Distribution

[Kingbruh]

How are items distributed under Anarchism?


One thing I don't understand...in the anarchist (stateless) stage of Communism, who will determine who gets what? Obviously there are no markets, and no government either, so who will determine who gets what?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

No one determines it, or at least no one explicitly determines who gets what. The community decides what to produce and individuals take it as needed, all in conjunction with surrounding communities, so on and so on. With the abolition of private property the need for a ruling body to determine who is entitled to what has been surpassed and replaced with a community of free producers and free consumers.

[Kingbruh]

No one determines it, or at least no one explicitly determines who gets what. The community decides what to produce and individuals take it as needed, all in conjunction with surrounding communities, so on and so on. With the abolition of private property the need for a ruling body to determine who is entitled to what has been surpassed and replaced with a community of free producers and free consumers.
Yes but would there be a council that decides everything through central planning?

[Creative Destruction]

Yes but would there be a council that decides everything through central planning?

Probably not.

[Sea]

We've been over this a thousand times.

Print this out and fill in the blanks:
From each according _____ _____ ability _____ _____ _____ to _____ need.Be sure to have an eraser handy in case you make a mistake. :rolleyes:

Let me know when you solve the puzzle.

[Kingbruh]

We've been over this a thousand times.

Print this out and fill in the blanks:Be sure to have an eraser handy in case you make a mistake. :rolleyes:

Let me know when you solve the puzzle.
I understand that. But who decides how much "someone needs" and how is this allocated?

[tuwix]

One thing I don't understand...in the anarchist (stateless) stage of Communism, who will determine who gets what? Obviously there are no markets, and no government either, so who will determine who gets what?

First of all, market will never cease to exist. There will always some weak form of barter. It won't be decider. You will. If you want something, you get it as simple as that. In terms of scarce products, there will be booking in computer system.

[Kingbruh]

First of all, market will never cease to exist. There will always some weak form of barter. It won't be decider. You will. If you want something, you get it as simple as that. In terms of scarce products, there will be booking in computer system.
I'm not saying it won't, I'm just wondering how people get what they need without either 1)Money and markets, or 2) Central planning through a government. That's what i'm mostly confused about.

[#FF0000]

I'm not saying it won't, I'm just wondering how people get what they need without either 1)Money and markets, or 2) Central planning through a government. That's what i'm mostly confused about.

The federation of workers councils, which wouldn't decide "who gets what" so much as what people want and how to meet these wants and needs.

[ChangeAndChance]

Do some research on decentralized planning. It's pretty much the libsoc solution to any capitalist's criticism of communism under the assumption that Soviet-style central planning is the only model of communism there is.

[Kingbruh]

Do some research on decentralized planning. It's pretty much the libsoc solution to any capitalist's criticism of communism under the assumption that Soviet-style central planning is the only model of communism there is.
Will do, thanks.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm not saying it won't, I'm just wondering how people get what they need without either 1)Money and markets, or 2) Central planning through a government. That's what i'm mostly confused about.

If you want something, you go to the distribution centre, or however you wish to call the place that stores consumer articles, and take it. I'm not sure what the problem is.

There is the usual "but what if you want a hundred bananas" objection. Well, what if you do? First of all, you can't eat a hundred bananas, so you must be making alcohol of some sort - good for you. Second, it would really be a poor socialist society that would collapse because someone took a hundred bananas. That's not realistic - even in capitalism we produce around 3000 kcal/person.

There is also the "but if there is no money people will refuse to work because homo oeconomicus malarkey". First of all, yes, it's quite possible that some shitty jobs will no longer be preformed. This is a good thing - it means people are no longer being forced to do things they find unpleasant. As for the rest, people like doing things, although this is obscured by the coercion that is inherent in capitalism. That's why we have hobbies and don't just sit around staring at a wall all day. In socialism, a job will be more like a hobby than anything called a job today. And even today, we do slightly unpleasant things to avoid further unpleasantness, like cleaning the toilet or hosing down the gimp.

As for how production will be organised so that the demand generated by members of society will be met, that is another subject. Obviously it needs to be central in the sense of being society-wide, because both demand and production are global (I sometimes want feijoas from Brazil; a steel factory in god-knows-where might use iron ore from France and coal from Belgium etc.). This does not mean that central planning necessitates a government - quite the contrary, global central planning means that the state, the coercive political power, has died out.

[Tim Cornelis]

you can eat a hundred bananas.

http://www.30bananasaday.com

[ckaihatsu]

I understand that. But who decides how much "someone needs" and how is this allocated?


I second this concern, because in all the treatments I've heard of so far there's no way to distinguish any *relativeness* among the various calls for production that people may have -- 'needs' vs. 'wants'.

Even staying within the relatively benign area of *food* there could easily be controversy over which kinds of crops to farm, and if meat and dairy and alcohol should be produced or not, and to what extents if so.

Although the following may at first seem trivial and easily dealt-with, we could even ask who gets the *best cuts of meat* from any livestock that's raised for food -- is a better-cut more of a 'need' or more of a 'want', and on what basis would this distribution of cuts of meat be decided -- ?





First of all, market will never cease to exist. There will always some weak form of barter. It won't be decider. You will. If you want something, you get it as simple as that.


Falling back to the market for *anything* is a bad idea because it sets a bad precedent -- where would society draw the line for that, and how laissez-faire would it be -- ?

Also consider that markets require governmental overhead for regulation (to mitigate cutthroat competition), as is the case today, and, at that point, the market sphere would just be a drain on people's efforts for the sake of the communist-type commons.

Here's a proposed implementation of a mixed approach, illustrated, though I don't advocate it myself:


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



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





In terms of scarce products, there will be booking in computer system.


If you mean first-come-first-served, that would be okay for anything that wasn't *too* scarce, like housing, for example, but it couldn't be done *at all* for attendance at one-time events like music concerts. For this kind of thing I developed a method called 'Additive Prioritizations', at tinyurl.com/additive-prioritizations.





I'm not saying it won't, I'm just wondering how people get what they need without either 1)Money and markets, or 2) Central planning through a government. That's what i'm mostly confused about.





The federation of workers councils, which wouldn't decide "who gets what" so much as what people want and how to meet these wants and needs.


The shortcoming of the 'federated representation' approach is that it's essentially *substitutionist* for actual, direct worker participation. It's downright outdated and antiquated in our present time of Internet communications since people can discuss and collectivize directly, without requiring any levels of mediation.





Do some research on decentralized planning. It's pretty much the libsoc solution to any capitalist's criticism of communism under the assumption that Soviet-style central planning is the only model of communism there is.


I'm in agreement that bureaucratic collectivism is not the way to go since it creates a stratum of *specialists* that collectively have their own interests in common, to maintain their collective position as bureaucrats -- as against the workers for self-determination.





[O]bviously it needs to be central in the sense of being society-wide, because both demand and production are global (I sometimes want feijoas from Brazil; a steel factory in god-knows-where might use iron ore from France and coal from Belgium etc.). This does not mean that central planning necessitates a government - quite the contrary, global central planning means that the state, the coercive political power, has died out.


Here's my position on this issue:





I've gone over this issue in depth here at RevLeft and I've arrived at the conclusion that anarchist- / syndicalist-type local control is *not* incompatible with a global-scale centralized planning, as I've described here at post #2. So 'central planning' is *not* opposite to socialism.

There would have to be very good information flows, both upwards and downwards in scale, which -- again -- is certainly doable these days using the Internet and a discussion-board format like RevLeft.

The scale and extents of global-level central planning would be *limited* by the actual availability of on-the-ground willing participation, and most likely not *all* projects everywhere would have to be part of a global-scale planning initiative, or plan.

But for whatever *did* become both planned and participated-in *could* be centrally planned, and *would* be socialism.


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/)