Planned economy contradicting freely associated labor?

[Jacob Cliff]

If a planned economy is contingent on calculations of this amount of labor power being directed here and there and so on, then wouldn't freely associated labor be in fact contradictory to this? For an example: if a plan calculates that 3,500 more homes are in need of construction in Raleigh, North Carolina, and there is not enough willing workers to construct these homes, what then? If labor becomes something totally uncompulsory, then how does one ensure that it gets done in dire and necessary circumstances that people may not always want to delve into?

[Sibotic]

Well, I mean, people are presumably a part of the community by existing in it. If 'freely associated labour' is meant in any relevant sense, then it needn't mean that each labourer needs to associate on their own and then the social labour is supposed to be constructed of this unorganised collection of monads, accidentally coalescing from that viewpoint. If 'planned economy' is meant in a generic sense in some form, then it needn't contradict this in an absolute sense, whether or not it does in any particular case, which may perhaps occur.

[RedMaterialist]

If a planned economy is contingent on calculations of this amount of labor power being directed here and there and so on, then wouldn't freely associated labor be in fact contradictory to this? For an example: if a plan calculates that 3,500 more homes are in need of construction in Raleigh, North Carolina, and there is not enough willing workers to construct these homes, what then? If labor becomes something totally uncompulsory, then how does one ensure that it gets done in dire and necessary circumstances that people may not always want to delve into?

If you're in the initial stage of socialism then there will still be features of capitalism remaining in the system (Critique of the Gotha Program.) Work will still be done in exchange for wages. If there is enough demand for the homes and the materials are available then the demand for labor will increase, wages for carpenters, masons, electricians, etc. will rise and labor will be attracted to Raleigh.

If you're talking about a further stage of socialism then, in a city the size of Raleigh (about 440,000, total MSA about a million) you would have to advertise for about 200-300 workers. If these workers were not employed then they were probably receiving some kind of unemployment compensation, rent subsidy, food stamps, etc. So you notify the workers. If they don't come in and sign up for the work (at good wages/labor credits, etc.) then I guess they will have their unemployment cut off.

Is it possible there are no construction workers in the entire Raleigh area who want to work? Well, put a call out on the computer for 300 construction workers within 300 miles and provide them with comfortable public transportion to the city and comfortable living quarters while working in Raleigh.

Where to get the money for this? Society has withheld from the surplus value created by all labor an amount to cover contingencies like this.

The next step is to correct the planning so that you anticipate the demand in advance so as to have the workers ready. This can be easily done with massive computer systems taken over from the previous capitalist society and also updated since.

It comes down to an "administration of things" (K. Marx, 1867) or it's "just a management issue" (Donald Trump, 2015.)

[Sibotic]

Strictly speaking, 'wages' as a Marxist category would involve the continued existence of capitalism, and hence also commodities and so on. Marx didn't state that the 'initial phrase of communism,' as he called it, would have 'wages,' which he always associated with the capitalist relations of production as such, although he did allow for other forms of compensation, and explicitly denied that it would have money properly speaking when he was discussing Owen.

[The Feral Underclass]

Strictly speaking, 'wages' as a Marxist category would involve the continued existence of capitalism, and hence also commodities and so on. Marx didn't state that the 'initial phrase of communism,' as he called it, would have 'wages,' which he always associated with the capitalist relations of production as such, although he did allow for other forms of compensation, and explicitly denied that it would have money properly speaking when he was discussing Owen.

Turning money into another "form of compensation" doesn't actually negate the capitalist relation of production, i.e. wage-labour. You are just using a different 'thing' as medium of exchange.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If a planned economy is contingent on calculations of this amount of labor power being directed here and there and so on, then wouldn't freely associated labor be in fact contradictory to this? For an example: if a plan calculates that 3,500 more homes are in need of construction in Raleigh, North Carolina, and there is not enough willing workers to construct these homes, what then? If labor becomes something totally uncompulsory, then how does one ensure that it gets done in dire and necessary circumstances that people may not always want to delve into?

The short version is that it can't be done. In socialism, there is no public repressive function; the organs of society can persuade and appeal, but they can't compel. I don't think this is a major problem - after all, the socialist planning of production depends on the active participation of workers in any case. We're already dependent on the public spirit of the working class. Nor does the existence of factors we can't control mean that there is no social planning of production - this would mean that there is no planning until humans learn to control the weather, unpredictable events, and so on, in short - until we become gods.

[RedMaterialist]

Strictly speaking, 'wages' as a Marxist category would involve the continued existence of capitalism, and hence also commodities and so on. Marx didn't state that the 'initial phrase of communism,' as he called it, would have 'wages,' which he always associated with the capitalist relations of production as such, although he did allow for other forms of compensation, and explicitly denied that it would have money properly speaking when he was discussing Owen.

In The Gotha ProgrammeMarx showed that the initial stage of socialism would still contain characteristics of capitalism. One of most prominent features would be unequal pay for unequal work: such as one rate of pay for an engineer and another for a fast food worker.

Marx, Gotha

(my emphasis)


What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.


Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

All work is measured by the time and intensity of the work. A worker receives in "payment" the same amount of time and intensity of labor that he or she provides. Marx calls this payment a labor certificate. But whether it is called a labor certificate or a Federal Reserve Certificate is only a matter of the name. What counts is who owns the certificates which are used to pay for labor. Time and intensity are recognized in the terms of the payment: $8 per hour, $12 per hour, $25 per hour, etc. All work will be measure in terms of labor.

But, the important thing is that society will own the additional labor, the profit, produced by society, it will no longer be owned by a capitalist class. Then society decides how the surplus is divided. But, regardless, as in capitalism, different workers will receive different "pay", based on the duration and intensity of their labor.

The majority of the surplus will probably (because the working class controls society) be paid to each worker, with a deduction for education, healthcare, etc. But all that is just a matter of accounting.

Only later is this system replaced with a true communist society.

[The Feral Underclass]

Only later is this system replaced with a true communist society.

I find it interesting that this is just a sort of cursory after thought at the end of your post. The details of which are left up to the imagination. Perhaps you think they are implicit? You talk about a "system", but that system is essentially the reproduction of capitalist relations of production. They cannot simply be "replaced" at a later date; their negation has to be the content of the revolution to begin with.

I think Dauvé says it best when he says, "If, after a revolution, the bourgeoisie is expropriated but workers remain workers, producing in separate enterprises, dependent on their relation to that workplace for their subsistence, and exchanging with other enterprises, then whether that exchange is self-organised by the workers or given central direction by a "workers' state" means very little: the capitalist content remains, and sooner or later the distinct role or function of the capitalist will reassert itself."

http://endnotes.org.uk/en/endnotes-communisation-and-value-form-theory

[Sibotic]

I think Dauvé says it best when he says, "If, after a revolution, the bourgeoisie is expropriated but workers remain workers, producing in [capitalism]."
That seems uncomplicated, they would just need to remind themselves that the revolution is over, and then they wouldn't be in capitalism. 'Separate' here pretty much indicates of what worth the whole statement is.


In The Gotha Programme Marx showed that the initial stage of socialism would still contain characteristics of capitalism.
'Characteristics,' perhaps, and 'showed' is a misleading description of that passage, but not like exclusive characteristics of capital which would mean, inevitably, capitalism. Such as labour-power being a commodity, or wages, which are a result of capital. Wages are a social relation, not a quantity, and they are not the source of this social relation. As such, compensation as such does not equate to wage-labour, but as the terms were used specfically, it wouldn't anyway. When Marx referred to the 'abolition of the system of wage labour,' when they had to, they meant socialism, and neither stage of socialism as they characterised it was likely to depart from this, whatever else they may have featured - which again brings into question why people are shifting the question entirely after a response.


Turning money into another "form of compensation" doesn't actually negate the capitalist relation of production, i.e. wage-labour. You are just using a different 'thing' as medium of exchange.
It's not entirely clear whether this was meant as a supplement or otherwise, given the equation of capitalism with 'wage-labour,' but I was discussing Marx's terminology and discussions of these, and had already mentioned that they had disagreed with such - obviously. In any case, if appearance and essence were necessarily equated then science would be superfluous, at least apparently, but in any case they're not.

[Црвена]

I find it interesting that this is just a sort of cursory after thought at the end of your post. The details of which are left up to the imagination. Perhaps you think they are implicit? You talk about a "system", but that system is essentially the reproduction of capitalist relations of production. They cannot simply be "replaced" at a later date; their negation has to be the content of the revolution to begin with.

I think Dauvé says it best when he says, "If, after a revolution, the bourgeoisie is expropriated but workers remain workers, producing in separate enterprises, dependent on their relation to that workplace for their subsistence, and exchanging with other enterprises, then whether that exchange is self-organised by the workers or given central direction by a "workers' state" means very little: the capitalist content remains, and sooner or later the distinct role or function of the capitalist will reassert itself."

http://endnotes.org.uk/en/endnotes-c...ue-form-theory (http://endnotes.org.uk/en/endnotes-communisation-and-value-form-theory)

But the workers aren't exchanging with other enterprises. All enterprises are part of one, centralised, society-wide network, co-operate with one another and produce for human need and not for profit, and their additional labour all goes to society as a whole. This is not capitalism. It isn't socialism either, but it does lay the foundations for socialism, since it is worker-managed.

[The Feral Underclass]

That seems uncomplicated, they would just need to remind themselves that the revolution is over, and then they wouldn't be in capitalism. 'Separate' here pretty much indicates of what worth the whole statement is.

[...]

It's not entirely clear whether this was meant as a supplement or otherwise, given the equation of capitalism with 'wage-labour,' but I was discussing Marx's terminology and discussions of these, and had already mentioned that they had disagreed with such - obviously. In any case, if appearance and essence were necessarily equated then science would be superfluous, at least apparently, but in any case they're not.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're saying in either of these paragraphs.

[The Feral Underclass]

But the workers aren't exchanging with other enterprises. All enterprises are part of one, centralised, society-wide network, co-operate with one another and produce for human need and not for profit, and their additional labour all goes to society as a whole. This is not capitalism. It isn't socialism either, but it does lay the foundations for socialism, since it is worker-managed.

It doesn't matter what noun you use, the fundamental nature of what you've created is predicated on capitalist relations of production. Whether you're producing for "human need" or producing for profit, your system is still predicated on exchange, money, commodities, the existence of separate enterprises (networks or whatever), the state, wage labour and the working class itself.

[Sibotic]

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're saying in either of these paragraphs.
You needn't have said so, but I'm sure you'll survive.

[The Feral Underclass]

You needn't have said so, but I'm sure you'll survive.

What?...

The point of saying that was so that you could help me understand...

[Sibotic]

What?...

The point of saying that was so that you could help me understand...
You didn't say so, and we didn't feel the need. You didn't say much, in fact, so in lieu of that we just alluded to your name.

[Црвена]

It doesn't matter what noun you use, the fundamental nature of what you've created is predicated on capitalist relations of production. Whether you're producing for "human need" or producing for profit, your system is still predicated on exchange, money, commodities, the existence of separate enterprises (networks or whatever), the state, wage labour and the working class itself.

Nope.

Commodities and money do not exist de facto in the transitional period, because the market is replaced by a system of planning and capital is not accumulated. Same goes for wage labour - there is a mechanism which resembles wages, but given that wage labour under capitalism is characterised by exploitation, which won't exist in the transitional period, transitional "wage labour" is very different from capitalist wage labour. You're right about the predication upon the existence of the working class and the state, but this is precisely one of the features which enable communism to develop: there is a working class but no bourgeois, so everyone is part of the working class, and this working class also controls the state. It's not difficult to see how the existence of only one class and the running of society by this whole class will give rise to a classless society. And I addressed the points about exchange and separate enterprises in the last post; you've just decided to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la, I can't hear you."

[The Feral Underclass]

You didn't say so, and we didn't feel the need. You didn't say much, in fact, so in lieu of that we just alluded to your name.

Suit yourself.

[The Feral Underclass]

Nope.

I'm afraid so.


Commodities and money do not exist de facto in the transitional period, because the market is replaced by a system of planning and capital is not accumulated. Same goes for wage labour - there is a mechanism which resembles wages, but given that wage labour under capitalism is characterised by exploitation, which won't exist in the transitional period, transitional "wage labour" is very different from capitalist wage labour.

There aren't wages and there isn't wage-labour, it just looks like there is?

Capitalism is characterised by exploitation (partly), that is correct. But we're not talking about capitalism, we're talking about capitalist relations of production. In other words relations that look like capitalism, and, importantly, function like it.

In your transitionary society workers still produce things that are exchanged. They still receive an income based on their labour-power. To put it differently, they use the commodity of labour-power to produce other commodities that they can exchange for other commodities. This is further highlighted if you're using labour-vouchers. Despite the fact labour vouchers cannot circulate, they remain a 'thing' in which value is added based upon the amount of labour-power you have exchanged for them. This is simply another form of wage-labour. These wages in the form of vouchers are then exchanged for commodities on an artificial market -- a market that has to be established in order to manage the exchange of commodities. The fact that profit is not extracted from that labour, the fact that they (vouchers) are not accumulated (but I'm sure they could be), does not alter the nature of the relationship that they are predicated on, which is that labour-power remains a commodity, workers still sell that labour-power in exchange for a wage that they then exchange for commodities on a market. In other words, capitalist relations of production prevail.

On accumulation, the Bolshevik government adopted a policy of primitive socialist accumulation, pretty much at the very beginning, in order to try and develop industry and the economy. A "workers' state" will have no choice but to seize the surplus products of production and accumulate these resources because it has to control the flow of production and the exchange of commodities.


You're right about the predication upon the existence of the working class and the state, but this is precisely one of the features which enable communism to develop: there is a working class but no bourgeois, so everyone is part of the working class, and this working class also controls the state.

The bourgeoisie has been expropriated and in their place the creation of managers, administrators and bureaucrats have emerged. Now you can call them workers if you want, it certainly feeds into the ideological narrative, but actually what we have are people who exchange their labour-power as a commodity in exchange for a wage and then those who manage and administrate that process. You have the working class continuing to sell its labour-power and then you have the bureaucrats (who you can call workers) who ensure that process of exchange of labour-power is managed and planned.

Inherent in this process are the very capitalist relations of production that require negation in order that communism can be produced. These relationships don't just disappear, in fact they ultimately reassert themselves.


It's not difficult to see how the existence of only one class and the running of society by this whole class will give rise to a classless society. And I addressed the points about exchange and separate enterprises in the last post; you've just decided to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la, I can't hear you."

I like that in your mind people who don't agree with you are just being stubborn. You didn't really address what I said, you just posited the same trite position that most Marxists posit.

You say it is not difficult, but I say it is impossible to see how a classless society can emerge when capitalist relations of production prevail. If you wish to produce a communist society, then it is necessary to begin the negation of these relationships at the very beginning. Indeed, those measures must make up the very content of the revolution

[Anatoli]

From each according to his ABILITY, to each according to his NEEDS. Fulfilled by the Gosplan. My Filipino uncle has a dacha in the Black Sea.

[ckaihatsu]

If a planned economy is contingent on calculations of this amount of labor power being directed here and there and so on, then wouldn't freely associated labor be in fact contradictory to this? For an example: if a plan calculates that 3,500 more homes are in need of construction in Raleigh, North Carolina, and there is not enough willing workers to construct these homes, what then? If labor becomes something totally uncompulsory, then how does one ensure that it gets done in dire and necessary circumstances that people may not always want to delve into?


The issue that the OP raises is perennially a *weak spot* in revolutionary theory, but it's one I've put my attentions to, particularly thanks to the environment of RevLeft, the comrades here, and its discussion-board format:





Quick clarification:

Hypothetically, liberated labor would *never* have to be measured, because in the best-case scenario everything would be produced as a 'gift economy', with all work effort being voluntarily and freely given, for production for the common good, *and* it would be sufficient for everyone's needs.

But if *any* of these factors, for *any* given good or service could *not* be guaranteed, then it would *not* be a gift economy (for those particular items). Society would have a common interest, of some extent, in providing some kind of social incentive for those who would do the distasteful but socially-necessary labor that others would not readily do.

Since all liberated-production would be for the sake of eliminating scarcity, the only component remaining that *could* be conceivably scarce in such a society would be (liberated) labor itself.

I developed a model that enables communism's 'free access' and 'direct distribution' while providing social incentives for any work efforts at distasteful tasks -- the reward would be the empowerment to select and activate available and willing liberated labor, in proportion to one's own actual performed labor:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'



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


And:





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

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

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


---





If you're in the initial stage of socialism then there will still be features of capitalism remaining in the system [I](Critique of the Gotha Program.) Work will still be done in exchange for wages. If there is enough demand for the homes and the materials are available then the demand for labor will increase, wages for carpenters, masons, electricians, etc. will rise and labor will be attracted to Raleigh.

If you're talking about a further stage of socialism then, in a city the size of Raleigh (about 440,000, total MSA about a million) you would have to advertise for about 200-300 workers. If these workers were not employed then they were probably receiving some kind of unemployment compensation, rent subsidy, food stamps, etc. So you notify the workers. If they don't come in and sign up for the work (at good wages/labor credits, etc.) then I guess they will have their unemployment cut off.


This kind of action would be inherently antithetical to the *ethos* of a socialist society.

Certainly food and housing would be a social priority across-the-board, for all, meaning that the *guarantee* of such for everyone, of *some* kind, should take explicit *priority* over the construction of *new* housing, if that planned construction of new housing would stress general social provisions to the point where people would have to be *cut off* from basic provisions like food and housing. (Perhaps everyone in the world would just have to move into tighter housing accomodations until that society could figure out how to do 'new construction' equitably without resorting to inhumane measures.)

I'll invoke the quantity-over-quality principle here:


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy



http://s6.postimg.org/q2scney29/10_Supply_prioritization_in_a_socialist_transi.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/9rs8r3lkd/full/)


---





The short version is that it can't be done. In socialism, there is no public repressive function; the organs of society can persuade and appeal, but they can't compel. I don't think this is a major problem - after all, the socialist planning of production depends on the active participation of workers in any case. We're already dependent on the public spirit of the working class. Nor does the existence of factors we can't control mean that there is no social planning of production - this would mean that there is no planning until humans learn to control the weather, unpredictable events, and so on, in short - until we become gods.


I argue, with the liberated-labor-hour-based 'labor credits' approach, that a post-capitalist society *could* provide specific material incentives for the social fulfillment of distasteful tasks, without resorting to commodity production, as described above.


---










Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it.


I find that this specific 'principle' / guarantee is too unwieldy for implementation to be realistic -- it's more of a political *slogan* than a *plan*, which is fair-enough, though. Here's my treatment:





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.)


---


Also:


[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram



http://s6.postimg.org/z6qrnuzn5/7_Syndicalism_Socialism_Communism_Transiti.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/jy0ua35yl/full/)


---





In your transitionary society workers still produce things that are exchanged. They still receive an income based on their labour-power. To put it differently, they use the commodity of labour-power to produce other commodities that they can exchange for other commodities. This is further highlighted if you're using labour-vouchers. Despite the fact labour vouchers cannot circulate, they remain a 'thing' in which value is added based upon the amount of labour-power you have exchanged for them. This is simply another form of wage-labour. These wages in the form of vouchers are then exchanged for commodities on an artificial market -- a market that has to be established in order to manage the exchange of commodities. The fact that profit is not extracted from that labour, the fact that they (vouchers) are not accumulated (but I'm sure they could be), does not alter the nature of the relationship that they are predicated on, which is that labour-power remains a commodity, workers still sell that labour-power in exchange for a wage that they then exchange for commodities on a market. In other words, capitalist relations of production prevail.


While I'm open to the prospect / possibility of a 'transitional' period -- as shown in the diagram above -- I actually *agree* with your critique of the inherently problematic *logistics* around such, particularly the 'labor vouchers' formulation.

Here's my own standing critique of it:


Pies Must Line Up



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

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm not really sure how your diagram addresses the core point of my argument.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm not really sure how our diagram addresses the core point of my argument.


"Ours", huh -- ??

I don't see *your* name on it -- ! (grin)

To graciously spell it out for you, I'm saying that I agree that 'labor vouchers' are too problematic to be realistic. You're detailing their inherent 'exchange-value' nature, while I'm noting that they'd have to correlate and reconcile with all other components of the political economy, like 'goods & services produced', 'world material', 'liberated human labor', and 'consumption'. Any purported system of 'calculation' for all of this would be *contrived* at best, more likely lending itself to a political smoke-and-mirrors routine.

[RedMaterialist]

I find it interesting that this is just a sort of cursory after thought at the end of your post. The details of which are left up to the imagination. Perhaps you think they are implicit? You talk about a "system", but that system is essentially the reproduction of capitalist relations of production. They cannot simply be "replaced" at a later date; their negation has to be the content of the revolution to begin with.

I think Dauvé says it best when he says, "If, after a revolution, the bourgeoisie is expropriated but workers remain workers, producing in separate enterprises, dependent on their relation to that workplace for their subsistence, and exchanging with other enterprises, then whether that exchange is self-organised by the workers or given central direction by a "workers' state" means very little: the capitalist content remains, and sooner or later the distinct role or function of the capitalist will reassert itself."

http://endnotes.org.uk/en/endnotes-communisation-and-value-form-theory

Actually, not an afterthought at all. The workers have appropriated the capitalists and now produce and own their own wealth. Some forms of capitalism remain, such as wage-labor. The capitalists are being suppressed out of existence, most go peacefully, some go not so peacefully, but they all will go, BUT ONLY if the revolution is worldwide.

[The Feral Underclass]

Actually, not an afterthought at all. The workers have appropriated the capitalists and now produce and own their own wealth. Some forms of capitalism remain, such as wage-labor. The capitalists are being suppressed out of existence, most go peacefully, some go not so peacefully, but they all will go, BUT ONLY if the revolution is worldwide.

Right, but those two things don't really follow. I know Marxists make a big deal out of it being so, but the reproduction of capitalist relations of production and the need to suppress a counter-revolution are not intrinsically linked.