A basic question on stateless communism

[t_wolves_fan]

It's been explained to me a number of times that in a stateless, communist society, all my "basic needs" would be "provided for me".

1. How would my "basic needs" be determined?

2. Who would get to determine what my "basic needs" are? Do I get to do it myself?

Thanks

[comrade_mufasa]

1)All humans have the same basic needs. Healthy food, clean water, a livable well built home, and complete health care.
2)No one can determine the basic needs of people becouse the basic needs of people are all of the things that are needed for a person to live a healthy life. It just is.

[RedLenin]

Who determines your needs? You do of course. It's really that simply. If you need food you get food. No one can determine your needs except yourself.

[t_wolves_fan]

So, what if I decide my basic needs include a brand new ferrari, a Ford Exporer to get up into the woods so I can do my camping and hunting, and a 72-inch plasma television set?

Do I get those things for free?

[Taiga]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:58 PM
So, what if I decide my basic needs include a brand new ferrari, a Ford Exporer to get up into the woods so I can do my camping and hunting, and a 72-inch plasma television set?

Do I get those things for free?
Try to understand the difference between the need and the whimsey.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, smarty!!!

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Taiga+Feb 28 2005, 04:40 PM--> (Taiga @ Feb 28 2005, 04:40 PM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 03:58 PM
So, what if I decide my basic needs include a brand new ferrari, a Ford Exporer to get up into the woods so I can do my camping and hunting, and a 72-inch plasma television set?

Do I get those things for free?
Try to understand the difference between the need and the whimsey.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, smarty!!! [/b]
Please answer the question.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 08:37 PM
1)All humans have the same basic needs. Healthy food, clean water, a livable well built home, and complete health care.

Well, seeing as the majority of those weren't even available for most of human history, I don't think they really qualify.


2)No one can determine the basic needs of people becouse the basic needs of people are all of the things that are needed for a person to live a healthy life. It just is.

Then what was that list in aid of ?

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 08:37 PM
1)All humans have the same basic needs. Healthy food, clean water, a livable well built home, and complete health care.

Well, seeing as the majority of those weren't even available for most of human history, I don't think they really qualify.
Yes they were available, yes they do qualify, AND THATS THE FUCKING PROBLEM :angry: people need the things I said to sustain a livable life. If you look through out history capitalism did not and is not providing them.



2)No one can determine the basic needs of people becouse the basic needs of people are all of the things that are needed for a person to live a healthy life. It just is.

Then what was that list in aid of ?
If you read my second point then you should know that I was not determining the basic needs of anyone. The basic needs of humans just exist I mearly pointed them out.

[Dwarf Kirlston]

Well, seeing as the majority of those weren't even available for most of human history, I don't think they really qualify. yeah- many people died from disease and when there were droughts from starvation.

human history... there's some cool quotes on that...

[enigma2517]

Unfortunately, none of these responses really give any clear idea about the actually metholodgy.

And while it may be difficult to exactly predict how a future society will take on this sort of decision making...I see it like this. This btw, applies to pretty much all needs and wants, not just basic necesscities.

The smallest type of organization with complete autonomy would be the commune.

A system of delegation would be setup, either based on workplaces or just physical location. These delegates would meet at a freely available municipatlity. This meeting or organization would be considered a council. An alternative for rural, smaller communes may be just general assembly.

The commune has a set amount of resources in its warehouses, along with the conditional cooperation of of its local workplaces. The council would discuss local issues and decide on how to allocate these resources in terms of projects.

For food, firstly we'd obviously need farms/bakeries/other productive places where food could be made. Then we need a center of distribution (or more likely, a series of small centers). We'd have an initial amount of food created and placed in the store. Using card-swipe technology we can monitor the consumption of these goods and based on how fast they are being consumed we can aniticipate to produce more or less, to meet with the changing demand.

If something a bit more complex like a medical center or a school or something else was required pretty much the same process of securing both material and human resources (coordination throught the council) would occur. However, the demand made must be popular enough in the community for it to go through, otherwise the production of it wouldn't be sustainable. For instance, we all need food, so we wouldn't hesitate to give farms an appropriate amount of tools and help. However, not everybody would want to have your 72" TV. It would be too much of a hassle for the electronics industry to produce. You would be free of course to make the proposal to the council....but don't be too surprised when you get laughed out ;)

This is all very rough and I'd encourage anybody to add whatever they feel is necessary. My understanding of gift economics is still lacking :\

[RedLenin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:58 PM
So, what if I decide my basic needs include a brand new ferrari, a Ford Exporer to get up into the woods so I can do my camping and hunting, and a 72-inch plasma television set?

Do I get those things for free?
[QUOTE]

Well if you take too much stuff that you don't need, the workers might just decide not to make them for you. Realize that the workers and consumers coordinate production and consuption, so you would not be able to get away with that.

[CommieBastard]

IMO, assuming you are not debilitated you can be expected to provide for your own needs. Either directly, or by an exchange of services within a collective of shared production and shared ownership.
The point is that the means of production have changed such over the years that all needs CAN be easily provided for and with a vast surplus.
The aims of any kind of economy (assuming that the aims are concordant with those of the people who compose the economy) is to create a surplus beyond what is needed, and eventually a surplus beyond what is desired.
Do remember, however, that people have a right to defend themselves. This includes against the impositions of the choking fumes your ferrari would be pumping out.
There is no reason for every man to own a ferrari, as they are not needed for transport. Transport collectives can easily take you to wherever you want to be, using trains, trams, buses, coaches, minibuses or whatever.
If you just want the thrill of the ride, you don't need to own your ferrari personally, because you will not be using it all of the time. You can own your ferrari, and every other thing you could possibly conceive of wanting to use, because you simply don't have the time in your life to use things to the extent you need them to be exclusively yours.
The only reason not to share a possession when it is not in use is spite.

Also, IMO, statelessness is a state of mind, a stateless economy, however, is one that requires a number of people who share this state of mind. An economy is inevitably a collaboration of individuals, whether those individuals 'voluntarily' subsume themselves to some greater will, or participate actively in ensuring their economic wellbeing.

The real battlefield is the human mind.

[Lamanov]

Well, socialist economy will provide standard, so all the needs you have to worry about is how to get some* ;)

Every qualified worker could live in a nice apartmant, have a big tv, stereo system, fridge full of food, quality appliances...etc . But planned economy which produces standard for all population must be organised within optimum limits, so branches of production [labour division] would balance each other out, both in quality and quantity. No car factory in delicate socialist planned economy would make Ferraries. But, by todays level of productional forces, every qualified worker could drive a Golf5, Opel Astra, or Corsa [whatever, the point it in optimality, and these cars - today - represent just that]. In time, as productivity grows, standard grows with it [so car quality will probably follow]
formula is something like this :
highest possible employment + planned economy and production + planned increase of productivity = high standards, reasonable work time, etc.
You don't REALLY need Ferrari, now do you?

[1936]

At what point in anyones perception is a ferai a "need"???

[workersunity]

there was no need to put stateless communism, as communism in and of itself is stateless

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 28 2005, 10:02 PM

You don't REALLY need Ferrari, now do you?
Ask Cobra90x:

"Who determines your needs? You do of course. It's really that simply. If you need food you get food. No one can determine your needs except yourself."


My opinion of what I need may be different from yours, which according to one of your fellow communists, would be allowed.

So yes, I NEED a Ferrari.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Alright, so, go to yr collective, and talk about it. If there is a Ferari that can be provided for you, there's no reason you shouldn't have one. If it is feasible, and deemed desirable by people involved in democratic processes, then Ferrari production will continue.
I could say I needed the moon but people would probably laugh. I could say I wanted a a chocolatebar called "Moon Bars" and if the resources were available, I imagine people would join me in the production of moon bars.
Democratic production isn't that difficult to wrap one's head around.

But wait, suppose yr collective says "Yr an asshead and don't need a Ferari!" Well, then you don't necessarily have to except it - you could try to star a Ferari syndicate and start producing yr own, or you could petition another existing factory to switch to Ferari production for you . . . if you can't, you're stuck sans Ferrari, but that's no different than under capitalism. I want a nuclear submarine, but it just ain't happening.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 23 2005, 07:04 PM
If it is feasible, and deemed desirable by people involved in democratic processes, then Ferrari production will continue.

So my needs are up to the whims of the democratic process?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 08:18 PM
So my needs are up to the whims of the democratic process?
A Ferrari is a sports car designed for people with lots of money to look good. They're an eye car, something which you buy as a status symbol. Why on earth would you need one?

If you say "I 'want' a Ferrari" then that's different, and you are more than welcome to build one. If you want it, build it. Maybe some of your friends will help you, maybe they won't. Quite frankly, who cares?

And this is by no means a basic quesiton on stateless communism. It's a self motivated bullshit question which you are posing in the effort to try and trip people up. The problem is, no one gives a shit whether you need or want a Ferrari.

It's like a petulant child stamping his foot when his mother has divided the ice cream around equally. "I want more." The answer is: Tuff luck!

Deal with it.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 23 2005, 07:04 PM
Alright, so, go to yr collective, and talk about it. If there is a Ferari that can be provided for you, there's no reason you shouldn't have one.
Is this how you envision all goods would be produced and distributed?

Do you have any idea how indescribably inefficient such a system would be on a national or global scale?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Mar 23 2005, 08:19 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Mar 23 2005, 08:19 PM)
[email protected] 23 2005, 08:18 PM
So my needs are up to the whims of the democratic process?
A Ferrari is a sports car designed for people with lots of money to look good. They're an eye car, something which you buy as a status symbol. Why on earth would you need one?

If you say "I 'want' a Ferrari" then that's different, and you are more than welcome to build one. If you want it, build it. Maybe some of your friends will help you, maybe they won't. Quite frankly, who cares?

And this is by no means a basic quesiton on stateless communism. It's a self motivated bullshit question which you are posing in the effort to try and trip people up. The problem is, no one gives a shit whether you need or want a Ferrari.

It's like a petulant child stamping his foot when his mother has divided the ice cream around equally. "I want more." The answer is: Tuff luck!

Deal with it. [/b]
This is all your opinion.

First it was stated that each person would determine his/her needs. Then it was stated that if the democratic process decided I could have what I need, I'd have it.


Do you really believe a centralized economic planning body could possibly meet the wants and needs of every single product and service while allowing individuals to determine what they "need"?

Who are you to determine what people need?

And if you or the central economic planning agency ultimately decides what people "need", then isn't that centralized government to the maximum?

If there's no centralized economic planning body, do you think millions of autonomous production collectives could efficiently produce and distribute goods and services? Do you believe they'd protect the environment without regulations?

Are you under the impression that everyone is going to magically agree with you on what they need or want?

[RedLenin]

I will repeat this again. If you want something you can make it, grow it, build it, or allow a collective to do it for you. If the collective cannot do it, you can do it, or, you could start a collective that could. There would be a very large complex system of federations of collectives ensuring that this economy is efficient. Communism would run a lot like anarchist organizational principals. Collectives, federations of collectives, and one big federation of all collectives. A complex delegate system would arize with elected, mandated, and recallable delegates. It really is collectivism. Federations of collectives and one big federation. There is no central power and all these federations do is allow for exchange between different areas and keep this system flowing smoothly. So with all these collectives you might be able to find one that will produce a car for you. More than likely though, public transportation will be the norm.

You determine your own needs, but there is a line that leads to exploitation. If you NEED 26 cars and 12 houses you are exploiting to get them. So don't be suprized when the workers dont make them for you. Production and consumption is a VOLUNTARY relationship.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 05:41 PM
I will repeat this again. If you want something you can make it, grow it, build it, or allow a collective to do it for you. If the collective cannot do it, you can do it, or, you could start a collective that could. There would be a very large complex system of federations of collectives ensuring that this economy is efficient. Communism would run a lot like anarchist organizational principals. Collectives, federations of collectives, and one big federation of all collectives. A complex delegate system would arize with elected, mandated, and recallable delegates. It really is collectivism. Federations of collectives and one big federation. There is no central power and all these federations do is allow for exchange between different areas and keep this system flowing smoothly. So with all these collectives you might be able to find one that will produce a car for you. More than likely though, public transportation will be the norm.

You determine your own needs, but there is a line that leads to exploitation. If you NEED 26 cars and 12 houses you are exploiting to get them. So don't be suprized when the workers dont make them for you. Production and consumption is a VOLUNTARY relationship.
Do you really believe that organizing an efficient global economy is the same thing as organizing protest marches?

And by the way this sounds like a government to me.

What if one collective doesn't want to produce as many widgets as the "federation" would have them produce?

For instance, let's say there are 100 car factories in the world right now. Now that everyone has their "needs" met, and they can reasonably say a car is a "need", how do you simultaneously allow each car factory collective to vote to work 4-5 hour days (as people have said the revolution would lead to) yet produce enough cars to give everyone one car?

Basically, the question is: if the federation or central planning board determines 5,000 X are needed to meet demand, but the collectives in sum have voted to produce 3,700 units of X, who wins?

[Lamanov]

And by the way this sounds like a government to me.

Government? Not really... it's more complicated than that.
Try to realise that "politics" simply blends into economy.
Besides, 'globalisation' is allready organising a global economy, but within the capitalist productional relations it won't be as efficient as it could be in socialist.

About a Ferrari - as all over-luxury products Ferrari won't fit into planned economy. It will simply be a workers decision. Such machinery will be used to build cars which can satisfy a quantitative need. Quality grows in time [as I allready said].


Basically, the question is: if the federation or central planning board determines 5,000 X are needed to meet demand, but the collectives in sum have voted to produce 3,700 units of X, who wins?

This is allso oversimplification. BTW, what is so different today?

[Wouldn't we all just love a Ferrari in our backyard]


And if you or the central economic planning agency ultimately decides what people "need", then isn't that centralized government to the maximum?

"Central economic planning agency" [hmmmm... oops, whatever that is] is chosen democraticly right after the revolution, and it can be recalled. This has nothing to do with stateless communism. This is a "dictatureship of the proletariat". We can't LEAP into beautifull luxury superproductive communism right away. It takes planning and making compromises before we could.

hm, but still....
Where did you get an idea that something can determine what everyone needs without a recall?

[t_wolves_fan]

Government? Not really... it's more complicated than that.

Indeed it does.


Try to realise that "politics" simply blends into economy.

So decisions on what I may produce and consume are made by democratic decision?


Besides, 'globalisation' is allready organising a global economy, but within the capitalist productional relations it won't be as efficient as it could be in socialist.

I disagree strongly. NovelGentry seems to think demand and supply can be managed by local communes making literally millions of agreements each on what to produce and how to distribute it. It's an arrangement that will lead to complete and total inefficiency.


About a Ferrari - as all over-luxury products Ferrari won't fit into planned economy. It will simply be a workers decision.

Sounds like you've already made the decision for the workers.


Such machinery will be used to build cars which can satisfy a quantitative need. Quality grows in time [as I allready said].

Doubtful. In order to produce enough of something that is the same quality for all 6 billion inhabitants (or fewer once noXiom kills off a couple billion) in a sustainable fashion, you're going to have to sacrifice quality.

Worse, innovation will become extremely difficult. Why? Because if I invent a better car but it's determined the resources do not exist to produce it for all 6 billion inhabitants, it's not going to be produced or even pursued. As Hayek said, people will pursue only those innovations that can realistically be expected to be capable of production for the global population - which means they're not going to reach very far, are they?



Basically, the question is: if the federation or central planning board determines 5,000 X are needed to meet demand, but the collectives in sum have voted to produce 3,700 units of X, who wins?

This is allso oversimplification. BTW, what is so different today?

It's not an oversimplification. No commie here yet has been able to answer the question, either dreaming up surpluses or massive (yet somehow decentralized) recycling efforts, or claiming that local communes will have total control but undoubdtedly will conform to regional or global needs.

It is not different today for some goods, in that Ferarris are too expensive for demand to be too high. Would you like to postulate on what happens when cost is no longer an issue?


[Wouldn't we all just love a Ferrari in our backyard]

Actually I've heard they're a pain in the ass to maintain.



"Central economic planning agency" [hmmmm... oops, whatever that is] is chosen democraticly right after the revolution, and it can be recalled.

How long will it take to recall it and replace its members? What is going to have to happen for that to occur?


This has nothing to do with stateless communism. This is a "dictatureship of the proletariat". We can't LEAP into beautifull luxury superproductive communism right away. It takes planning and making compromises before we could.

How many of these compromises are going to take place at the barrell of a gun? In the short term you're going to have a hell of a lot of resistance.


hm, but still....
Where did you get an idea that something can determine what everyone needs without a recall?

That sets my mind at ease. I really look forward to having the central agency fuck up, then waiting for a new agency to be elected and production and distribution to be recalibrated.

[NovelGentry]

NovelGentry seems to think demand and supply can be managed by local communes making literally millions of agreements each on what to produce and how to distribute it.

You maintain an extremely poor understanding of what I think.

EDIT: And I have little doubt you purposefully do so just so you can make statements like that and ask the same questions repeatedly -- or worse, just progress towards constantly dumber and dumber questions in an attempt to make it look like those are the only type of question we are sutable to answer.

"So you mean you want to kill all religious people?"
"So you want to kill eveyrone who doesn't believe what you believe?"

[Lamanov]

"Sounds like you've already made the decision for the workers."

Nous verrons.
It's actually pretty logical. You said it yourself: "Actually I've heard they're a pain in the ass to maintain."


"So decisions on what I may produce and consume are made by democratic decision?"

What YOU may produce? How many people does it take to make one single product today? More than one... Production is socialised. Most important mission of capitalism was to make it such... socialist mission will be to remove one thing that stops its full usage - capitalist appropriation


"Doubtful. In order to produce enough of something that is the same quality for all 6 billion inhabitants (or fewer once noXiom kills off a couple billion) in a sustainable fashion, you're going to have to sacrifice quality."

Yes, but for a while. At first all investment goes to expanding production. The point of the dictatureship of the proletariat is to aquire all possible workforce. I've allready said that when economy and distribution get organised part of former profit would be invested in inovation, science, intelectual labour and for all it takes to increase productivity. I say "profit", but i mean - support. Quality can go up only when quantity is accieved, and quantity will be accieved when capitalistic appropriation is removed and when there is no need to turn a product into merchandise.


"Worse, innovation will become extremely difficult. Why? Because if I invent a better car but it's determined the resources do not exist to produce it for all 6 billion inhabitants, it's not going to be produced or even pursued."

Socialism, capitalism, whatever - this planet won't survive without recycling. For a car - it won't be a problem.

[t_wolves_fan]

Nous verrons.
It's actually pretty logical. You said it yourself: "Actually I've heard they're a pain in the ass to maintain."

Learn the difference between "maintain" and "build".

Just about everything is a pain in the ass to build.



What YOU may produce? How many people does it take to make one single product today? More than one... Production is socialised. Most important mission of capitalism was to make it such... socialist mission will be to remove one thing that stops its full usage - capitalist appropriation

So, people will get together to build stuff because they think it is more fun than staying home, drinking beer and watching TV, or spending time with their families (forgot, "families" no longer exist), or going to the beach.

Riiiiiigggghhhhhtttt.




Yes, but for a while.

I'm sure people will be patient.


Quality can go up only when quantity is accieved,

So your basic understanding of economics is approximately zero then? Because that's one of the dumbest statements I've ever seen/heard, Sherlock.




Socialism, capitalism, whatever - this planet won't survive without recycling. For a car - it won't be a problem.

Why not? Because you'll prohibit people from wanting/owning too many cars or because people will magically agree on everything?

Those be the only two choices as I see it.

[RedAnarchist]

When the people have been educated, ie gained class conciosuness, and have a revolution, they will not be the same as in a capitalist society, where their creativity is repressed and their bodies and minds used by the ruling classes for profit.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:32 PM
When the people have been educated, ie gained class conciosuness, and have a revolution, they will not be the same as in a capitalist society, where their creativity is repressed and their bodies and minds used by the ruling classes for profit.
The problem is if you need a revolution to make your beliefs into reality, you're also going to end up using force to achieve this "consciousness".

As Castro has shown us, it seems to take an awful long time and an awful lot of dead/deported people to develop this "consciousness".

Nice sloganeering though. Real easy to remember and quite catchy. No critical thought required.