Anarchist cryptocurrency and anarcho-syndicalist counter-economy. [Archive]

tuwix

30th June 2015, 05:51

A lot of people seem to just shut down after the term cryptocurrency, and while I understand why, I don't think the criticism holds true. The only attributes being adopted from bitcoin is its uncorruptable database and public ledger, and its ability to form consensus networks and voting platforms. Antok itself is a non-accumulative, one token per person, rationed economy, that is equally distributed. The anarcho syndicalist aspect solely serves as an optional management platform for external currencies.

This is what has existed out of necessity in past anarchist societies, except physically organised, rather than digitally. So please ignore the name a bit and be more specific in pointing out any proposed functions which do not adhere to anarchist principles. If I could have name it something else I would have, but a lot of the developments being built on this underlying technology have nothing to do with currencies.

Money is universal mean of payment. Currency is a form of that in specific country. So tell me what could make your currency a universal mean of payment in any territory?

Rudolf

30th June 2015, 11:45

I don't think you know what anarcho-syndicalism is. Anarcho-syndicalism isn't a way of operating non-profits, it's not a counter-economy and it's not a way to manage currencies (wtf?) it's a form of unionism. Replace all your references to anarcho-syndicalism with revolutionary unionism and you can see how nonsensical it is.

Spectre of Spartacism

1st July 2015, 00:21

The purpose of communism is not to throw currency backed value down to a local level. It is to abolish them at an international level.

tuwix

1st July 2015, 06:00

@ tuwix - Really I just want to hijack the technology to try and mimic anarchist organisational methods, not invent a new type of money, only in the sense of providing a token. But it will provide a digital and global platform for bartering and if different local assemblies trust each other, then there is no reason they cannot start sharing resources so their tokens can be validated on a larger scale. Otherwise if you moved for example, you can register with another assembly within the area.

Bartering is an exchange without money. But currency is still money. I can imagine that local assemblies could use it but for what? To sell zines? Books? And it has no other utility. You won't buy a bread using that.

Rudolf

1st July 2015, 13:39

@ Rudolf - I'm certainly not an expert and open to correcting any mistakes I make but I never said anarcho-syndicalism is a way of operating non-profits or that its just a means of managing currencies. Maybe I mis-spoke a bit in my last statement but if you look at what I'm proposing then the local assembly is intended to function as a union. And if different collectives are combining to create economies under community control, then its logical to me that is spawning a counter-economy movement. An internal bartering system also assists in this definition.

Well, you were saying things such as:

optional anarcho-syndicalism management tools
anarcho-syndicalist counter-economy
Participating collectives operate in a non-profit or anarcho-syndicalist manner
Transparent anarcho-syndicalist processes and community control of finances

Which tbh confuses me as anarcho-syndicalism is an integration of anarchism and the union movement.

Anarcho-syndicalism's about forming workplace-community unions, these are combative organisations based on direct action at work through strikes, slow downs etc and in the community such as rent strikes, blockades etc. It's focus is day to day class struggle and educating the working class so they'll be capable of managing production and distribution.

You're talking about organising and managing production whereas anarcho-syndicalism's about sabotaging it.

It's not the anarcho-syndicalist union's role to manage production and distribution that is the role of the 'economic communities and administrative organs run by the workers...forming a system of free councils without subordination to any authority' (to quote IWA-AIT statutes). The union ceases to exist when capitalism's destruction is guaranteed. These workers councils become the organisational basis of communist society.

On this note i'm somewhat concerned by your mention of collectives "contributing any profits to local assemblies"... as that sounds like you may be proposing a self-managed exploitation.

Spectre of Spartacism

2nd July 2015, 00:28

@ Spectre of Spartacism - Of course communism internationally is the ultimate goal but if people can't even achieve it locally then I'm not sure where this revolution is coming from. I want to encourage it at a every level but for me people first need to take control of their own surroundings. Then sharing mind-sets can be instilled and like I said, there is no reason trusted assemblies cannot begin to join together and expand to a national and international scale. That is the aim.

Communism cannot be achieved locally in an epoch when the division of labor is global. If you can't understand this, your communism is based entirely in arbitrary fancy.

ckaihatsu

2nd July 2015, 20:50

Contributing any profits to local assemblies for community control and allocation decisions.

Not an anarchist, but I *will* note this mention of 'profit' -- in *any* socio-political environment 'profit' is *not* value-neutral. Those, with whatever currency, who can extract *more* profit will be generating more currency-value (exchange value), and not necessarily through labor-equitable means. Their gain in profit-extraction will translate to a proportionate gain in local political power, all other things being relatively equal.

While I'm sure there will be ways to leverage being a community's highest earner, I don't have a clear picture of how it can be dishonestly exploited politically to a significant degree,

What you're suggesting is basically 'market socialism', which is problematic for its (necessarily) indeterminate addressing of 'value' -- in other words, what would a 'dollar' (of post-capitalist cryptocurrency or whatever) be *worth*, and how would it be valuated as that in the first place -- ?

when truly under direct-democratic controls. If a society can survive without any interaction with capitalist world, then all power to it! But I don't think most the world is there yet and I accept anarcho-syndicalism as realist approach in the transition. Other option would be state organised, which I believe is much more vulnerable to corruption.

One option would be a kind of 'state' organization that uses some kind of formula to *assign* certain valuations to the currency for particular tasks and goods, but then that would be a social *specialization*, or authority, over that function, which would be inherently anti-collectivist.

What other options would remain for assigning valuations -- ?

Letting values *float*, according to supply-and-demand, would just be back to the *market* system, which implies *commodification* of goods and labor, even if the means of mass production / production goods have all been collectivized -- 'market socialism'.

The intrinsic problem with *any* kind of currency regime (including bartering) is that it inherently maintains a realm of *exchange values* alongside the *use values* of actual, everyday usage. Socially and politically we can argue for the realm of 'use values' to prevail, so that people are no longer supporting 'wealth' and profit-making, but as long as the realm of *exchange values* exists at all, its existence, and preference, *will* remain as an available option for the people of that society.

ckaihatsu

3rd July 2015, 15:21

@ - ckaihatsu

Since antok is a token based system that is tied to a particular identity, it is always worth 0 dollars, except to that person. With digital and physical methods employed at local assembly levels to prevent bad actors.

I don't have any plans yet to start complicatedly re-defining value beyond a token and bartering system. I want to keep this as open and be-spoke a platform as possible so it can be meshed into any culture and experimented with. There are other projects such as Faircoin focused on this.

Allow me to rephrase -- how would the 'token and bartering system' arrive-at the *rates* that are used for purchases and exchanges?

From what you're describing it sounds like *market dynamics* (supply-and-demand) would continue to be the default, so that any participant who deals with goods more often than the average person would have a clear advantage, by having greater-than-average access to a wide array of exchange values, through ownership of those items.

It's for this reason that I stated that the realm of 'exchange values' -- however it's implemented -- is inherently problematic.

Rudolf

3rd July 2015, 17:10

@ Rudolf - To be honest anarchist politics is all relatively new to me and I haven't articulated my ideas very well I don't think. No worries. If you've any questions or after reading suggestions feel free to give me a shout.

You say the focus anarcho-syndicalism is to to educate the working class so they are capable of managing production and distribution. And that is exactly my focus, with the goal of sabotaging capitalism.

Well, the focus is on day to day struggle but ofc education is necessary. This is not only an education is the workings of capitalism and its abolition but also in our struggles in the here and now as well as experience of running a formal organisation.

You are right, the local assemblies should be compared to councils rather than unions, but I do also want antok to be a platform for collectives to help organise themselves. anarcho-syndicalists interestingly do aim to organise mass assemblies as can be seen from the Spanish CNT in Puerto Real (http://www.solfed.org.uk/solfed/tp-2-anarcho-syndicalism-in-puerto-real)

ckaihatsu

6th July 2015, 02:42

@ ckaihatsu -

So yes, with a token, obviously there are no rates,

Your formulation of what the tokens are *for* isn't clear, antok -- you seem to be indicating *two* separate, possible uses for them:

[1]

[...] By itself [the tokens] cannot be used to buy and sell bread or anything else. Only to receive an equal share of what your registered assembly either produced or purchased collectively.

So from the *individual* scale, upwards to the 'assembly', the tokens would only be a *formality* for indicating a request for an 'equal share' of what was available from the local assembly.

[2]

just equal access to resources. But bartering for items not under assembly control would still be subject to negotiations and market dynamics. Although I'd try to encourage favourable terms for trade between assemblies however possible, Antok would have no control over it and wouldn't impose any restrictions on whatever currencies or forms of values assemblies wished to use on top of it. Have to accept limitations on that point, but the primary objective is to expropriate as much as possible of the goods and services into assembly control, thereby undermining any existent capitalist agendas.

At the same time it appears that the tokens would *circulate*, so that individuals could look *beyond* their own local assembly's available goods, as to *external* assemblies and *their* goods.

Also you're indicating that not all of society's production would be handled by the assemblies alone, so this means that there would be non-assembly-collective production, *outside* of those environs -- effectively *privately-controlled* production, or *private property*.

You're admitting that 'items not under assembly control would still be subject to negotiations and market dynamics'.

So at this point it sounds like what you're describing would be a network of *syndicalist* production, amidst a greater or lesser environment of conventional *private* production. Basically this *wouldn't* be revolutionary, then, because we wouldn't know what kind of oversight and regulation -- as for workers' interests -- would apply to those areas of *private*-based production.

There'd be nothing to prevent the presumably worker-controlled 'assemblies' from *shrinking away* in size and scope as they became less and less competitive in the marketplace compared to corporate-type configurations that grew to monopolize resources and market share.

ckaihatsu

6th July 2015, 22:27

Idea behind barter system is to just to use the public ledger to monitor internal trades and provide smart contracts for swaps etc.. Using physical items tied to the blockchain to allow an alternative global and transparent trade. Which also provides a global resource management utility.

I don't mean to shit on your parade, antok, but all of this is decidedly a *consumer*-sided perspective on what a post-capitalist approach would need.

The very *premise* of 'currency' -- *any* kind of currency -- automatically implies *exchanges* of some kind, and that brings us right back to the current economic paradigm of commodity-production and exchange values.

Your overriding concern here is with 'internal trades' and 'swaps', but this only begs the question of collective *production* and what a liberated-*labor* might be worth, according to such an economic system. Would everyone be expected to work, without 'internal trades' and 'swaps' for their labor, for the common good -- ? Would all types of work roles and all work hours be viewed as *equivalent* somehow, so that everyone would unconditionally receive the aforementioned 'equal share of what your registered assembly either produced or purchased collectively' -- ?

I'll note that the terrrain you're involved in inherently extends beyond just introducing a new secure 'currency' alone -- I'll include an illustrative treatment that I created for the sake of critiquing the conventional formulation of 'labor vouchers', which I think is also relevant here:

Pies Must Line Up

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

ckaihatsu

7th July 2015, 02:36

During the Spanish civil war, some anarchist towns managed to abolish money completely but most eventually used a rationing system to prevent exploitation. This “currency” is only intended to replicate a modern form of rationing. And bartering was also a necessary function, to obtain vital resources to sustain the revolution, while attempting to reject existent capitalist currencies.Oh, and fighting fascists. A realistic post-capitalist scenario I reckon.

While I *think* I have a sense of the type of rationing you're referring to, I'm not entirely clear on it -- if you'd like to briefly describe it or elaborate, I'd appreciate it.

My *concern*, though, is that there would be a lack of (operating) precision in matching labor inputs to resulting production, to the requests / demands for that pool of goods. In other words any labor participation for the sake of obtaining items for one's own personal consumption might not be sufficient to actually *produce* that desired amount of production, on the whole.

I'm of the position that anything claiming to *supersede* (current) capitalist production should be at least *qualitatively equivalent*, and not lesser, or else people would probably just favor reverting to commodity production for those items that *aren't* being produced with the means of a liberated labor.

My assembly filled with like minded individuals would work towards the common good, freely participating in un-forced labor and being rewarded equivalent.

I *hear* you, and of course nothing of what you're saying is objectionable -- but specifying *how* to implement this kind of arrangement is less-than-forthcoming.

Bartering would be used to trade any abundance of produce for resources we lacked and to facilitate trade. And it would be open to everybody to join as long as they adhered to the established community's anarchist principles.

I find this conception of 'bartering [surplus]' to be problematic since it implies that things weren't originally pre-planned for specific consumption, *in advance*.

I'll juxtapose the idea that perhaps *all* production should be according to pre-made *formal requests* (and/or 'demands'), so that no production is speculative or open-ended, the way it currently is under capitalism.

In this way there would be no surprises, no surplus, and no need for bartering or trade of any kind -- all production could be coordinated at the broadest scales possible ('centralized') and would be direct-distribution and free-access.

I think community and liberty are the biggest incentives there is and if everyone is being looked after by the system in place, then people will still share participation in menial tasks and be motivated to provide essential services or whatever else inspires them.

Again, fine words, but my abiding concern is with how to address the realistic possibility that collective social need for labor would *conflict* with personal volition to *provide* those kinds of labor, and that the resulting actual production would be *insufficient* to satisfy expressed mass demand -- the hazard here, again, is that conventional markets would spontaneously reappear to fill in the void and take up the slack.

ckaihatsu

7th July 2015, 04:01

So how I see it working is through highly efficient and localised grass-roots organisation. They are the one's best to equipped to plan and prioritise their production needs and also to secure the systems integrity. As the movement grows they should be aiming to bring all the communities requirements under assembly control.

You're addressing the *political* aspect of a post-capitalist social order with the 'assemblies', but you're still not addressing how *labor* needs vs. inclinations would be handled.

Here's a dramatic scenario, for the sake of illustration, from past threads of discussion -- what if many people want *diamonds*, necessitating the production of them, but most people just want to be rock stars and work-from-home mattress testers -- ? There would be quite a disparity there between (low) 'supply' of materials and (high) 'demand' for labor.

Remaining vigilant to expel any members which do not conform assembly mandates.

'Expel' -- ?

*Really* -- ??

So you basically have an elitist *clubhouse* conception of a post-capitalist social order. Where are the 'expelled' people supposed to go -- ? Back to market-based commodity production, to sell their labor-power -- ? (!)

And this is presumed to be backed by either the pre-existing conditions or the actions of continuously expropriating any community deemed "private" property, and enforcing workers controls and self governance.

Based on this post you're describing a kind of non-revolutionary, membership-only network of syndicalist-type production that *doesn't* threaten the rule of capital on the whole.

ckaihatsu

7th July 2015, 15:55

While elitist assemblies are a possibility, those espousing anarchist principles should be open to all who wish to follow and I hope the most successful and representative of public opinion. But there has to be methods to prevent serious abuse or sabotage attempts and time based bans are appropriate for this. Not sure how else it could be managed. Whatever support methods societies provide and how they'd reform bad actors back into the system would be down to culture and again not something I can really dictate. But being anarchists, I'd hope they'd be more humanitarian than the current jail system.

Okay, but again you're addressing only the political and not the economic -- what would people's *economic* status, as regards to their own labor, and consumption from the larger society, be once they were 'banned' -- ?

(Again, how would you prevent the re-emergence of market relations / commodity production, as amongst the population of people who are 'banned' -- ?)

Regarding "need vs inclination", most peoples inclination should primarily be focused on their needs right?

No, you're being *moralistic* with that supposition -- people's inclinations are what they are (like tastes), and if someone really wants to be a rock star then that means they may *not* want to do the farming that produces the food that they eat.

When it comes to legitimate sourcing problems then they'd either need to seek out assistance and come to arrangements with other assemblies, or delegate resources to offering alternatives.

At face value this sounds like fiefdoms under feudalism, and at *best* it's vague and ambiguous to the point of virtually being sloganeering -- if at all possible I'd like to hear from you about how a post-capitalist society's requirements for *labor* would be handled in a comprehensive way so that no parts of its economy would have to revert to commodity production and commodified labor (wage slavery).

ckaihatsu

7th July 2015, 22:32

I'm not sure I understand your fear of some natural bartering for goods and services, and minor regressions occurring, being an excuse to stick with full-blown capitalism. Seems a hypocritical stance.

I'm *not* arguing to stick with capitalism -- that's an accusation you're going to have to provide some evidence for.

I don't have a 'fear' of some 'natural bartering' for goods and services -- it's just that all bartering would become *unnecessary* because it wouldn't be a world of quaint garage-based do-it-yourselfers trading their wares with each other on alternate weekends.

Sure, if people want to share their passions and products and whatever, nothing is *circumscribed*, but in terms of economics everything could readily be done at the *largest scales* possible, so that people don't waste their own life-time with cobbling together shoes from raw materials when such could simply be fully automated, for the free production of shoes for all.

My personal opinion (and that's all it counts for, my voice would be as loud as everybody else's) is that those who choose to live outside the system can't be fully controlled.

Why would there even *be* an 'outside the system' -- ?

Do *you* have a fear, of worldwide communism -- ?

But as long private property is not enforced and direct-democracy reigns, then they will have a hard time being successful and eventually be made obsolete and be forced to join in.

But you're largely ignoring now the usefulness of this platform and more focused on denouncing anarchist ideas in general. So what actually is your global exit strategy from capitalism? Just to hang around until it completely implodes? Or some dexter in a lab comes with the new magic formula for labour?

Let me re-iterate, this projects just aims to be a be-spoke organisational to experiment in reality with. Be it using labour credits or whatever else. And any movements CAN be expanded to national and global scale. Of course it is ambiguous in design, you're overestimating project scope in thinking that I can impose all these sets of rules onto the world and have all the answers. That is entirely not the point in it.

Yet again I'm going to note your lack of addressing any and all aspects of *labor* for the post-capitalist context that you claim to be speaking-to.

You can defer this, of course, but then that means you should also forfeit any claims to speak for goods and services *at all*, since you're not bothering to describe how they would be produced in the first place.

'Barter' implies a lack of *planning* over the production of goods and services, which can certainly be done at the greatest scales possible -- even globally -- in a post-capitalist / communist social context.

ckaihatsu

7th July 2015, 23:03

How exactly to do you plan on organising worldwide communism? A digital platform would seem a reasonable method. Unless you're are proposing that we wait around for a benevolent one world government to be installed. And even then, digitally would seem the most effective option. Is it the direct-democractic aspect you don't like? It needs to be authoritarian?

*Your* 'organization' consists of using a 'cryptocurrency' -- the very topic of this thread.

And yet you are *still* unable to address the most fundamental aspect of this 'organization' of yours -- how the currency would be valuated, in terms of labor inputs, or why currency would *even be needed* in a context of planned production that displaces the market dynamic, or capitalism.

ckaihatsu

7th July 2015, 23:38

I've admitted since the last page I shouldn't have called it a cryptocurrency. I will change that..

In terms of production, I think it is redundant to still be heavily focused on mass-scale centrally planning most common items, except for natural resources. But at least what I'm proposing would be capable of that. However, with advancements in technology such as 3-D printing, on the horizon to offering the means of production in peoples homes for anything from human organs, to guns, pharmaceutical drugs, clothes, household items, cars, toys and production machinery. Focus should be on developing these spaces further. For example - opensourceecology.org/gvcs/

I have no problem with seeing and adopting new technologies that could displace older ones. However, that said, we can't count our chickens until they've hatched -- it remains to be seen *how* disruptive 3D printing will be, and, until it *has* fully replaced conventional industrial mass production, industrial production *will* be advantageous for the production of whatever it is that people need.

What you're 'proposing' is a total blank at this point -- you may want to work on that.

cyu

8th July 2015, 00:01

There are many different ways to approach the problem of recidivism rates. If you start off with, say, having 20 years as the maximum time possible in prison, the way you develop the system would be quite different from a system where any type of punishment goes, including torture and execution. A system where 20 years is the maximum means those designing the system will have to focus their efforts on rehabilitation before those 20 years are up - that's where all the research and funding will go. In a system where anything goes, those in charge don't have to worry about rehabilitation - they can simply execute prisoners they don't like.

The end result is that the two societies will end up with very different ways to treat crime.

Similarly, if you start with the assumption that there will be no property - that anybody can just pick up anything and walk away, efforts to make a system like that function will be very different from a system in which people are allowed to shoot trespassers.

ckaihatsu

8th July 2015, 01:28

Functional requirements - antok.co/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3

I plan re-write project summary but does this make it any clearer what I want provide?

Functional requirements:
-Link personal properties to members
-Link private properties to collectives
-System for trading properties on ledger and providing contracts to swap properties for time-limited periods
-Assembly control over private property allocation

Functional requirements:
-Stock management platform
-Distribution allocation utility
-Crypto-currency address storage
-Financial balances and transactions histories

Functional requirements:
-Hierarchy structures are constantly changeable through member cast vote
-Any member can raise a vote on any matter, which is carried out direct-democratic fashion
-Profit allocation decisions automatically fall under member vote

Functional requirements:
-Unique identifier for members and collectives
-Rationed access to assembly controlled property, goods and services
-Registrar and contract system for trades of physical and virtual commodities
-Manual non-digital token accounting platform

Functional requirements:
-Oversight and administrative platform for collectives and members registrars
-Oversight and administrative platform for property, goods and services registrars
-Open platform to raise assembly votes and meetings on any topics
-Abilities to ban bad actors for time-periods or permanently through majority assembly votes
-Un-censorable by Antok protocol

Functional requirements:
-Unique identifier
-List goods and services offered
-Financial balances and transaction histories
-Link property assigned
-Collective name

Functional requirements:
-Unique identifier
-Link personal property owned
-Assembly and collective membership details

My argument is with the 'Financial balances and transactions histories'.

'Financial' implies the use of capital, which itself becomes commodified and traded according to needs for capital goods.

Again, my point is this:

[H]ow [would] the currency [...] be valuated, in terms of labor inputs, [and] why [would] currency [...] *even be needed* in a context of planned production that displaces the market dynamic, or capitalism.

cyu

8th July 2015, 01:28

She delivered an impassioned speech, picturing in fiery words the misery of the wage slave's life, and quoted the famous maxim of Cardinal Manning: "Necessity knows no law, and the starving man has a natural right to a share of his neighbor's bread." She concluded her exhortation with the words: "Ask for work. If they do not give you work, ask for bread. If they do not give you work or bread, then take bread."

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/goldman/aando/bio.html

When a person can't imagine how an economy can function with people simply taking bread, then it's easy to dismiss her words. However, when you do figure out a way that allows such a system to function, then her words become much more acceptable.

Similar to imagining how a society can function with freedom of speech or absence of kings and slave-owners.

ckaihatsu

8th July 2015, 04:01

This feature was added again just trying to mimic spanish anarchists success during war time, as they still had to maintain the banks and financial structures with very limited roles. So it's an option.

Use of finance capital is an 'option' -- ? (Jesus...!)

Use it or don't. But if its being transparently used in a wider strategy to enforce communism at whatever cost, and not used or promoted at all in house. Then I see it as good a weapon as any other in a battle most are struggling to survive, and being forced to participate in anyway. Until people make it a reality that they no longer need to interact with capitalists, they should expropriate everything! Including money... But most importantly, membership details :)

[A]gain, my point is this:

How would the currency be valuated, in terms of labor inputs, and why would currency *even be needed* in a context of planned production that displaces the market dynamic, or capitalism.

ckaihatsu

8th July 2015, 04:38

I don't know what world you live in but I've paid $100 so far to maintain this project and I see a banner at the top of this page seeking donations. We don't live in this post-capitalist scenario you are suggesting remember...

Your dissembling here will be textbook-legendary someday, and it really reminds me of the antics of fascism.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

8th July 2015, 16:12

Because of course fascists advocated internationalism and the abolition of the market. No wait. The other one. (Why do people compare everything with fascism?)

I don't understand why you're so angry. You're offering us a method to manage capital (and hey, at least it's better than ParEcon, something people used to drool over, as it doesn't involve calculating indicative prices until you die), but we want to abolish capital. Both the Marxists and the anarchists. I appreciate you're new to this, and hell, when I was new to socialism I didn't understand things as basic as commodity production. But then you should perhaps try to appreciate why we're not enthusiastic about your proposal.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

8th July 2015, 17:52

Because its demeaning to the projects idea saying that it just sets out to manage capital. I based these ideas just off successful anarchist organisational strategy in the past, and maybe they are not as refined as they should be towards end goal of destroying capital, but this is why I'm on here trying to grow the project into a collaborative effort. Towards building consensus on this point, I think mass boycott features could be introduced, so assemblies can easily institute campaigns against other assemblies interacting with certain types of currencies. That way, direct-democracy dictates policy. And I trust human nature on the whole to choose their own least exploitative and effective routes.

But in fact, regardless of the intentions behind the proposal, it does amount to a method of managing capital. And it doesn't engage with the relations of production at all - things are still produced for profit instead of human need (not that commodity production can be abolished in a small scale, but that's topic for another discussion). And workers just end up managing their own exploitation.

This probably goes against every stereotype about Marxists and anarchists, but when you imagine the abolition of capital as the end result of some long, drawn-out process, you're really arguing for some variety of social-democracy ("in the meantime", meaning for as long as we're alive, and honestly who cares what happens after?).

ckaihatsu

9th July 2015, 00:03

Wow really, I've tried to be nice, but you're unrealistic to the point of delusion...

What I'd *like* is for you to respond-to / address my three points at post #43, but since that's not forthcoming, and this thread is all about *your* shit, I'll grudgingly relent for the time being and go through *your* content, if that does anything for anyone....

The same system that allows assemblies to manage any type of finances, would also allow for your labour token systems to used.

I appreciate the consideration and openness to my system of 'labor credits' (per my blog entry), and I *do* think that it would be compatible with the local-level anarchist 'assembly' -- specifically for the sake of local-political-entity-organizing (into a 'locality', from the model), specifically for the sake of mass-collating demands from the bottom-up, and for incidental efforts at organizing projects and liberated labor in the vicinity.

I still have to object, though, to your conception and subscription-to this economics of 'finances', including the use of 'finance capital', per *your* model as delineated -- the use of capital goods, in *any* context, is too problematic to be retained at all.

So if that is the best option mass-scale, then it will eventually prevail and be chosen by the people. Thinking I have all the answers and can impose a one shoe fits all master-plan from on high is stupid.

You don't seem to propose any plans based in current reality about how world-wide communism can actually be enacted. And full of strange vitriol against an idea that just sets out to help achieve it. But whatever, carry on promoting state capitalism instead and some sort of one world authoritarian government not ruled by direct-democracy. Seems much more in line with the goals of fascism ;)

Fun.

Okay -- for the sake of clarity, I'll go ahead and just say that the world needs a shift of global 'policy' away from capital-based production, to a proletariat-controlled one.

I'm not going to play armchair critic and pontificate as to *how* this should come about -- its overall necessity is critical and time is always against us, so that leaves a lot of leeway for anything that's politically appropriate and expedient, to that end.

---

Because its demeaning to the projects idea saying that it just sets out to manage capital. I based these ideas just off successful anarchist organisational strategy in the past, and maybe they are not as refined as they should be towards end goal of destroying capital, but this is why I'm on here trying to grow the project into a collaborative effort. Towards building consensus on this point, I think mass boycott features could be introduced, so assemblies can easily institute campaigns against other assemblies interacting with certain types of currencies. That way, direct-democracy dictates policy. And I trust human nature on the whole to choose their own least exploitative and effective routes.

I'll be brief and say that nothing here is really *objectionable* -- the possible differences with your approach revolve around your insistence on a *currency*-based paradigm shift. I'll note that anarchists (and Marxists) often argue for a *moneyless* post-capitalist society outright.

What do you recommend I add or change in relations to engaging with production? My reasoning behind not addressing this is that others can do it better and I don't want to stifle innovation. Production needs and methods should be dictated by assemblies as far as I'm concerned, then tasks delegated to appropriate persons or collectives. I also want to work more on the integration and co-operation aspects of assemblies in scaling to anarchist federation type national and international organisations so common interests are being fairly managed.

I think a global platform that just helps puts people in control is the fastest way to abolish capitalism!

But what would your currency 'platform' offer that doesn't already potentially exist through the vehicle of a discussion-board format like RevLeft -- ?

All these currencies that become out of control or have served their purpose, are backed by nothing and can easily be shunned and ruined, when there is enough unity of support behind a boycott. And all an assembly's own internal infrastructure and dealings still always continues to function without them.

And correct me if I'm wrong but Marxist's still have to manage capital as well up until its demise, so I don't get this argument.

Are you familiar at all with the idea of a communist-type 'gift economy' -- ? (You can do a web search for the term, including 'ckaihatsu' and 'revleft', if you like.)

ckaihatsu

9th July 2015, 02:34

In regards to comment #43 - I'm re-defining the project from a cryptocurrency, into simply an organisational platform. Didn't make it easy giving it that definition. Using underlying software from other open-source projects doesn't necessarily bare any significance on its future case uses.

Antok simply provides a non-accumulative token for rationing and resource management, and transparent and direct-democratic organisational structures. That are cryptographically verified and integrally robust against those who wish to attack the network. And it has no fluctuating value.

Jesus, maybe this is just the booze talking, but it's driving me up the wall that you're talking abstractly about '*a* token' that does all this wide-ranging shit.

Would you *please* describe the *process* of this token-usage in relation to all that it's supposed to do -- ? As in 'connect-up Point A to Point B' -- ?

Such a system requires to be un-corruptable by any third parties and secure integral parts of peoples lives and society structures from interference. Web forums just aren't designed to withstand such pressure from external forces. The complexity involved in creating de-centralised applications such as this are very high. And this platform is intended to do all political voting on and be highly interactive on a global scale. Providing a full proof and time-stamped public ledger, which can be cryptographically verified as accurate, while optionally still encrypting and maintaining the anonymity the voters. Can't exactly trust that to revleft polls.

The only reason Bitcoin holds any value at moment is because the accuracy of its core blockchain technology remains un-corrupted and un-hacked. And the resilliancy of its de-centralised and open-source nature. Okay, this cryptocurrency is driven by capitalist motivations, but its incarnations don't have to be. The ability to form mass-consensus networks without relying on any 3rd parties to verify its accuracy, has never existed before on a global basis. This achievement is actually revolutionary in terms of computer science. And we can harness the indestructibility of the network and transform into whatever we want.

And yes I am familiar with the gift economy concept and those ideas can easily utilise public ledger technology. I've been lumping it in with bartering since it wouldn't require anything beyond the same ledger to work on top of.

Okay, I have no doubts about the technical aspect of all of this doing what you're saying it will do, and I have a fairly decent grasp of how Bitcoin works.

I can see the 'organizational platform' now, as you're describing it, and I could see that being useful.

---

Providing a full proof and time-stamped public ledger, which can be cryptographically verified as accurate

In my 'labor credits framework' an automatically timestamped 'ledger' (of sorts) is the mainstay of the 'locality' local political entity, so this aspect of your platform would certainly provide a robust technological functionality there.

Here are the database fields for it, followed by the graphic:

ISSUER

AUTOMATIC TIMESTAMP UPON RECEIPT (YYYYMMDDHHMM)

ACTIVE DATE (YYYYMMDD)

FORMAL-ITEM REFERENCED (OR AUTOMATICALLY CREATED), IF ANY

FORMAL-ITEM NUMERICAL INCREMENT, 001-999, PER DAY, PER UNIQUE GEOGRAPHIC UNIT

GEOGRAPHIC LEVEL INTENDED-FOR ('HSH', 'ENT', 'LCL', RGN', 'CTN', 'GBL')

GEOGRAPHIC SOURCE UNIQUE NAME, ABBREVIATED

FIRSTNAME_LASTNAME_BIRTHYEAR(YY)

INDIVIDUAL'S ITEM RANKING, 0001-9999 (PER DAY)

RANK-ITEM TYPE ('INI', 'DMN', 'PRP', 'PRJ', PDR', 'FND', 'DTI', 'LLI', 'PLP', 'ORD', 'REQ', 'SLD')

TITLE-DESCRIPTION

WORK ROLE NUMBER AND TITLE

TENTATIVE OR ACTUAL HAZARD / DIFFICULTY MULTIPLIER

ESTIMATE-OF OR ACTUAL LABOR HOURS PER SCHEDULED WORK SHIFT

TOTAL LABOR CREDITS (MULTIPLIER TIMES HOURS)

ACTUAL FUNDING OF LABOR CREDITS PER WORK SHIFT (FUNDING ITEM REFERENCE REQUIRED)

SCHEDULED DISCRETE WORK SHIFT, BEGINNING DATE & TIME

SCHEDULED DISCRETE WORK SHIFT, ENDING DATE & TIME

AVAILABLE-AND-SELECTED LIBERATED LABORER IDENTIFIER

DENOMINATION

QUANTITY, PER DENOMINATION

TOTAL LABOR CREDITS PER DENOMINATION

SERIAL NUMBER RANGE, BEGINNING

SERIAL NUMBER RANGE, ENDING

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/)

So what do we do now -- cross pee streams?

= D

ckaihatsu

9th July 2015, 18:38

The token is just your membership ID number, designed to be able to integrate with any service on the system. In terms of how this could work using Bitcoin, it could be a wallet address which can only be signed with your signature, meaning that you hold the private key to that address and therefore can always prove you are the legitimate owner. The level of security against fraud prevention would be largely down to employed assembly registration methods, taken to the extreme, that could even involve an an encrypted, digital copy of DNA, stored on the block chain. But most people rightly wouldn't be comfortable with that and prefer using more traditional means.

Okay.

Then if you are familiar with concepts such as coloured coins, or similar, that link tiny fractions a coin to physical objects. This would be kind of concept for making digital the goods and services on offer, these can be physically ratified by assemblies or delegated groups and then accurately entered onto the block chain. The token would monitor people don't use more than their allocated resources and allow interactive resource management. It would also be used as core of their login details to participate in an assembly's governance. Which can consist of planning ahead production and service needs, or whatever else.

For a token use case example, someone goes into a grocery and does a food shop. They'd checkout by flashing their token using a mobile, chipped card, or if so inclined some physically inserted chip. Otherwise just manually use their membership number and a pin or a printed QR code. That would then update the block chain to reflect available resources and members remaining allocation balance. My original idea was to offer a platform for a basic set of services which collectives will need to provide as the backbone of an assembly and the token would need to be compatible with.

Okay, what I'm hearing here is 'ID security + inventory databases'.

So I have no doubts that you're all-over the back-end of this stuff, which is good.

This would be - food, housing, schools, healthcare, energy, transport and governance services. However I quickly realised that these would always require to be be-spoke to some extent but all basically consist of the same organisational elements, so it would be simpler and more adaptable just to provide tools which can be easily custom designed from scratch. I might think about making basic customisable templates though when at such stage.

Exactly how all this will function is still in works,

I'll suggest that you're at the limits of what the *technical* (tool-usage) aspect can address, and when it comes to so-called 'resource allocation' or 'energy accounting', all of *that* is actually in the realm of revolutionary politics itself, and social planning. (Not that I subscribe to the energy-accounting approach. My 'labor credits framework' is there at post #53.)

as it would obviously be best to be independent from Bitcoin right from start and these are very ambitious in case uses for block chain technology. Which is why I'm looking at developments such as Ethereum and Eris instead.

When you forgive all the badly used terminology, we are very similarly aligned.

Yes, agreed -- I'll welcome / suggest that, regarding implementation, you may want to direct yourself to how the 'ledger' / 'locality database' might function in regards to people's unique ID tokens, and how moneyless participation at the immediate local context would impact the 'assembly' inventories of available goods and services.

ckaihatsu

13th July 2015, 03:48

Just thought of something -- if you don't already know, there's a type of Linux that provides a variety of server 'appliances' for any given LAN (and beyond), called 'TurnKey Linux':

http://www.turnkeylinux.org/all

It's very handy and may pertain in some way to what you're aiming for. I found that one can install it on an older machine, add a few software packages, and have a fully digital jukebox running 24/7:

Make your spare computer work for you as a music jukebox

tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-jukebox

ckaihatsu

15th July 2015, 04:21

More leftists need to begin and engage the potential applications, the security and robustness block chain’s offer, beyond currencies.

On this point you may want to 'showcase' something tangible so that others have something in front of them to consider -- consider that you could always just use 'placeholder' (sample) data to fill-in-the-blanks for whatever databases and front-ends that you may want to show off.

Marxist type labor tokens

Whatever these are, or are meant to be, isn't clear -- you may want to link to something that describes that label, or else include a quick rundown of what those are supposed to be.

ckaihatsu

16th July 2015, 03:53

Okay fair point. I took the tired and uneducated option and just re-worded it to "Marxist alternatives". Just mean to make the point that I won''t control what forms of value are being used.

Fair enough, I guess....

Political and economical jargon is a mine field!! Give me a computer science text book any day...

Hmmmm, sorry to hear it -- I initially got around revolutionary politics in the early '90s and everything then was in-person, through organizations and meetings. I'm glad to have *online* discussions these days, but I'm also thinking that it *may* be easier to get your introduction to all of this by having more *one-on-one* conversations, where you can interact and ask questions, rather than through the 'proving-ground' discussion-board format of topic threads.

If at all possible you may want to get around revolutionary people locally, if you aren't doing that already.

Also, I made a number of political *diagrams* that may assist in getting one's head around the entirety of these things that we refer to as a matter of course. It won't really help with jargon, though.

tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-diagrams-revleft

Having a lot of fun learning though :)

Good attitude.

In terms of showcasing tangible case uses, at the moment I only have other's work to display. All these applications are de-centralised, un-censorable, autonomous and peer to peer applications developed to run on top of Bitcoin's block chain and include user interfaces - crowd-funding application Lighthouse, secure BitMessage protocol, free digital market place OpenBazaar, law resistant DNS system NameCoin, and secure facebook and twitter alternatives Diaspora, and Twister.

Another important tool in the cryptoanarchy arsenal under development is a project called Maidsafe, which aims to completely de-centralise the internet and make it anonymous and cryptographically secure.

Very interesting work, but I'd like to impress upon you that all of this technical stuff is quite *abstract* and inaccessible for the regular political / non-technical person.

In terms of how this could be *implemented*, especially along revolutionary-worker lines, you may want to consider *anything* -- sketches, mock-ups, GUI layouts, diagrams, etc. -- that could serve to *show* someone what they could expect and receive from usage of this kind of system on their PC / phone / tablet.

ckaihatsu

16th July 2015, 06:09

In the bubble I grew up, don't think I'd knowingly met a communist until I went to university and probably assumed an anarchist was just someone who blew stuff up. After Uni and meeting good revolutionary people I always considered myself a socialist but found the contradictory narratives to political history hard to navigate and a little overwhelming. It wasn't until my technological passions crossed paths with witnessing actual anarchism in action, forcing forms of communism, that it clicked with me, that is what we should be doing. And led me to take more interest in underlying philosophies. Guess you could say it has been a rapid descent into anarchism, but I've always felt more aligned to its ideology since understanding its strict direct-democratic and libertarian principles. Its hard to envisage how such a Utopian sounding idea can function in reality until you see it first hand.

I will start working more on bringing these ideas to groups but currently, there is language barriers, and these are complex ideas which as you can tell I didn't fully comprehend. So I was actually more comfortable in this situation taking them to the school of hard knocks and the Internet seems appropriate stomping ground for this project anyway. Making GUI layouts etc is the next stage after I re-write up project summary a bit to reflect feedback and functions. I feel I have lot better grasp now in what is needed and what I'm talking about. (To an extent).

Good to hear -- also, I'll suggest that, instead of feeling *torn* by the aspects of political-formulation and technical-implementation, you might see this whole thing as being an *opportunity*, with the two aspects being *complementary*.

In other words this is a way for you to concretely *formalize* what your politics are, through a planned technical-implementation proposal, as with GUI layouts and such.

I'm pleased to say that I've already produced one of my own, for anyone's reference, which is at post #53.

ckaihatsu

16th July 2015, 17:52

Just threw myself in deep end both politically and technically, like teaching a dog to swim. Except I'm more likely to be electrocuted than drowned! Or assassinated. I was joking with a friend that the best way to learn about politics, is to launch your own international political organisation, but it is obviously true. Really makes you evaluate every aspect of your belief system. This pursuit has given a lot of meaning to my life and I really want to increase the amount of time I can dedicate to it.

It's a great testament to the power of interconnectivity, that even from desolate lands, advice from seasoned veterans can be freely shared, and movements sparked on all corners of the globe.

Good to hear, and greetings from the "desolate land" of Chicago.

= D

ckaihatsu

26th July 2015, 01:57

Antok distinguishes between personal and private property (put under assembly control),

I understand that you see the socio-political context for this infrastructure as being *today*, while capitalism still exists, but I really don't understand the 'private property put under assembly control' part.

Private property means that *someone* is ultimately legally accountable, and that's a microcosm of the entire overall problem with capitalism -- property *shouldn't* be attached to individuals because it makes no sense, especially when it's (mechanical) *productivity* and *distribution* that matters, for *everyone*, collectively.

I think you're not realizing that efforts towards *private* property, as in profit-making, will cause the person to become personally *invested* in that property, and in the increase of it. It's *not* a good idea to tell all comrades 'Go forth and build up your own collections of private property so that we may pool it all and have a greater amount of wealth under assembly control.'

Antok [...] provides [...] abilities to pre-plan production and service requirements, as well as make resource allocation decisions.

It's unclear whether you're indicating that the 'pre-planning of production' and 'resource allocation decisions' would be done by the *system* solely, or if it's still just the backbone to purely *human* activity.

Again it's important to distinguish between the *person* and the *tool*.

Contributing any profits (segregated to external platform) to assembly control [...] can be used to simultaneously wage a war of solidarity against any cause or easily drop support for any exploitative and out of control currencies or assemblies.

This part suggests private-profit-making by groups ('assemblies'), against an economic backdrop of localist currencies and economies that are all in competition with each other.

Once again the politics that are implied by this organizational infrastructure are decidedly *non-revolutionary*.

Requirements:

Segregated management section for external currencies, finance related matters, or labour credit schemes.

And, finally, a 'segregated management section' over economic matters sounds like the very *definition* of 'class' and class-division.

ckaihatsu

1st August 2015, 05:26

Yeah, you're right, I meant to update private property to communal or public status.

As far as finance management goes, what do you suggest? I'm not sure what else can be done apart from dropping that aspect completely and forcing revolutionaries to rely on current non-transparent and easily corruptible operational methods. Also wasting an opportunity to provide a single political platform to unite on new single solutions and bring these issues under community control.

Politically this is a *very* messy thing that you're outlining, and I can't say that it's even advisable in the first place.

It might even be called internally *contradictory* since you're calling for the espousing and building of revolutionary politics, but in an overall environment of *status quo capitalism*.

For example would it matter if you take some local co-op-type accumulations of private property and call it 'communal' or 'public' -- ? Any responsibility / management of it will still have to be 'private', and in the interests of the continued private ownership of it, no matter what new label is slapped on it.

The other inherent contradiction that you're entertaining is that of 'community vs. public-interest', where you see the basis of activity as residing in the 'community', but you want to effect change at the much-larger 'public' scale.

You're admitting that the 'community' could easily become 'corrupted', as with currency and financial matters -- it's entirely understandable, and I'd say that it's par-for-the-course given the premise you're starting with.

Federations should be aligned to share resources and interests, so naturally overcome any wide-spread competing currencies and economies issues. How I see it playing out is - the largest and most self-sufficient and developed movements will first be in a strong enough position to first fully drop support for any interactions with capitalist currencies.

I'm sorry, but what exactly would be the proposed material basis of this 'movement self-sufficiency' -- ?

To what extent are you really seeing a local co-op type of organization removing itself from the cash economy, and what would it be doing on its own to be able to turn its back like that -- ?

The smaller groups looking to join the larger movements will then also fall in line once they are in a position of autonomy to be able to make that move.

And by 'segregated finances' I just meant that no internal systems would ever be pegged to any of their values or reference them in any way. It would still be under equal controls.

I am not fully opposed to dropping support, but it would seem to severely limit its usefulness and hinder movements chances of success. Early adpoters would be forced to only interact with a largely non-existent ideology, or, revert back to old methods because the fact won't have changed that individuals and syndicalists still presently need to interact with capital. I think its a mistake insisting on any ideoligical purity from the beginning, instead of allowing it to evolve gradually as people gain necessary political and economical empowerment, through direct-democracy and expropriation. And most importantly, the autonomy from state, actually required to take charge and fully boycott capitalism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no existing communist movement is actually capable of doing at the moment. For me, this can lead a much faster movement to voluntary mass-scale socialist agreements, than state capitalist options. And I don't want to ignore how important financing a revolution is and thereby provide no assistance for it. I think that just gets us nowhere and in financial warfare, we should create the appropriate financial weaponry to fight with.

But like I said I'm not fully opposed to doing that if it was popular opinion.

Okay, and now you're *vacillating* about the whole 'self-sufficiency' thing.

It's understandable that you might be 'thinking out loud' about all of this, and I'll take this opportunity to point out that perhaps a *consumption*-oriented, 'household' kind of material basis (co-op, movement) would *not* be the appropriate base for launching varieties of *revolutionary* actions, even if they are as decisive as being about *direct-democracy* (presumably in the workplace) and *expropriation* (presumably of productive private property).

'Autonomy from the state' is always going to be as elusive as a chimera because the state *will* certainly respond to any real threats to its hegemony, if things ever get that far (you can look at the social history of the 1970s).

So, to sum up, I'd say that you're now more-explicitly delineating your *politics*, that would underlie the technical digital infrastructure that you've been proposing, but now it looks like your politics more resemble that of *populism* and *escapism* than anything else -- again, decidedly *non*-revolutionary.

(In other words, in avoiding taking on the state directly, under the aegis of '[avoiding] state capitalist options', you're hollowing-out the very politics that are supposed to lead to the overthrow of capitalism.)

ckaihatsu

2nd August 2015, 06:58

Self-sufficency is meant to be attained when an assembly can register entire communities resources onto the blockchain, enabling the proposed bartering and gift type economies and any other leftist innovations, without capitalists interference.

I'm not being outright *dismissive*, but I'd ask you to consider -- if not necessarily *disclose* -- what you may want to mean by 'self-sufficiency'. Note that it has the tinge of meaning 'a cult', and the economic conditions of the world today may tend to encourage this kind of inward-looking social-group sentiment (as happened in the '60s and '70s).

The reality, too, with anything basically insular is the question of whether it can *truly* be as detached as it would like, and forgo the larger world economy with all of the resources and opportunities that it offers through the cash economy. You'd have to face the reality that this inter-communal network would basically have to go without the use of money -- pretty much entirely -- because as soon as that door re-opens at all you're then having to deal with all of the social and cultural aspects, not to mention financial, that inherently accompany the use of money.

I realise allowing forms of finances might hollow out message and initially leads to social democracy type situations, except without nationalism, so will continue to think on it.

This is a good way of putting it, and is also a good self-critique -- would this inter-communal detachment just wind up producing nationalist-type political sentiments and culture, but on a grassroots scale -- ?

Happy to challenge capital as quickly as possible, but the take-down of capitalist regimes is never forthcoming. At least this way I thought a movement could make a head start instead of waiting around for a perhaps necessary pre-cursory total overthrow of existing system.

Certainly I understand the frustration and restlessness, but I just don't know if the 'political compound' with a 'CEO of struggle' is the way to go. Maybe if this kind of thing could be meticulously planned-for in an even-handed way by groups all over the world at the same time, to all launch simultaneously, but that would be about the best I could say.

ckaihatsu

2nd August 2015, 20:47

In this context I simply count self-sufficiency as being autonomous and only reliant on Antok protocol and remaining leftists solutions to operate.

My concern here is that the organizational infrastructure you've described is just that -- organizational infrastructure. It doesn't implicitly speak to anything regarding *inputs* and *outputs*, as of necessary resources for life and living.

I understand if you don't want to go into specifics about that on a public discussion board, but the 'internal economy' is what I would be most concerned with, with this kind of formulation that you're advocating.

All members can always interact globally, even if assemblies are only formed locally and not yet part of a federation. But instead of cult like exclusivity it should promote collaboration and all inclusive ideals. Though I may need to improve the aesthetics to skew to a wider audience. And in regards to local nationalism, my belief is that societies are happiest and most well adjusted when formed in smaller communities. Where peoples concerns are met and they are forced to interact in their surroundings without impunity. And while communities might be proud of their achievements, all will eventually appreciate that life extends beyond those small confines and understand co-operation is required.

There's nothing *inherently* wrong with any of this, but I will note that it happens to border on 'lifestylism'.

How I imagined finances being handled, was as an openly done pump n dump of sorts. Never promoted as a sustainable model, just a fast-tracked means to an end and effective way to force situations. With benefit of reigning currencies into community control and orchestrating co-ordinated take-downs and change overs.

This sounds like a stated approach to 'fundraising'.

Assuming self-sufficiency has been achieved then money-less solutions will be a lot easier to provide. First struggle is to gain control of the resources that make any leftist solutions viable, and that can only be done either through expropriation, or overthrowing capitalist governments. And I think employing the first tactic successfully, backed by strong direct-democratic political forces and in use alternatives, inevitably leads to the second's conclusion.

My other concern, then, is what the balance would be in *participating* in existing, presumably capitalist, economies (you've talked about having a reserve of foreign currencies), versus *political struggle against* those economies and political-economic conventions.

The definition of 'self-sufficiency' would be key here, since you're saying that it's a prerequisite to outward-directed actions and political goals.

ckaihatsu

6th August 2015, 21:22

Yes, completely just an organisational infrastructure.

Okay.

Labour and capital management beyond what I've outlined would be beyond my expertise I think.

But you're the one creating this organizational infrastructure to begin with. Do you see your own efforts and intentions here as being *irrelevant* somehow to what the technological infrastructure might possibly be used for -- ?

Also, if you're really a revolutionary you wouldn't see 'labor' and 'capital management' -- even if only internally -- as being equivalent in importance and open to participants' interpretations. (This begs the question of what an assembly's efforts should be directed towards more, labor or capital management, because those respective efforts are objectively *contradictory* politically.)

Best option is to leave platform open for all innovations to experiment with.

I think what's at the heart of all of this is that you're making a fetish out of 'innovation'. You see this organizational infrastructure as being an 'innovation' itself, which is then supposed to serve as a platform for *further* 'innovations'.

The balance of participation would entirely depend on individual situations. It would be possible for workers 100% inside capitalist system to start an assembly with little support, or advanced and organised movements to implement revolutionary models state-wide from off-set.

'Implement revolutionary models state-wide' -- ?

Again this describes an inclination for the 'innovative' ('models') without indicating *how* assemblies would even be *revolutionary* in their composition.

Realistically such technology will need to prove itself as reliable first, so would be gradually adopted until trusted.

The dis-enfranchised and politically motivated should be the first to gravitate so assemblies will be built on pretty solid anti-capitalist foundations. When it comes to conflicts of interests, I would suggest holdings would always be minimal and continuously spent instead of used as savings, limiting any future reliance. And since assembly members would not use them internally in day to day activity I think most peoples emphasis would be turned to developing the new models.

Okay, so here you're favoring a materials-acquisitive mode of operation, as opposed to a capital-management mode -- yet you're saying that these acquired materials would *not* be used by assembly members internally in day-to-day activity.

The emphasis would be on the development of new models.

(I'm just reflecting-back what you're putting-out here.)

ckaihatsu

4th October 2015, 16:11

Okay appreciate a lot all your input ckaihatsu. Embarrassed about how ill educated I was (and still am) when I embarked on this project but hey, you got to learn some how. Hopefully I didn't make too much of a fool of myself in this thread!

So to conclude the summary again for time being, I've ditched any requirements for capital management and tried to just focus on being an assembly and resource management platform.

Okay, no prob -- glad I could do whatever it was I did....

I'll also just briefly suggest that the realm of the 'socio-political' be seen as *distinct* from all technical 'logistics' related to the same -- I see a lot of trendy tech approaches that *overstep* their scope and attempt to implicitly define political 'channels' for this-or-that, which is unnecessary, because politics is *all about* creating channels and figuring out the social ins-and-outs of everything (whatever's at-stake).

I'm surprised I didn't include the following sooner in this thread, but it's definitely topical and relevant now.... It's a *protocol* for intra-group communications:

[16] Affinity Group Workflow Tracker

http://s6.postimg.org/pxt6rhg4x/16_Affinity_Group_Workflow_Tracker.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/6spxhq1gt/full/)

And:

Affinity Group Image-Based Communications Protocol

http://s6.postimg.org/h4shamar5/121219_Affinity_Group_Image_Based_blend_xcf.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/5sfvsu225/full/)

antok

29th October 2015, 12:30

antok

29th October 2015, 12:59

Also updated summary a fair bit since last post but will need re-done again after layouts are completed. Set out agreement contracts which is meant for any type of community proposals and reaching consensus. This will be pre-requisite to main voting section, used only when resolutions can't be reached or for basic re-occurring issues.

ckaihatsu

30th October 2015, 02:15

Got the beginning of a sample layout done. Nothing set in stone as per normal but thinking how to implement a work credits type scheme within gift economy and using it as the backbone for the rest of the economy features: rationing, bartering, and crowd-funding. Seems the neatest way to slot everything together and most useable option mass-scale but perhaps difficult to do right. Still have management section and others to do which will is where all the power lies. -
antok.co/demo.html

In the last section, antok, you have a 'Gift economy' section which doesn't adhere to the *meaning* of 'gift economy' -- typically the term means that people work sheerly voluntarily for the common good, knowing that they will be able to access all available social productivity from everyone else, also working the same way.

In the section you're describing some kind of a 'credit' that's indexed to work hours, a 'commodity index', and 'scarcity ratings'. It sounds like a labor *voucher* system that's internal to each community, with its operating value decided either by the members themselves, or by delegated councils:

Community > Gift economy

Value is equal to amount of labour hours entailed in production. Each credit is equivalent to 1 hours work and commodity index and scarcity ratings are agreed community rates. A community set amount of total credits are allocated to rationing section, who can choose at any time to reset system. Credits are non-transferable but can also fund Antok projects and barter deals. Delegated councils allocate collectives set amounts of hours, proportionate to their membership size and operational times, distributable by chairs. Then automatically routed through Antok platform to members based on personal contributions. Independent workers can still get credits through barter system.

While I myself happen to be on the *skeptical* side regarding this kind of approach (labor vouchers), you may want to at least better-describe your model by indicating any *formulas* that would underlie the value of these 'credits', as from the 'commodity index', 'scarcity ratings', and 'rationing section'.

(I'll note that the existence of a 'barter system' *may* indicate credit-for-goods exchangeability, which I find to be problematic for its de-facto commodification.)

Trap Queen Voxxy

30th October 2015, 02:25

the ghost of proudhon is happy as a pig in shit reading anarchists still peddling currency crank nonsense in this day and age

^This, I think for me personally one of the biggest inefficiencies in resource access and commodity manufacturing, distribution and so on is the hide dance inherent in the monetary system. It's completely unnecessary. I think energy accounting is a much more more suitable and efficient model. I think blockchain technologies like bitcoin could only find possible utility pre-revolution.

ckaihatsu

30th October 2015, 05:35

^This, I think for me personally one of the biggest inefficiencies in resource access and commodity manufacturing, distribution and so on is the hide dance inherent in the monetary system. It's completely unnecessary. I think energy accounting is a much more more suitable and efficient model. I think blockchain technologies like bitcoin could only find possible utility pre-revolution.

Let me know if you want to get into the whole energy accounting thing, TQV -- my critique is that a level, across-the-board 'block grant' of energy to each and everyone is too crude a distribution and would create 'surpluses' at the individual scale, implicitly encouraging peer-to-peer redistribution of such surpluses, probably precipitating commodification and market relations all over again.

Trap Queen Voxxy

30th October 2015, 14:49

Let me know if you want to get into the whole energy accounting thing, TQV -- my critique is that a level, across-the-board 'block grant' of energy to each and everyone is too crude a distribution and would create 'surpluses' at the individual scale, implicitly encouraging peer-to-peer redistribution of such surpluses, probably precipitating commodification and market relations all over again.

I would disagree and would argue that, that's a distortion of how a thermaldynamic economic model would work. The whole purpose of energy accountancy is to calculate energy expended or consumed for the purposes of manufacturing and distribution. It's more of like someone with a clicker counting people at a social gathering. I don't see how, logically, one would be able to hoarde or amass "credits" considering it seems both impossible and absurd.

Perhaps we should make our own thread for this?

antok

30th October 2015, 19:08

ckaihatsu

30th October 2015, 21:37

I would disagree and would argue that, that's a distortion of how a thermaldynamic economic model would work. The whole purpose of energy accountancy is to calculate energy expended or consumed for the purposes of manufacturing and distribution. It's more of like someone with a clicker counting people at a social gathering. I don't see how, logically, one would be able to hoarde or amass "credits" considering it seems both impossible and absurd.

Perhaps we should make our own thread for this?

Okay, but that's as far as I'll go with anyone online -- even if gay marriage *is* legal now.... (heh)

I'll be back to this thread presently -- lemme know where to look for the new one....

Trap Queen Voxxy

31st October 2015, 01:15

Okay, but that's as far as I'll go with anyone online -- even if gay marriage *is* legal now.... (heh)

I'll be back to this thread presently -- lemme know where to look for the new one....

I will but how would us getting married be gay marriage? Additionally, huh?

ckaihatsu

31st October 2015, 03:38

I will but how would us getting married be gay marriage? Additionally, huh?

Yeah -- I *usually* endear myself to women by suggesting gay marriage...! (heh)

Sorry, didn't look at your profile, and misinterpreted the term 'queen' in your username.

If things ever *do* get to that point between us the marriage is going to have to be more 'Disney' than this, though -- !

= D

Trap Queen Voxxy

31st October 2015, 18:10

Yeah -- I *usually* endear myself to women by suggesting gay marriage...! (heh)

Bold strategy, I like it

Sorry, didn't look at your profile, and misinterpreted the term 'queen' in your username.

If things ever *do* get to that point between us the marriage is going to have to be more 'Disney' than this, though -- !

= D

My whole life is Disney foo

ckaihatsu

31st October 2015, 19:58

Had ditched any sort of currencies until I came back round to a gift economy. Which a credit system based on hours participated seemed to fit and could form an economic backbone making all related features easily mass-scale and provide a productivity incentive I guess.

Objectively a gift economy wouldn't have to use *any* accounting -- sure, quantities and hours *could* be tracked, of course, but in material terms such tracking would be *superfluous* to the functioning of the gift economy itself.

Also, you may want to describe the process for how incentives would be determined, along with how the components of 'commodity index', 'scarcity ratings', and 'rationing section' would function dynamically in relation to the 'credits'.

Controls can be placed on it so that its constantly subject to being reset by community and rationed to any proportion. Which means gift economy rewards are never strictly set in stone, I think making term applicable to this setup. Time after all is peoples best gift and I think its fair for it simply to be measured and rewarded in kind.

Well, again, a gift economy shouldn't really require *any* overhead or oversight, and that's its advantage over more 'blueprint'-oriented, cross-planned collectivist approaches.

The labor-for-rewards thing is too problematic since it effectively *commodifies* labor:

By definition communism *cannot* be predicated on rewards-for-labor, because that kind of correlation automatically implies *commodification* (of labor). (Those who show themselves to be more productive would be more sought-out for this-or-that group, or commune -- necessarily circumscribed by location or physical / geographical space -- and so society would tend to become *stratified* on the basis of communes' varying productivities, by underlying laboring abilities, which would be different from the premise of 'communism'.)

So, instead, what *should* happen is that all social production is *collectivized*, and distributed according to actual individual *need* and want.

---

Certainly not tied to using credits though and since there's a notary of all physical public resources and services its definitely not a requirement.

Okay -- if credits *aren't* used then it *would* be a gift economy.

It's just a hell of a useful is all. I plan to have rationing section a lot more detailed on resource inventory rationing, usage and storage of particular items.

Did contemplate whether or not to allow credits in barter but again it allows feature to easily mass-scale, also to include individualists into scheme, and I definately wanted credits to be used to crowd fund, which would basically be same procedure.

Understood.

With barter, though, come issues and questions about the equivalency of one kind of work for another -- would one credit from an hour of 'mattress testing' (for example) be worth the same as one credit from cleaning chimneys -- ?

As long as everything is voluntary and community controls are good enough I was hoping exploitation can be minimised for most part.

Only 'minimized' -- ? Not eliminated altogether -- ? Doesn't the world deserve the complete *ending* of exploitation -- ? (!)

It would only be council verified collectives on the public barter section apart for personally owned items.

This sounds like a treatment / approach for *large-scale* concerns of production.

I'm sure Proudhon would have loved programmable money and there may be more mathematically correct approaches to resource management which I appreciate any more info about. Though the hardest part seems not to be developing better systems but getting people to use them.

You've just summed-up the problematic of overly-*technical*-minded approaches to collective functioning, in wanting '[a] more mathematically correct approach' to resource management.

Mathematics is a *tool*, not an *ideal* or any kind of specific concrete model in itself (though I *will* note that fractals come close to being a general model in their inherent structure, but are still subject to more-subjective interpretation and application, per unique context).

ckaihatsu

1st November 2015, 18:15

Okay, just started a new thread on this....

Energy accounting economic model

http://www.revleft.com/vb/energy-accounting-economic-t194464/index.html?p=2855827#post2855827

antok

2nd November 2015, 07:24

ckaihatsu

3rd November 2015, 04:20

I need some way of determining value that isn't based on capitalist currencies and the amount of hours entailed in an items production is most attainable feat.

The commodity index is just to give an average amount of hours for any item and inventory amount and could dynamically set the rate for all collectives who issue stock. The scarcity index can be a metric score. With users able to provide more details and discuss situations.

How would you reward participants in a gift economy in a way that is programmable?

Again:

The labor-for-rewards thing is too problematic since it effectively *commodifies* labor:

By definition communism *cannot* be predicated on rewards-for-labor, because that kind of correlation automatically implies *commodification* (of labor). (Those who show themselves to be more productive would be more sought-out for this-or-that group, or commune -- necessarily circumscribed by location or physical / geographical space -- and so society would tend to become *stratified* on the basis of communes' varying productivities, by underlying laboring abilities, which would be different from the premise of 'communism'.)

So, instead, what *should* happen is that all social production is *collectivized*, and distributed according to actual individual *need* and want.

---

Regarding the parameters you just addressed, I'll refer you to my 'Pies Must Line Up' graphic, back at post #16 -- attempting to *administrate* over such variables is a bad idea because all of the dynamic components, like labor hours, compensation vouchers, and goods represented by vouchers, must all *correlate* for the system to have cohesion, integrity, and credibility.

You would run into the 'genealogical' problem of *how far back in time* to go to include labor hour inputs, and labor-hour-materials inputs, into the present time of production, for a resulting object. This topic was covered at this post:

Socialism doesn't mean equal pay, right?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2815728&postcount=138

Also:

While quantitatively valuating material goods and services strictly in terms of the respective labor hours inputted is *not* impossible, even for the intangible service sector, I don't think it would really be advised. Yes, we *could* feasibly track the entire supply chain backwards to find out how each resulting labor-product variable is *sourced*, and create a "genealogical" "tree" of labor causations in order to determine labor-time-based valuations for every step of the way, but I actually propose a *simpler*, more straightforward method of fulfilling human need and popular demand with post-capitalist, self-liberated collectivized labor -- I'll get to that in a moment.

I'd like to first point out that the *really* difficult part of attempting to valuate material goods and services in terms of labor time is when we have to take *fixed assets*, like factories, into account. How exactly would we calculate the portion of fixed-asset-producing labor time contributed on a prorated basis to any given good or service? If a factory required a million labor hours to build, what portion of that would be considered as a valid measurement of contribution to the fabrication of a particular batch of microchips? How about the same question, but for a batch of microchips produced *next year*? Or *five years* from now? How would we even know *how long* the factory would be considered *useful*, going into the future, for the production of microchips? (Perhaps after a few years, or even just several months, it would have to be declared obsolete and then possibly repurposed into something else.)

Hours as a measure of labor

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1601834&postcount=31