they start to write poems or star in movies or do whatever that is pleasant. And who will replace them? University professors, hipsters with iPads or George Clooney with Angelina Jolie?

[ckaihatsu]

So they start to write poems or star in movies or do whatever that is pleasant. And who will replace them? University professors, hipsters with iPads or George Clooney with Angelina Jolie?


You're showing far too much of a concern over what people decide to do with their lives, almost to the extent of being moralistic.

If a fully automated post-capitalist political economy *enabled* people to write poems, star in movies, and do whatever they thought was pleasant, all of that would be fine. Socially necessary labor like farmwork *should* be automated so that farm-related shit roles *don't* exist, while people would still be able to enjoy the productivities of agriculture.

[tuwix]

Socially necessary labor like farmwork *should* be automated so that farm-related shit roles *don't* exist, while people would still be able to enjoy the productivities of agriculture.

Yes, before introducing any form of communism that abolishes a money. And other physically unpleasant jobs too. And I'm saying it from the of our discussion about it...

[Celtic_0ne]

i'm pretty sure this is not a serious thread but eh
the best communism is the only communism, at this point we have a pretty good idea of what communism should look like, and if it doesn't look like that then it isn't communism.

[ckaihatsu]

If everyone will indulge me for a moment, we might want to look over a 'worst-case scenario' type of treatment....

Let's say it's Day 1 and, instead of the regular supply chains of productivity being continued intact from the past days of capitalism, everyone drops what they're doing to immediately write poetry, star in movies, do pleasant things, become university professors, use iPads in hipster ways, and strive for celebrity status.

After awhile there's a rude awakening and so the world's population grudgingly gravitates into a socially-obligatory work-role rotation system for society's most critical types of labor, like for that of farmwork. Incidentally nearly everyone rates the farm roles that they take part in as having a difficulty level of '10', meaning that they can't stand them and would rather be doing virtually anything else.

However the regular standardized rotation system, per locality, while sufficient, turns out to be lacking since it only covers the *most essential* socially productive labor -- and *benefits* from a lack of controversy because of that, too. Everyone does a modest, minimum amount of socially necessary labor which they find to be just barely tolerable, and benefits from having all of their basic needs met, without exception, and plenty of free time to live their lives as they wish -- without private accumulations, of course.

The people of Locality 'A' find that their taste for dairy products is unignorable, but they don't have the livestock and farming traditions to really get dairy production up-and-running on an equitable basis for everyone there.

Those in Locality 'B' find that they happen to share a strong taste for beer in common, yet their farmland happens to be devoid of wheat production.

So this is -- of course -- where the 'labor credits' come into play, since Locality A *is* growing wheat, and too much of it, as a matter of fact, while Locality B is larger in size, has terrific infrastructure for livestock and dairy production, but has not had the motivation to ramp up production to potential.

Sure, the reader could point out the obvious and suggest that a simple *swap* could take place, per communism, so that everyone gets what they really want through collectivized social production and lives happily ever after.

But -- the "reality" is that the two localities are quite different in size and productive capacities, with plenty of wheat production from the smaller 'Locality A', but no dairy, while the much-larger 'Locality B' would gladly take beer if it could get it but has little interest in producing it.

The point here being that [1] not all localities are going to be self-sufficient for all desired collective production, and [2] the possibilities for inter-locality 'swaps' may not be so neat, or 1-to-1, since actual produced quantities may vary quite significantly. What *would* make more sense would be to examine and compare required amounts of *labor hours* (and difficulties and hazards for such), for any potential coordination of cross-locality liberated labor, and free-and-unsparing distribution of resulting products.

The messiness here is that Locality A is much smaller in its population size than Locality B, but, with sufficient farm labor, could readily produce enough wheat to make plenty of beer for both localities. The total liberated labor necessary for this beer production would be far less than that required for Locality B's potential *dairy* production -- since the raising of livestock is more labor-intensive -- so a straight-swap of beer-for-dairy based on material quantities wouldn't be at all fair to the liberated laborers of Locality B since their labor hours for such would be far more for that swap than those from Locality A.

At this point many revolutionaries would just impatiently retort that 'Well what *else* are they all doing -- it's not like they're on a schedule or something', but it's easy for one to not-recall the premise from the beginning, that what everyone would *rather* be doing with their time is to write poetry, star in movies, do pleasant things, become university professors, use iPads in hipster ways, and strive for celebrity status.

So, to wrap up, the 'labor credits' method would enable a beer-for-dairy *ratio* of beer-production hours to dairy-production hours, so as to effectuate the inter-locality collectivist production of *both* beer and dairy, for *everyone* in both localities, indefinitely. This step-up in coordination would probably not have had sufficient social 'synergy' for its realization *without* the mechanism of the labor credits, hence their (hypothetical) existence and usage.

[tuwix]

Everyone does a modest, minimum amount of socially necessary labor which they find to be just barely tolerable, and benefits from having all of their basic needs met, without exception, and plenty of free time to live their lives as they wish -- without private accumulations, of course.


It shows the deepest idealism towards a system invented by yourself. Everyone? Now, in capitalism everyone should compete. Does everyone do it? I don't, for example. So not everybody will behave as you would like. And if you won't automate unpleasant jobs before abolishing a money, you're going to have a massive problems including a famine and counter-revolution due yo lack a workforce to do physically unpleasant jobs.

[ckaihatsu]

It shows the deepest idealism towards a system invented by yourself.


Ha! Hardly.

You're confusing the sense of a *prescriptive* narrative, or pre-conceived idealistic utopia / idealism, for a *framework*, mine, that allows a self-liberated world to arrange its own labor efforts within its own ranks.





Everyone?


Remember, this is a *worst-case* scenario, with a socially-obligatory rotation system of societal labor roles as a *default*.





Now, in capitalism everyone should compete. Does everyone do it? I don't, for example. So not everybody will behave as you would like.


Again, this isn't *prescriptive*, as you're implying. It's a *framework*, and I'm only one person out of billions.





And if you won't automate unpleasant jobs before abolishing a money,


This isn't about *me*, it's about *society*.





you're going to have a massive problems including a famine and counter-revolution due yo lack a workforce to do physically unpleasant jobs.


*I* myself happen to encourage a post-capitalist automation of any and all labor roles.

If, for whatever, reason, that post-capitalist society *doesn't* automate drudgery-type roles quickly and allows unpleasant jobs to persist, then see post #40 for a treatment that addresses that kind of situation.

[tuwix]

This isn't about *me*, it's about *society*.



But it's model of society invented by you...




If, for whatever, reason, that post-capitalist society *doesn't* automate drudgery-type roles quickly and allows unpleasant jobs to persist, then see post #40 for a treatment that addresses that kind of situation.

Even capitalist society will ultimately automate physically unpleasant jobs. I only show what will happen if somebody decide to abolish money without such automation...

[ckaihatsu]

But it's model of society invented by you...


No, it's not a model of society, it's a model of *political economy*.





Even capitalist society will ultimately automate physically unpleasant jobs.


No, this can't be assumed because poverty and prison conditions are maintained indefinitely to keep labor-power devalued and available for any given task.





I only show what will happen if somebody decide to abolish money without such automation...


What is it that you claim to be showing -- ? (What are you saying would happen if money is abolished without the prior automation of unpleasant jobs -- ?)

[tuwix]

No, this can't be assumed because poverty and prison conditions are maintained indefinitely to keep labor-power devalued and available for any given task.



Physically unpleasant jobs aren't necessary for that. Unpleasant corporate office job are enough for that.




What is it that you claim to be showing -- ? (What are you saying would happen if money is abolished without the prior automation of unpleasant jobs -- ?)

I'm sorry but I don't exactly understand the question. I don't know what you actually mean. :)

[RA89]

I'm sorry but I don't exactly understand the question. I don't know what you actually mean. :)

I believe the question is

What will happen if money is abolished without such automation?


(In response to you saying "I only show what will happen if somebody decide to abolish money without such automation...")

[Q]

Moved from /theory to /learning as the OP has little theoretical value to add.

[mushroompizza]

The best form is the one with no Leninists, aka regular Communism. I got another question whats the difference between Communism and Anarcho-Communism. Thats like saying feudalism and monarcho-feudalism, you are just adding a word!

[#FF0000]

The best form is the one with no Leninists, aka regular Communism. I got another question whats the difference between Communism and Anarcho-Communism. Thats like saying feudalism and monarcho-feudalism, you are just adding a word!

Communists and anarchists have different strategies, tactics, etc.

[tuwix]

I believe the question is

What will happen if money is abolished without such automation?


(In response to you saying "I only show what will happen if somebody decide to abolish money without such automation...")

It's clear when you read our discussion with ckaihatsu. But I can reiterate that people who now are enforced to do physically unpleasant work due to financial conditions in capitalism in their majority cease to do it and it will cause a lack of appropriate amount of food that is famine...


The best form is the one with no Leninists, aka regular Communism. I got another question whats the difference between Communism and Anarcho-Communism. Thats like saying feudalism and monarcho-feudalism, you are just adding a word!

The way to get it is completely different. Marxist communism has phases. In first one there is only abolishing a private property but money remains. In higher one money and state disappear. In anarcho-communism there is no state and money without any transition.

[Creative Destruction]

What's the best form of Communism?

communism.

[Creative Destruction]

The way to get it is completely different. Marxist communism has phases. In first one there is only abolishing a private property but money remains. In higher one money and state disappear. In anarcho-communism there is no state and money without any transition.

No, this is wrong. Money and the state are not features in the lower phase of communism.

[Comrade Jacob]

I think you mean socialism?
It does depend on the nation's circumstances. But Marxism-Leninism has been shown to be the most able in revolution and building socialism.