Energy accounting economic model

[ckaihatsu]

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.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2855652&postcount=51


Okay, this sounds like a standard rolling inventory stock-control procedure, whether for energy resources or anything else.

I've heard a different version, which is what I was responding to -- the question, then, for anyone who advocates a mostly 'hands-off', automated system of replenishment is how *innovation* might be accomplished in such a productive context. In other words the 'energy accounting' approach begs the question of *politics* / social organization in a mass-conscious, 'hands-on' kind of way. (Within the bounds of the 'rolling stock' framework could / would someone just put in a 'placeholder' -- a slip of paper with some kind of tentative innovation or suggestion -- into the regular flow of goods, to be either acted-on (developed further), or not-acted-on -- ?)

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2855652&postcount=51


Okay, this sounds like a standard rolling inventory stock-control procedure, whether for energy resources or anything else.

I've heard a different version, which is what I was responding to -- the question, then, for anyone who advocates a mostly 'hands-off', automated system of replenishment is how *innovation* might be accomplished in such a productive context. In other words the 'energy accounting' approach begs the question of *politics* / social organization in a mass-conscious, 'hands-on' kind of way. (Within the bounds of the 'rolling stock' framework could / would someone just put in a 'placeholder' -- a slip of paper with some kind of tentative innovation or suggestion -- into the regular flow of goods, to be either acted-on (developed further), or not-acted-on -- ?)

I've always been perplexed at the theoretical discussion of 'innovation' considering it seems equivilant to trying to understand 'strokes of genius.' How does innovation happen under other models? My response would be, considering the Technocratic model, nearly every area of concern would be overseen by its immediate expert or body of experts. The incentive for innovation would be producing things more efficiently in a sustainable and ecological way. I mean, why do people normally invent things? To make things easier. Further, we must also take into consideration, post-revolution people would also have access to things previously reserved for the affluent such as access to leisure, aesthetic pleasure and the pursuit of self-fulfillment. I myself find myself wanting and contemplating things regardless of where my studies take me, to be innovative. So, if I found a break through in shoe design, I would then present it to my fellow designers and there testing and ultimate approval could take place in a 'democratic' sort of sense. Make sense? You're question was somewhat tricky for me given your wording. I'm sorry.

[ckaihatsu]

I've always been perplexed at the theoretical discussion of 'innovation' considering it seems equivilant to trying to understand 'strokes of genius.' How does innovation happen under other models? My response would be, considering the Technocratic model, nearly every area of concern would be overseen by its immediate expert or body of experts. The incentive for innovation would be producing things more efficiently in a sustainable and ecological way. I mean, why do people normally invent things? To make things easier. Further, we must also take into consideration, post-revolution people would also have access to things previously reserved for the affluent such as access to leisure, aesthetic pleasure and the pursuit of self-fulfillment. I myself find myself wanting and contemplating things regardless of where my studies take me, to be innovative. So, if I found a break through in shoe design, I would then present it to my fellow designers and there testing and ultimate approval could take place in a 'democratic' sort of sense. Make sense? You're question was somewhat tricky for me given your wording. I'm sorry.


Yup, it's understandable that a comrade could see the 'innovation' point as being a red herring for a post-capitalist context.

I raise it, though, in the sense of *decision-making*, in a social context of perfect or near-perfect egalitarianism -- given proposals 'A' through 'Z' that all require some usage of the same, particular means of mass production (factories), how exactly would this egalitarian society make a final decision on calendar scheduling for that factory's facilities -- ?

The technocratic approach is problematic because it calls for a *specialization* of labor, distinct in function from the rest of general society. The call for 'experts' only begs the question of socio-political *decision-making* -- who would have the final say / authority over who's an expert and who isn't -- ?

The *academic* approach that you're forwarding -- peer review, basically -- is still too vague, since it's essentially a reliance on *seniority* of some sort, though, again, without a clear approach or policy undergirding it. Would 'seniority' be on the basis of one's *age* -- ? Years in the field? Academic credentials? Respect of peers? Quantity of published work? Professional hours logged in?

Even if the post-capitalist society overwhelmingly decided on an even mix of these (six, or whatever) criteria as the benchmark for validation of 'experts', the very process of doing so would establish a social environment of careerism, or the striving for *elitist* status, detached from the general collective population.

My inclusion of the suggestion-slips-of-paper idea within the regular rolling-inventory approach, was an attempt to provide a 'sketch' of an innovation-directed treatment that could be compatible with that uncontroversial stock-control practice. (The consumer could perhaps literally leave a slip of paper with a general suggestion or idea, along with contact information, for workers to find, within the context of those kinds of products where the slip of paper is placed.) (Already-active workers would have full discretion to either get proactive around these new initiatives for production, or else the author of any given idea should just be politically advocating for it themselves, anyway, and/or looking to begin production on it with whatever requisite means would be unused and available.)

Regardless of this slips-of-paper treatment, though, I'm not actually *advocating* it, because it happens to fall short of addressing the realistic possibility of 'unpleasant tasks' -- recently covered here:

Robotics/AI in Communism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2855351&postcount=9


So, to spell it out, there could be a regular societal routine of warehouses and 'stores' that readily provide most common goods to everyone, everywhere, with a gift economy (sheerly voluntary) for work inputs, using a rolling inventory / stock-control method for replenishment of all goods.

But if that's *all* that existed in the way of social organization there'd be no way to address potentially common needs for *innovation*, or new types of production, on a mass scale. The slips-of-paper treatment *might* be a way to get 'new streams' going into these otherwise-static flows of production, but -- here it is -- what if the needed types of new production could *not be met* by the regular gift-economy provision of liberated labor -- ?

What if some kind of difficult and/or hazardous *mining* work was unavoidably required, something that *no one* was readily willing to do, especially with a world of freely available goods to enjoy, without obligation, at any warehouse or store, and with no impediments to ready fulfillment of one's human needs for life and living -- ?

In such a *realistic* situation 'innovation' could very well be hampered, despite a piling-up of same or similar 'slips of paper' that popularly / numerically call for some new type of production to be initiated.

[ckaihatsu]

What if some kind of difficult and/or hazardous *mining* work was unavoidably required, something that *no one* was readily willing to do, especially with a world of freely available goods to enjoy, without obligation, at any warehouse or store, and with no impediments to ready fulfillment of one's human needs for life and living -- ?

In such a *realistic* situation 'innovation' could very well be hampered, despite a piling-up of same or similar 'slips of paper' that popularly / numerically call for some new type of production to be initiated.


So, with the 'innovation' point remaining a valid concern for a post-capitalist social order, I'll note that I've addressed this issue in a comprehensive way with my 'labor credits' framework:





[I] have developed a model that [...] uses a system of *circulating* labor credits that are *not* exchangeable for material items of any kind. In accordance with communism being synonymous with 'free-access', all material implements, resources, and products would be freely available and *not* quantifiable according to any abstract valuations. The labor credits would represent past labor hours completed, multiplied by the difficulty or hazard of the work role performed. The difficulty/hazard multiplier would be determined by a mass survey of all work roles, compiled into an index.

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

This method would both *empower* and *limit* the position of liberated labor since a snapshot of labor performed -- more-or-less the same quantity of labor-power available continuously, going forward -- would be certain, known, and *finite*, and not subject to any kinds of abstraction- (financial-) based extrapolations or stretching. Since all resources would be in the public domain no one would be at a loss for the basics of life, or at least for free access to providing for the basics of life for themselves. And, no political power or status, other than that represented by possession of actual labor credits, could be enjoyed by liberated labor. It would be free to represent itself on an individual basis or could associate and organize on its own political terms, within the confines of its empowerment by the sum of pooled labor credits in possession.

Mass demand, then as now, would be a matter of public discourse, but in a societal context of open access to all means of mass communication for all, with collectivized implements of mass production at its disposal. It would have no special claim over any liberated labor and would have no means by which to coerce it.

The administration of all of this would be dependent on the conscious political mass struggle, on a continuous, ongoing basis, to keep it running smoothly and accountably.


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/




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