Central economic question again

[t_wolves_fan]

Basically the same question I've had in the past, except with new insight.

A common theme I've seen from communists/socialists about how resources and rewards would be distributed in a communist society is:

"To each based on need, from each based on ability."

That's paraphrased, and it's my assumption, based on what I've read.

Now, another communist said in response to a capitalist,

"The fact that you think everyone wants to see you driving cars and satisfying women is irrelevant if you can't convince the rest of the community that it's worth their time and effort to build you a car and assemble a videocamera for you."

This brings up a paradox:

If each individual gets to decide what they need, why should he/she be required to convince the commune to produce it? And if the commune gets to decide they will not produce it, then an individual does not have what they have decided they need, correct?

Your thoughts?

[LSD]

"To each based on need, from each based on ability."

Well, that certainly is paraphrased! But even the original quote:

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

is an abreviation of the actual concept, which is basically:

"From each according to his functional abilities in needed areas, to each according to his rationally identifiable and quantifiable needs and his reasonable desires."


If each individual gets to decide what they need, why should he/she be required to convince the commune to produce it?

Each individual doesn't "decide" what they need. What they need is obvious, what they want is what is subjective and "decided". And they are required to "convince" the commune only so far as that which they want is not already being produced ...that which they need is produced by default.

If there's one thing which the capitalist "market" has taught us, its that there are fundamental similarities of demand among people. Many, if not most, people desire and want similar things, and so there will always be people to produce them. I'm going to go deeper into how this will work in my response to your next question, however. For now, I'd like to stick to the question of "needs".

Whereas, wants tend to be subjective and, while similar, unique, needs are, if not universal, at the very least, quantifiable. That is, you can determine if something is needed ...because you need it.

You know you need water, because without it you die.
You know you need food, because without it you die.
You know you need shelter, because without it you die.
You know you need heat, because without it you die.
You know you need medicine, because without it you die.

Even for the non "life or death", for something to be a need, there must be a quantifiable serious negative reaction to its absence.

For example, I would suffer grave physical consequences if I did not have my migraine medicine, I wouldn't die, but neurological tests and personal testimony shows that I suffer greatly.

Likewise for all medical, pyschological, or psychiatric conditions. Likewise for anything which can be objectively shown to be needed. And likewise for anything that is a required component of anything that is needed. So since keyboards are needed for computers which are needed for running factories which are needed for producing cars which are needed for transporation which is needed for medical emergencies (among other things), keyboards are needed and must be made. It may take a little time to compile the list, but it isn't difficult work!

That which is needed will be communaly decided by the entire collective, and all primary occupations will go towards satisfying these needs. That is people will only work in inudstries that produce needed things. They can, of course, work at other projects durring there free time. Free time which will obviously be greater if everyone is working only in needed areas.


And if the commune gets to decide they will not produce it, then an individual does not have what they have decided they need, correct?

Correct. ...but neither will they.

The beauty of the system is, that like any modern societal model, it is predicated on interdependency and community. If the shoe-making collective suddenly decides to stop making shoes ...then they will no longer be contributing to society and hence will not be able to use societies products. They won't be "punished", it's just a natural consequence of not contributing.

Accordingly, the possiblity of a workers' collective "[deciding] not to produce" something for which there is an established need is quite remote.

As far as wants, especially esoteric wants ...well, much as under any society there is no "guarantee" that such wants can be satisfied. If, for example, I wanted a dinosaur ...well, there's very little anyone can do.

One thing which communsim does do, however, is dramatically increase the possibility that I (or any other person) can satisfy these needs. While capitalism increases this potential for the elites, the average person has little chance of actualizing their wants.

By both decreasing the amount of work required from each worker (by spreading out nescessary occupational responsibilities) and by equalizing resources, my personal ability to make myself, or to know someone who could make, or to be able to contact someone who can make, whatever the ecclectic item I am pursuing is drastically inproved.

Furthermore, by the liberation of educational opportunities, there is a much greater chance that I can learn for myself how to make whatever this rare or bizzare item is.

In terms of commonly desired items ...well, that's an easy one.

For objects such as, say, guitars or bongs or computer games -- things for which there is not a general need per se, but for which there will undoubtably be a substantial demand, there will be those who produce such things. They will not do so as a primary responsibility, but on their "off" hours.

That is, since we're dramatically reducing the time that one needs to work at ones "primary" occupation, the amount of time to work on such things such as musical instruments, or software, or any such creative or productive creation will be much higher.

As for their "motivation" to make such things, I would point to the growing area of Free Software even within this highly Capitalistic environment. The fact that people are willing to dedicate their time and energy to create something with no material reward shows that even in a highly materialistic society such as the one we live in now, humans are not motivated by the "accumulation of wealth".

Imagine how much further this can expand once materialism is done away with!

[OleMarxco]

Post removed since most if it are quoted by LSD under anyways ;)

[LSD]

Do -WE- know what they need?

Yes.


Perhaps not always what they want is what they need, TRUE, but we are not their sub-conscience and "underlying common sense", how can we truely know what each invidual need?

I would refer you back to my earlier post where I clearly differentiated "needs" from "wants".


Yes, I know we need to "hold back resources" to those who "prove themselves worthy"

That is a ludicrous concept and I never suggested anything like it!


And if the commune needs to be "convinced", perhaps the citizens should come with "arguments", too? That sounds ridicilous!

It's called democracy.

Discussion, argument, justification... it's how any just system works. I'm sorry you consider reasoned argumentation to be "ridiculous", it's at the very basis of what communism is.

I wonder if, perhaps, you would prefer a system in which decision were simply made by the "leader"? Maybe that would strike you as less "ridiculous".


The commune itself surely knows PRETTY WELL if what they ask for is not already being produced, since THEY ARE THE PRODUCERS, goddamnit!

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.

Again, that which is needed will be communaly decided and production will follow accordingly. That which is merely wanted will be produced in a much more informal way as people's interests and time permit.


Ooh, watch out, big bad communism, I AM GOING TO "DECIDE" WHAT I NEED!

That sounds ridicilous!

that idea SUCKS

show me somtehing else!

You and your bolding of the "important" words in your post doesn't "convince" me much

THEY ARE THE PRODUCERS, goddamnit!

BAH!

doesn't that count for them too, then, huh, eh?


please bear with my controversy.

I can tolerate "controversy", but can you kindly loose the attitude?

[OleMarxco]

Shh, be quiet, it's a part of the "cappie"-role I'm playing :redstar2000:

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 10 2005, 07:50 PM

"To each based on need, from each based on ability."

Well, that certainly is paraphrased! But even the original quote:

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

is an abreviation of the actual concept, which is basically:

"From each according to his functional abilities in needed areas, to each according to his rationally identifiable and quantifiable needs and his reasonable desires."


If each individual gets to decide what they need, why should he/she be required to convince the commune to produce it?

Each individual doesn't "decide" what they need. What they need is obvious, what they want is what is subjective and "decided". And they are required to "convince" the commune only so far as that which they want is not already being produced ...that which they need is produced by default.

If there's one thing which the capitalist "market" has taught us, its that there are fundamental similarities of demand among people. Many, if not most, people desire and want similar things, and so there will always be people to produce them. I'm going to go deeper into how this will work in my response to your next question, however. For now, I'd like to stick to the question of "needs".

Whereas, wants tend to be subjective and, while similar, unique, needs are, if not universal, at the very least, quantifiable. That is, you can determine if something is needed ...because you need it.

You know you need water, because without it you die.
You know you need food, because without it you die.
You know you need shelter, because without it you die.
You know you need heat, because without it you die.
You know you need medicine, because without it you die.

Even for the non "life or death", for something to be a need, there must be a quantifiable serious negative reaction to its absence.

For example, I would suffer grave physical consequences if I did not have my migraine medicine, I wouldn't die, but neurological tests and personal testimony shows that I suffer greatly.

Likewise for all medical, pyschological, or psychiatric conditions. Likewise for anything which can be objectively shown to be needed. And likewise for anything that is a required component of anything that is needed. So since keyboards are needed for computers which are needed for running factories which are needed for producing cars which are needed for transporation which is needed for medical emergencies (among other things), keyboards are needed and must be made. It may take a little time to compile the list, but it isn't difficult work!

That which is needed will be communaly decided by the entire collective, and all primary occupations will go towards satisfying these needs. That is people will only work in inudstries that produce needed things. They can, of course, work at other projects durring there free time. Free time which will obviously be greater if everyone is working only in needed areas.


And if the commune gets to decide they will not produce it, then an individual does not have what they have decided they need, correct?

Correct. ...but neither will they.

The beauty of the system is, that like any modern societal model, it is predicated on interdependency and community. If the shoe-making collective suddenly decides to stop making shoes ...then they will no longer be contributing to society and hence will not be able to use societies products. They won't be "punished", it's just a natural consequence of not contributing.

Accordingly, the possiblity of a workers' collective "[deciding] not to produce" something for which there is an established need is quite remote.

As far as wants, especially esoteric wants ...well, much as under any society there is no "guarantee" that such wants can be satisfied. If, for example, I wanted a dinosaur ...well, there's very little anyone can do.

One thing which communsim does do, however, is dramatically increase the possibility that I (or any other person) can satisfy these needs. While capitalism increases this potential for the elites, the average person has little chance of actualizing their wants.

By both decreasing the amount of work required from each worker (by spreading out nescessary occupational responsibilities) and by equalizing resources, my personal ability to make myself, or to know someone who could make, or to be able to contact someone who can make, whatever the ecclectic item I am pursuing is drastically inproved.

Furthermore, by the liberation of educational opportunities, there is a much greater chance that I can learn for myself how to make whatever this rare or bizzare item is.

In terms of commonly desired items ...well, that's an easy one.

For objects such as, say, guitars or bongs or computer games -- things for which there is not a general need per se, but for which there will undoubtably be a substantial demand, there will be those who produce such things. They will not do so as a primary responsibility, but on their "off" hours.

That is, since we're dramatically reducing the time that one needs to work at ones "primary" occupation, the amount of time to work on such things such as musical instruments, or software, or any such creative or productive creation will be much higher.

As for their "motivation" to make such things, I would point to the growing area of Free Software even within this highly Capitalistic environment. The fact that people are willing to dedicate their time and energy to create something with no material reward shows that even in a highly materialistic society such as the one we live in now, humans are not motivated by the "accumulation of wealth".

Imagine how much further this can expand once materialism is done away with!
Oh.

That does not sound like a place I would want to live in.

I don't understand 'not able to use' other communes products. I'm just going to take them from the commune. After they are just right there for the taking. Unless you put me in a place where I can not use the products or get the products or make the products off limits.

[LSD]

I don't understand 'not able to use' other communes products. I'm just going to take them from the commune. After they are just right there for the taking. Unless you put me in a place where I can not use the products or get the products or make the products off limits.

If you refuse to contribue to society, you will not be permitted to use the products of society.

If you attempt to do so regardless, you will be exiled.


Oh.

That does not sound like a place I would want to live in.

Your one line responses are getting tired.

If you don't have an intelligent comment to make, please don't bother.

[t_wolves_fan]

Each individual doesn't "decide" what they need. What they need is obvious,

But, and you do not answer this question in the long and comprehensive answer that you provide, to whom are these needs obvious? Who makes the decision that a pound of wheat is "obviously" a need but an ounce of jam is not?

My question is, when and where is the decision point? Who makes it? I mean, the specific decision that says, "that product is a need," or "you do not need that product, that is a want."


what they want is what is subjective and "decided". And they are required to "convince" the commune only so far as that which they want is not already being produced ...that which they need is produced by default.

Here we run into the problem about which Hayek spoke: innovation. Under your system it appears, if I come up with an idea for a new product, I will not be able to produce it until I either convince a collective to produce it (and history and human nature have shown that most organizations have a hard time changing once culture and standard operating procedures are entrenched); or until I can convince multiple collectives to give me the necessary components. This one is more difficult: Say I have an idea for an invention, but I need to experiment. How do I convince a collective that I "need" 3 or 4 times as much copper wire or silicon for chips or batteries as most people do, because I am experimenting and therefore my initial efforts will probably fail? Under the current system, I can go purchase everything I need or easily borrow the money to do so. Under your system, if a commune determines I want to consume well above my average "needs", there is a good chance I will be SOL.


If there's one thing which the capitalist "market" has taught us, its that there are fundamental similarities of demand among people. Many, if not most, people desire and want similar things, and so there will always be people to produce them. I'm going to go deeper into how this will work in my response to your next question, however. For now, I'd like to stick to the question of "needs".

While everyone may want basically the same products, does everyone want the same model products? Will the communes be able to produce a variety of models?


Whereas, wants tend to be subjective and, while similar, unique, needs are, if not universal, at the very least, quantifiable. That is, you can determine if something is needed ...because you need it.

You know you need water, because without it you die.
You know you need food, because without it you die.
You know you need shelter, because without it you die.
You know you need heat, because without it you die.
You know you need medicine, because without it you die.

Even for the non "life or death", for something to be a need, there must be a quantifiable serious negative reaction to its absence.

First, these quantities are not the same for everyone. Metabolism decides how much food a person needs to live, or at least not be hungry. What if someone needs more than the average number of calories to satisfy his hunger?

Second, I don't think this definition of "need" goes far enough. If you subscribe to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (http://web.utk.edu/~gwynne/maslow.HTM), and I do, then people need more than water, food, shelter, heat, and medicine to be happy. All that might be enough to sustain their existence, true enough, but it's not enough to make people happy.

People need subjective, intangible things to be happy. Some need to live in the country, some need to cheat death through extreme sports. Some need to play music, some need to attend plays.

How does communism plan to meet these needs?


Likewise for all medical, pyschological, or psychiatric conditions. Likewise for anything which can be objectively shown to be needed. And likewise for anything that is a required component of anything that is needed. So since keyboards are needed for computers which are needed for running factories which are needed for producing cars which are needed for transporation which is needed for medical emergencies (among other things), keyboards are needed and must be made. It may take a little time to compile the list, but it isn't difficult work!

Won't this list require centralization then?


That which is needed will be communaly decided by the entire collective, and all primary occupations will go towards satisfying these needs. That is people will only work in inudstries that produce needed things. They can, of course, work at other projects durring there free time. Free time which will obviously be greater if everyone is working only in needed areas.

What if someone does not want to work in an occupation that, as determined by the collective, produces some component of the needs that make the list? What if an author doesn't want to work at the car factory? Is he required to do so? Is the societal pressure that forces him to work at the car factory much different than capitalist forces that require people to work in jobs they don't like?



And if the commune gets to decide they will not produce it, then an individual does not have what they have decided they need, correct?

Correct. ...but neither will they.

The beauty of the system is, that like any modern societal model, it is predicated on interdependency and community. If the shoe-making collective suddenly decides to stop making shoes ...then they will no longer be contributing to society and hence will not be able to use societies products. They won't be "punished", it's just a natural consequence of not contributing.

Accordingly, the possiblity of a workers' collective "[deciding] not to produce" something for which there is an established need is quite remote.

So then they are required to work by the circumstances of the system, which is no different than the "wage slavery" inherent in capitalism.


While capitalism increases this potential for the elites, the average person has little chance of actualizing their wants.

I misread this sentence initially. But it brings up another point: Aren't wants and demand to satisfy wants going to explode once everything is free?



By both decreasing the amount of work required from each worker (by spreading out nescessary occupational responsibilities) and by equalizing resources, my personal ability to make myself, or to know someone who could make, or to be able to contact someone who can make, whatever the ecclectic item I am pursuing is drastically inproved.

I don't think this can be guaranteed, in fact I think exactly the opposite is likely. You said that a collective would vote to have everyone work a certain number of hours per day producing needs. The problem is, needs will be considered rights and they will inevitably rise in terms of quantity and technological quality demanded.

Take medical care for instance. Do you think people are going to think their "needs" for quality medical care are met when they are receiving middle-of-the-road quality care, while they know better-quality, higher-tech care is available? Part of the reason that medical care in the United States is so expensive is that we have the most technologically advanced medical care in the world, and we view it as our "right" to have access to that technology. There are as many MRI machines in most medium-sized metropolitan areas as there are in all of Canada. To meet our "need" for medical care, we demand the best.

Will society turn away from this demand for the best quality to meet our needs when it becomes free? Isn't there a good chance that once we get to vote, should the medical collective produce high-tech MRI machines or should it produce low-tech X-ray machines? that we're going to choose the MRI machines? We'll probably choose the MRI machines. Those MRI machines cost more labor to produce. The result, I feel, is that demand for high-quality products to meet all those other "needs" will rise above our desire or ability to produce them.


Furthermore, by the liberation of educational opportunities, there is a much greater chance that I can learn for myself how to make whatever this rare or bizzare item is.

Seriously, how many of today's modern products are possible to be made by one person?


For objects such as, say, guitars or bongs or computer games -- things for which there is not a general need per se, but for which there will undoubtably be a substantial demand, there will be those who produce such things. They will not do so as a primary responsibility, but on their "off" hours.

Isn't that working on their "off" hours and, if so, are those really "off" hours? What happens if demand for the products they produce on their "off" hours rises so that they cannot produce enough during their "off" hours? Shortages, black market. Crime.


That is, since we're dramatically reducing the time that one needs to work at ones "primary" occupation, the amount of time to work on such things such as musical instruments, or software, or any such creative or productive creation will be much higher.

How many hours are we talking here? How much time will be available for recreation and rest?


As for their "motivation" to make such things, I would point to the growing area of Free Software even within this highly Capitalistic environment. The fact that people are willing to dedicate their time and energy to create something with no material reward shows that even in a highly materialistic society such as the one we live in now, humans are not motivated by the "accumulation of wealth".

Why does every piece of shareware I've ever used have a request for donations?


Imagine how much further this can expand once materialism is done away with!

What if people don't turn away from materialism? You pretend this is simply going to be a natural occurrence, and while it may happen, what if it doesn't?

My questions are genuine, please don't think that I think you're stupid. I just don't buy this idea that the distribution and demand problems inherent in communism will be magically cured because "everyone" decides simultaneously to reject materialism

[Lamanov]

>>But, and you do not answer this question in the long and comprehensive answer that you provide, to whom are these needs obvious? Who makes the decision that a pound of wheat is "obviously" a need but an ounce of jam is not?<<


>>My question is, when and where is the decision point? Who makes it? I mean, the specific decision that says, "that product is a need," or "you do not need that product, that is a want."<<

The workers. I think it&#39;s obvious, if not too simple.
We NOW are producing jars of jam. That production will go on.
I bet your question would be: [i]&#39;but what if there is not enough jam to satisfy the needs of the entire population?&#39;. So how do you know the needs are not satisfied [?] - yes, the workers will say &#39;we need more jam&#39;. They will come to this agreement within their syndicates. Then, syndicates would turn to communes and say &#39;we need to increase jam production&#39;. Communes would plan the expansion and turn to the industrialisation syndicate by saying &#39;build a new jam factory that can produce # more jars of jam&#39;. So they would do exactly that. New work places will be available and people [in need of jobs] would fill in. And there you have more jam.

[t_wolves_fan]

[i]Originally posted by DJ&#045;TC+May 11 2005, 01:46 PM--> (DJ-TC @ May 11 2005, 01:46 PM)
>>But, and you do not answer this question in the long and comprehensive answer that you provide, to whom are these needs obvious? Who makes the decision that a pound of wheat is "obviously" a need but an ounce of jam is not?<<


>>My question is, when and where is the decision point? Who makes it? I mean, the specific decision that says, "that product is a need," or "you do not need that product, that is a want."<<

The workers. I think it&#39;s obvious, if not too simple.
We NOW are producing jars of jam. That production will go on.
I bet your question would be: [i]&#39;but what if there is not enough jam to satisfy the needs of the entire population?&#39;. So how do you know the needs are not satisfied [?] - yes, the workers will say &#39;we need more jam&#39;. They will come to this agreement within their syndicates. Then, syndicates would turn to communes and say &#39;we need to increase jam production&#39;. Communes would plan the expansion and turn to the industrialisation syndicate by saying &#39;build a new jam factory that can produce # more jars of jam&#39;. So they would do exactly that. New work places will be available and people would fill in. And there you have more jam. [/b]
Ok, but I have one communist saying that most people will only work at those occupations that satisfy "needs", and "need" will be determined by communal vote:


Lysergic Acid Diethylamide
That which is needed will be communaly decided by the entire collective, and all primary occupations will go towards satisfying these needs. That is people will only work in inudstries that produce needed things.

So, what if the community decides that jam is not a need? According to LSD, people could work in their spare time on producing those products that are not voted as a "need"; but what if want of jam is more than those people who are willing to produce jam in their spare time are able or interested in producing?

[Lamanov]

This is not contradictory. As he said >need is obvious<. Quantitative increase of this need is expressed in communal agreement. Thats what i was talking about.


but what if want of jam is more than those people who are willing to produce jam in their spare time are able or interested in producing?

I don&#39;t understand your question. want which LAD allready discussed]

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;[email protected] 11 2005, 02:08 PM
This is not contradictory. As he said >need is obvious<. Quantitative increase of this need is expressed in communal agreement. Thats what i was talking about.


but what if want of jam is more than those people who are willing to produce jam in their spare time are able or interested in producing?

I don&#39;t understand your question. want which LAD allready discussed]
You&#39;ve both indicated that "need" is determined by societal vote. What happens when the society determines a product is not a "need" but demand for it as a "want" more than supply?

[Lamanov]

As I can see LAD explained the difference between the wants and needs. By executing need-production people can use time to deal with want-production. Anyway, I would like to add that I don&#39;t like to participate in discussions about how-communism-works, because I think that it much depends on the prior socialist economy and the transitional system. Thats why my explanations are about &#39;socialism&#39; [as I would call it, proletarian democracy].
Anyway, lets get back to the subject. Things that are caracterised as a "want" are those wich lack would not damage the whole production of things we caracterise as a "need". Just in case, I would like to add that socialist economy is built on a high level of development and industry which can potentially satisfy the needs of everybody, and the needs are proportional to the potential standard reached by that economy and development. Things in "need" are those which production is needed to ensure the prior standard and its [mathematically planned*] potential. Things in "want" are those "above". So no1 can decide that we don&#39;t "need" [in LAD&#39;s example] &#39;keyboards&#39; because obviously their lack of would jeropadise the economy and everyones standard.


allthough this is another subject, I would like to add that todays economy
is exploited in interests of the capitalists. There are 22 million unemployed [officialy] in developed OECD countries alone. Imagine what could such potential workforce contribute to the industrialisation, standardisation, etc. of the entire globe syndically and comunally organised. I think it was you who once said that if we would all magically share what we have today we would all be at standard they have in Pakistan [as a world standard average, I suppose]. Yes, but only within this system and its reserve industrial army [or if you will - potential workforce]. The only thing which is keeping them only as a &#39;potential&#39; is individual apprioriation dependant on the private ownership of the productional forces.

[Black Dagger]

People need subjective, intangible things to be happy. Some need to live in the country, some need to cheat death through extreme sports. Some need to play music, some need to attend plays.

How does communism plan to meet these needs?

Who said that communist society abolished music, sports, plays and entire geographic areas? People can and will continue to pursue such interests in their free-time, like they do now, and they should in fact have more free time in which to do so. Communism doesnt need a &#39;plan&#39; to meet these needs, if people want to play music, they can, if they want to play sports, they can, if they want to watch or participate in a play, arts-collectives can be organised and so forth.

[t_wolves_fan]

As I can see LAD explained the difference between the wants and needs.

The problem is, I don&#39;t think he really did. I think he explained a rather simplistic definition of "needs" that is of course obvious to us all - shelter, food, medicine, etc. The problem is, people "need" more than that. It is my contention that people are not happy existing with only the basics of life. Thus, while a fancy SUV may be a "want", travelling to the wilderness on occasion to explore nature for many people is more of a "need". Thus, recreation, music, theater, and yes even some products that LSD or you would probably consider "wants" are required to meet our other, how do I put this, not "survival-related" but "happiness-related" needs.


By executing need-production people can use time to deal with want-production.

But want production would probably, as I see it, be more voluntary than would need production, therefore we can reasonably assume that fewer people would undertake want production during their time off work.


Anyway, I would like to add that I don&#39;t like to participate in discussions about how-communism-works, because I think that it much depends on the prior socialist economy and the transitional system. Thats why my explanations are about &#39;socialism&#39; [as I would call it, proletarian democracy].

Fair enough.


Anyway, lets get back to the subject. Things that are caracterised as a "want" are those wich lack would not damage the whole production of things we caracterise as a "need". Just in case, I would like to add that socialist economy is built on a high level of development and industry which can potentially satisfy the needs of everybody, and the needs are proportional to the potential standard reached by that economy and development.

This would seem to require a high level of coordination and, most likely, centralization, especially if we want our production and development to be sustainable. The level of coordination, and therefore centralization, seems to make impossible any idealistic system where people take as much as they need and local communes make decisions.

In other words, assuming socialism is the natural precursor to communism, there is going to be a very centralized economic planning body in the beginning. It is my contention that A>this centralized planning body won&#39;t give up power (which is another discussion), and B>if it did give up power, local communes would begin to make decisions on consumption and production that move well beyond sustainability. Free from the yoke of the centralized planning agency (which, in my view, will by defition be inefficient and unpopular), locals will gradually vote themselves more and more benefits.


allthough this is another subject, I would like to add that todays economy
is exploited in interests of the capitalists. There are 22 million unemployed [officialy] in developed OECD countries alone. Imagine what could such potential workforce contribute to the industrialisation, standardisation, etc. of the entire globe syndically and comunally organised. I think it was you who once said that if we would all magically share what we have today we would all be at standard they have in Pakistan [as a world standard average, I suppose]. Yes, but only within this system and its reserve industrial army [or if you will - potential workforce]. The only thing which is keeping them only as a &#39;potential&#39; is individual apprioriation dependant on the private ownership of the productional forces.

That&#39;s not what I said regarding Paksitan. What I actually said is that, according to a lot of environmentalists, a country like Pakistan is living "sustainably", meaning its standard of living is at a level that the world can sustain in perpetuity. I believe the chart said the United States is living at a level 10 times the sustainable level, while most European countries are between 3 and 7 times the sustainable level. Basically, those countries are consuming waaaayyy too much.

My point in bringing that up is that when this alleged revolution happens, assuming it is run by you folks, the poor are not going to want to live at the level of Pakistanis, they&#39;re going to want to live at the level of Americans or at least Europeans. Americans and Europeans on the other hand are going to have a very hard time accepting the lifestyle of the Pakistanis. As a result, a level of repression is going to be required that would make Stalin proud if we really wanted to divide everything up "equally" in a way that is also sustainable. But when we get to communism, where consumption is free, labor is voluntary and control is local, it is my contention that local demand will rise rapidly, pushing us again beyond sustainability.

Now, you can use the same table to bash capitalism, and fairly so. Actually, you can use it to bash how capitalism is currently practiced. The problem with capitalism as we practice it is that we do not pay the true price of the things we consume, so basically we subsidize an unsustainable lifestyle. That isn&#39;t "capitalism&#39;s" fault, it&#39;s the fault of those who practice it incorrectly. Because in fact, true capitalism would charge people for the true cost of what they consume.

The answer, in my opinion, is to gradually implement a tax system that charges people and businesses for the true cost of their decisions. Therefore a gas-powered car would be legal, so long as the owner paid taxes that cover the air pollution and environmental degradation. An electric-powered car would also be legal, and obviously the taxes on it would be much, much lower. Similarly, you could purchase electricity from a coal-powered plant if you want, but that plant&#39;s electricity is going to be expensive as it passes on the cost of the taxes it must pay to cover the cost of the coal it burns.

This way, the market moves us towards sustainability. More-sustainable practices and decisions are cheaper, less-sustainable decisions and practices are more expensive, so it all offsets everything.

Now, in terms of the poor and the rich, likewise there would be no limits on income, however there would be sensible benefits for the poor, paid for with the taxes on consumption. Because if consumption costs money, demand will decrease, which will lower prices. Basically you can use the laws of economics and invert them by charging based on consumption, and still maintain individual liberty.

At least that is my theory. I&#39;m still working on it. Anything that avoids the socialism step and it&#39;s 95% chance of tyranny is worth working on.

:)

[LSD]

But, and you do not answer this question in the long and comprehensive answer that you provide, to whom are these needs obvious? Who makes the decision that a pound of wheat is "obviously" a need but an ounce of jam is not?

Actually I did.

Such decisions will be made democratically by the entire commune, based on ratinoal and logical analyses of human needs


People need subjective, intangible things to be happy. Some need to live in the country, some need to cheat death through extreme sports. Some need to play music, some need to attend plays.

How does communism plan to meet these needs?

Easily.

I would argue how much of these are, again, wants, and how many are truly needs, but I will accept that human needs are more complex than merely survival. I would propose, however, that capitalism is pretty lousy at satisfying these needs for most people.

You speak of "country living" and "extreme sports" and "the arts". Well, how many workers industrial workers can do any of those things?

Communism would permit anyone to live in the country if they so wish. They can be a farmer.... they can tend animals.

Because communism both drastically increases free time and equalizes resource access, instead of only the wealthy, now anyone could engage in "extreme sports".

In terms of the arts and music, their production will skyrocket once more people have the time to work on them. Furthermore once the arts are no longer dictated by the "market", artists will be able to innovate and experiment without fear of not eating that night.

Wheareas under capitalism many artists must comform to current paradigms or resign themselves to making nothing but variations on whateve the current "vogue" is, in a communist world, artists would be free to follow their art.

If someone doesn&#39;t like the play / painting / song in question they are perfectly free not to look / listen to it, but that decision will not affect whether the artists can eat / have a home&#33;


While everyone may want basically the same products, does everyone want the same model products? Will the communes be able to produce a variety of models?

Of course. In fact far more models that capitalism can, because many people will be working on many things without fear of "intellectual property" or "market share".

Under capitalism, unless I were quite rich, I would be quite hesitant to start building my own cars. For one thing I wouldn&#39;t have the money to even begin, but more importantly I would know that I would have a hard time "selling" them because the major car companies have the money and clout and history to absolutely demolish me if they so choose. They can afford advertising and publicity, I cannot. They have teams of lawyers and PR, I do not.

In communism, there is no such thing as money or "market share". If I come up with a better guitar than Fred, Fred can&#39;t sue me, but, more importantly, he wouldn&#39;t want to. Yes, there&#39;s a certain pride in making a good product, but my introduction of a different model does not seriously affect his life&#33; Whereas capitalism insures that my making of a competing product could, theoretically, lead to bankruptcy and misery, communism enocourages diversity in product.

Fred will keep working on his variant, I will keep working on mine: Diversity.


Take medical care for instance. Do you think people are going to think their "needs" for quality medical care are met when they are receiving middle-of-the-road quality care, while they know better-quality, higher-tech care is available? Part of the reason that medical care in the United States is so expensive is that we have the most technologically advanced medical care in the world, and we view it as our "right" to have access to that technology. There are as many MRI machines in most medium-sized metropolitan areas as there are in all of Canada. To meet our "need" for medical care, we demand the best.

...and yet somhow Canadians still recieve better health care&#33;

Besides, one thing which communism will definitely do is reprioritize production resources.

That is needs, medical, medicinal, psychiatric, fundamental, etc... needs will always get the priority of resources.

You seem to imagine that need for medical technology is infinite, well it most certainly is not&#33; It is higher than is presently satisfied by any capitalist country, but it is still a very achievable figure, especially when work in the field is both increased, expanded, and legal barriers to innovation are removed.

One of the reasons for the lack of medical technology (and yes, there&#39;s a lack even within the US) in capitalism is that it usually simple isn&#39;t "cost effective". MRI machines, for instance, are very "expensive" to make. This means that hospitals and clinics looking to make a profit will opt for cheaper options in order to save the money. Such things will not, of course, occur under communism&#33;

Besides ....I&#39;m not sure I even understand your complaint&#33; Are you saying that it is impossible to provide high-end health care to everyone? That, somehow, limiting it to the rich is better? :o

You&#39;re damn right people will view health care as their "right", it is their right&#33; And it&#39;s a rather easily satisfied right once you prioritize production.

They&#39;ll be far more resources available once you eliminate the superfluous capitalist excesses. So much is wasted in endless duplication and "luxury" items. Once you produce, not according to the whims of the rich, but the needs of society, you&#39;ll find that those needs are rather easy to satisfy.


Seriously, how many of today&#39;s modern products are possible to be made by one person?

Well, I suppose it depends on the product in question and how technology improves ...but I take the point and you&#39;re right, many people can work together to make products that satisfy wants much like how a good deal of free software is made by teams of people.


Isn&#39;t that working on their "off" hours and, if so, are those really "off" hours? What happens if demand for the products they produce on their "off" hours rises so that they cannot produce enough during their "off" hours? Shortages, black market. Crime.

:rolleyes:

Oh come on&#33; If demand for a product were really so high that people were considering crime or, worse, capitalism :o, there would have to be a great many people who want this product&#33;

That means they can make the product themselves.

You&#39;re still thinking within the capitalist model, not realizing that anyone will be able to make anything (within reason). And that if there are genuinely hundreds of people who want fluffy towels, but no one&#39;s making fluffy enough towels ....they can go and start making fluffy towels.


Here we run into the problem about which Hayek spoke: innovation. Under your system it appears, if I come up with an idea for a new product, I will not be able to produce it until I either convince a collective to produce it (and history and human nature have shown that most organizations have a hard time changing once culture and standard operating procedures are entrenched); or until I can convince multiple collectives to give me the necessary components. This one is more difficult: Say I have an idea for an invention, but I need to experiment. How do I convince a collective that I "need" 3 or 4 times as much copper wire or silicon for chips or batteries as most people do, because I am experimenting and therefore my initial efforts will probably fail? Under the current system, I can go purchase everything I need or easily borrow the money to do so. Under your system, if a commune determines I want to consume well above my average "needs", there is a good chance I will be SOL.

I would contend that innovation will increase under communism.

By eliminating "intellectual property" you are freeing the ability of innovators to "play around" and come up with improvements with additions, etc...

As for resources. This is a two part issue.

If your talking about within "need" areas, then you, as a worker, in that field, will propose that instead of working a certain area or amount of time, you be permitted to, instead, work on an idea you have. Yes, you will have to have that idea approved. But by this time, you will have worked out the basic idea and since you&#39;re showing it to fellow workers and not a "boss" interested in "profit", they will probably agree.

But, of course, they may not, in which case we&#39;re back to "free time" which blends nicely with the second part, "wanted" production:

You seem to believe that there&#39;s some sort of "central committee" deciding resource allocation. There isn&#39;t&#33;

Rather all resources are cumulatively available to all members of society. Yes, only a certain amount of, say, copper wiring is produced, but since most people really don&#39;t want any ...geting you your required amount, shouldn&#39;t be that difficult.

But the most important element of communist innovation is the concept of collaboration. Unlike in capitalism where it&#39;s essential that everyone keep their ideas to themselves in order to make sure they they reap the profdits, under communism everyone will be sharing their ideas meaning that they will be able to explain and indeed colaborate with members of the collectives in question&#33;


Why does every piece of shareware I&#39;ve ever used have a request for donations?

I don&#39;t know. Maybe you&#39;re only downloading from www.download.com&#33; :lol:

I can tell you, try using Linux and see how many "requests" you get.

I use thousands of open source programs, none of which ask me for money.

The free software movement is a current, real example of an industry in which people are woking not for material goals but for their own enjoyment and on their own time. It is a refutation of the fundamental capitalist contention that people require material "incentive" to work.

You cannot dismiss it by pointing out that "share-ware" exists as well.

Free Software is not "share-ware", it&#39;s free software and its a demonstration that even within capitalism ...capitalism is not the only option&#33;


Won&#39;t this list require centralization then?

Not at all.

Just coordination between the workers collectives and the commune in general.


What if someone does not want to work in an occupation that, as determined by the collective, produces some component of the needs that make the list? What if an author doesn&#39;t want to work at the car factory? Is he required to do so? Is the societal pressure that forces him to work at the car factory much different than capitalist forces that require people to work in jobs they don&#39;t like?

So then they are required to work by the circumstances of the system, which is no different than the "wage slavery" inherent in capitalism.

Yes, people will have to do required work. Much less of it than present, but they will still have to do so.

The difference between this and wage-slavery is that they are not slaves to their wage&#33;

They don&#39;t depend on "wages" week to week to stay alive. Furthermore, they can change anytime they want. They can go to school or get training any time they want and they have control over the industry in question.

[OleMarxco]

The point of this system is that it guarantees -directly- something in return for effort (instead of the wage-system that never can tell if it is enough for what someone wants, just aslong as you have contribute, you get what you want - Although you get what you want in a capitalistic society (aslong as you wage-slave) you usually have to follow alot of rules and dedicade alot of time to do some repeating machinery to get it. We only propose freely chosing when to work for it by their own decision, to reap the benefits that comes the more devoted you are) and it makes it possible for everyone to get something because there is no rich and poor-- the scales has been evened, and the rich no longer has the most will the poor has the least: Therefore it adds up and is possible to maintain, and the poor proles are the benefittors of this - plus it gives one the satisfiable feeling of direct connection between doing stuff you get stuff and promotes society spirit :redstar2000:

As the cappies FORGET that in the voluntary working....the free consumption....and the local control.....is when the "demands" increase because now they can take everything they want TODAY, then tomorrow the "demanders" will have to produce new resources anew. When they get used o the system they will understand the futility of over-consuming. Plus, we won&#39;t have to worry about feeding our bosses anymore, who are an obsolote position in Communism - who the hell needs managers anyways, what kind of work do they but "look over" us workers, as if we were toys :)

As for the "Maslow&#39;s Hierarchy of Needs", the same goes for a Communistic Society, too, will get around to satisfy these needs. Only problem is that you can use Maslow&#39;s arguments to be Capitalism&#39;s arguments&#33; Do the heartless machine of profits care for Love, Safety and Self-Realization needs? Hell no&#33; The -real- communistic society will definately put humans first and there will be services dedicated to fullfilling these needs too. Not like the service-workers giving them these things directly, but pin-pointing them on the way to get it. F.eg a date-service, or a safety (as much as that is needed&#33;) with residence protections within reasonability, or a psychologic dedicated to helping people realizing themselves. A task-force of spirit-aid, if you will.

[Lamanov]

Central body with high level of authority? No... sorry, that&#39;s not socialism. There is no need for idealism really. Because of the globalised production central planning is a necesity. But does this mean "95% chance of tyranny"?? No it doesn&#39;t.
You have to get out of your head that >organisation = state<. First of all, all of central bodies are elected democraticaly by the workers through their syndicates, in which every worker participates in elections and controll. Those representatives are to be recalled at all times. These economy-planing organisations do not have any authority over anything or anybody in a up-down way because workers are the ones who carry guns, collectively run and "own" [use, work at] their means of production. [Try being a bueraucrat in those conditions ;) ]. These organisations >plan< and >organise< distribution the way it&#39;s in the interest of the class by which they are chosen. I&#39;ll be very self-critical and pose that it&#39;s all about the material interest - but still, we get to a conclusion that >working by the plan< IS in the best intrest [as LAD explained > if you neglect the community - community neglects you].


>>...assuming it is run by you folks, the poor are not going to want to live at the level of Pakistanis, they&#39;re going to want to live at the level of Americans or at least Europeans. Americans and Europeans on the other hand are going to have a very hard time accepting the lifestyle of the Pakistanis.<<

Well, assuming there&#39;s a revolution now [oh, my] it&#39;s not going to be ran by us, but [as I explained] by the proletariat. I have to say - that&#39;s a really weak system of abstractions.
You forgot few [very important] elements: [or better yet - you forgot to look at the whole picture... dialectics, you know]
1>
not all "poor" and not all "Europeans" live equally good. Some [minority] "poor" are like some [minority] "Europeans" and some [alot] "Europeans" are like some [most] "poor". But there are only much "Europeans" which are in between, and I&#39;m talking about the middle class.
I&#39;ve adressed this problem when I debated one stalinist:
[my quote]
>>Ah yes, the so-called "middle class".
First off, existance of this class is conditioned by the economical politics and a global economic position of that country. I capitalist countries, it exists within the small handfull of rich ones which are on top of the financial imperialist &#39;food-chain&#39;. Due to global capitalism and imperialism wealth of these coutries exists upon the cheap labour of poor countries [Computer: made in USA, everything inside: made in Taiwan], and their stability depends upon the social-peace which exists only on their wealth. In so-called socialist ones this &#39;&#39;civilian society&#39;&#39; depends upon the centrall planned economy, well, actually it&#39;s efficiency. We all witnesed how this &#39;civilian society&#39; revealed itself as a fragile construction which dissapears in a day when economical balance is destroyed. [fall of the USSR, war in SFRY etc.]. When proletariat of the poor countries starts to revolt against the imperialst capitalism what do you think happens to the middle class, their fine wage and their nice jobs?&#33; Until then - unseen - class consciousness will *****slap them so hard untill they realise they have only one thing left to do.<<
2>
Everyone depends upon everyone. Globaly.
So...
3>
...

>>Basically, those countries are consuming waaaayyy too much.<<
I was hoping you would understand what i was talking about in the prior post... hm..
There is an obvious fact that negates this negation: there&#39;s waaaayyy to much unemployment.
Here&#39;s a simple formula: industrialisation + potential workforse = "waaayy to much" consumption becomes a global reality for every country.
4>
If proletariat [syndicates] of rich industrialised 1st world refuses to help in industrialisation and investment of the "poor" [3rd world] working class and its HUGE potential-working-class then they can simply respond by a boycott. [remember: if you neglect the community - community neglects you]
And ofcourse, this leaves no room for &#39;blackmale&#39;.

[Zangetsu]

I just skimmed through a lot of the stuff here... I think it is important to keep in mind... in communism the frivolous consumer items which infest modern living (under the guise of fasion ect. ect.) is what will be stripped from society... This wasted labour could then be diverted to &#39;need&#39; production, and with everyone enguaged in this endevour, meeting societies needs would not take much of everyones time... This then in turn will create more time for hobbies and personal interests ect. ect. There will still be nature lovers, there will still be people who share the same interests, and in furthering those interests they just might have to group together and organise a little bit more. Not that they arent already organisations of bird watchers, people who like to build and race cars+ boats... people that support National parks, river rafting... people who are recognised and sponsered so that they may perform research at Universities, perhaps universities will become greater institutions that grow to incorperate activities that are typicaly performed in the what could be considered the &#39;research industry&#39;

Granted food is a need/want grey area as you need food to live yet which type of food could be very disputed if people were required to all eat the same thing... when i refer to need, i mean water works, electricity, medication ect. ect. Apart from unjustifiably expensive food which cannot be obtained by an individual in his own spare time (or in a group of like minded people in their collective spare time), what makes you think food markets would remove food variety in communism, variety of food is healthy and would definaltley recieve a thumbs up from any community the question of food was put too... IF you wanna make a new type of jam that no1 else is interested in, and you cannot produce it on ur own... then you are on YOUR OWN... make something more than just what you can enjoy, then perhaps you could get production going... even in capitalism, unless ur a millionare, you cannot will products from ur imagination into reality without them having popular appeal.

Communism frees up labour so that it can be more efficently managed to produce a more pleasant living arragnement for the majority of the people. People will enjoy and experience life more, rather than just be considered components in an economy, whose lives are controled by advertising ect. ect. ooo, i could just rant on 4eva :P

[t_wolves_fan]

Such decisions will be made democratically by the entire commune, based on ratinoal and logical analyses of human needs

Your faith in the democractic process&#39; ability to follow rational and logical analysis is, frankly, unrealistic. People are not merely going to vote based on rational analysis. They&#39;re going to vote on their opinion (which is sometimes irrational) and their tastes (which is often irrational).

You might produce an analysis showing that bread is "necessary" but jam isn&#39;t. It won&#39;t matter, the people will likely think, "hey, bread by itself sucks - I want something to put on it to make it taste better, so I need jam."

Think of them voting that way on all the other products.

Which brings me to another question - are you going to produce a list of every single consumer product and put it to a vote as to whether it&#39;s a "need" or a "want"? That should only take 6 or 7 years to complete.

If not every product is going to be on the list, why not and is that fair? Isn&#39;t it up to the people to decide?


I would argue how much of these are, again, wants, and how many are truly needs, but I will accept that human needs are more complex than merely survival. I would propose, however, that capitalism is pretty lousy at satisfying these needs for most people.

I disagree. Most if not every product can be purchased cheaply.


You speak of "country living" and "extreme sports" and "the arts". Well, how many workers industrial workers can do any of those things?

Probably more than you think. Those who cannot in the developing countries are of course at a disadvantage, but their grandchildren probably will be able to, just as is the case in the developed countries.


Communism would permit anyone to live in the country if they so wish. They can be a farmer.... they can tend animals.

How would the country be divided up without a government and no means to "purchase" the land?


Because communism both drastically increases free time and equalizes resource access, instead of only the wealthy, now anyone could engage in "extreme sports".

I have serious doubts as to the amount of free time available, but I can see your point.


In terms of the arts and music, their production will skyrocket once more people have the time to work on them. Furthermore once the arts are no longer dictated by the "market", artists will be able to innovate and experiment without fear of not eating that night.

I can see that happening...


Wheareas under capitalism many artists must comform to current paradigms or resign themselves to making nothing but variations on whateve the current "vogue" is, in a communist world, artists would be free to follow their art.

Hmmm....question is, if "their art" isn&#39;t enjoyed by hardly anyone, and societal rewards are based on value to society, then would bad artists be allowed to eat?



Of course. In fact far more models that capitalism can, because many people will be working on many things without fear of "intellectual property" or "market share".

I think perhaps you underestimate the labor required to produce just one model or style of a product.


Under capitalism, unless I were quite rich, I would be quite hesitant to start building my own cars. For one thing I wouldn&#39;t have the money to even begin, but more importantly I would know that I would have a hard time "selling" them because the major car companies have the money and clout and history to absolutely demolish me if they so choose. They can afford advertising and publicity, I cannot. They have teams of lawyers and PR, I do not.

Do you really think small teams of people could produce enough cars to meet demand?


In communism, there is no such thing as money or "market share". If I come up with a better guitar than Fred, Fred can&#39;t sue me, but, more importantly, he wouldn&#39;t want to. Yes, there&#39;s a certain pride in making a good product, but my introduction of a different model does not seriously affect his life&#33; Whereas capitalism insures that my making of a competing product could, theoretically, lead to bankruptcy and misery, communism enocourages diversity in product.

If people turn from his model guitar to yours, does he continue making his model even though people don&#39;t want it anymore?


...and yet somhow Canadians still recieve better health care&#33;

Actually they don&#39;t. The idea that Canadians receive "better" care is a misnomer. Yes, on average Canadians receive better care because everyone receives care. However, those Americans who do receive care get better quality care because we have more and better technology and we don&#39;t have to wait for months to receive it. It&#39;s like this: In America, there are lots of zeros and lots of tens, so the average is 5. In Canada, everyone gets a 7. I&#39;d rather have a 10 than a 7 but in Canada I don&#39;t have much of a choice.

Frankly, I&#39;d rather have the guaranteed 7 of the Canadian system than the probably 10 but maybe 0 system in the U.S.

Now, imagine that 10s are free. 10-level care will become the norm and the expectation instead of the 7. The labor required to produce the technology for 10s will be imense.


Besides, one thing which communism will definitely do is reprioritize production resources.

That is needs, medical, medicinal, psychiatric, fundamental, etc... needs will always get the priority of resources.

I would generally like to believe you and could see it happening, but what if the collective does not vote to prioritize medical care? What if the labor required to produce the equipment necessary cannot be found?


You seem to imagine that need for medical technology is infinite, well it most certainly is not&#33; It is higher than is presently satisfied by any capitalist country, but it is still a very achievable figure, especially when work in the field is both increased, expanded, and legal barriers to innovation are removed.

If need for medical technology were finite there would be no innovation required.


One of the reasons for the lack of medical technology (and yes, there&#39;s a lack even within the US) in capitalism is that it usually simple isn&#39;t "cost effective". MRI machines, for instance, are very "expensive" to make. This means that hospitals and clinics looking to make a profit will opt for cheaper options in order to save the money. Such things will not, of course, occur under communism&#33;

Your claim totally contradicts the facts. The United States has a market-based medical care system, Canada has the socialized system. The United States is the one with more, higher-tech medical equipment per capita.

Further, while you&#39;re probably going to change gears and accept this fact but then claim that "managed care" denies patients access to these machines, you might have been correct in the past but in fact people have moved away from strictly-managed care to more comprehensive care that is more expensive but allows easier access to specialists.

The reason Canada has fewer MRI machines is because the amount of money they may spend on medical care is fixed by the annual budget and so care is rationed. It&#39;s a monopoly, which is almost always less efficient than the market. Private insurers in the United States on the other hand can compete and so they can offer lower prices. That being said, our system is still failing. Not at all because it&#39;s a market-based system - a market-based system could work if it were set up properly. Ours isn&#39;t, because attach insurance to employment and because we get third parties involved in every single medical procedure, which is just plain stupid.


Besides ....I&#39;m not sure I even understand your complaint&#33; Are you saying that it is impossible to provide high-end health care to everyone? That, somehow, limiting it to the rich is better? :o

Yes, I&#39;m basically saying it&#39;s nearly impossible to provide the highest-end care to everyone all the time. No, the highest-end care should not be limited to the rich. If we set the system up properly, then competition will reduce the number of unnecessary procedures that happen today because profit margins will shrink and people will pay only for what they need instead of what they want. Catastrophic insurance, like car insurance, could cover everyone (making the risk pool larger) but make a profit by covering fewer problems (only the big ones).


They&#39;ll be far more resources available once you eliminate the superfluous capitalist excesses. So much is wasted in endless duplication and "luxury" items. Once you produce, not according to the whims of the rich, but the needs of society, you&#39;ll find that those needs are rather easy to satisfy.

And it&#39;s my contention that you&#39;ll soon find that more and more "whims" are considered "needs" when left to a democratic vote.


Well, I suppose it depends on the product in question and how technology improves ...but I take the point and you&#39;re right, many people can work together to make products that satisfy wants much like how a good deal of free software is made by teams of people.

Yes, fair enough, but software is relatively easy to create. I&#39;m talking about things like cars and dumptrucks and buildings and freeways.



Oh come on&#33; If demand for a product were really so high that people were considering crime or, worse, capitalism :o, there would have to be a great many people who want this product&#33;

That means they can make the product themselves.

But my question is, what if it is not voted as a "need", or what if you&#39;ve left it off the list and not given people a chance to vote on whether it is a "need" or not? You&#39;ve already said people will be put to work satistfying needs first. This means by definition fewer people will be available to produce wants. Fewer people able to produce wants = fewer "want" goods produced. If more of that good are demanded than produced, then scarcity results.


You&#39;re still thinking within the capitalist model, not realizing that anyone will be able to make anything (within reason). And that if there are genuinely hundreds of people who want fluffy towels, but no one&#39;s making fluffy enough towels ....they can go and start making fluffy towels.

Not everyone can make fluffy towels. Do you have the first clue how to make a fluffy towel? I sure as hell don&#39;t. You seem to assume that people have unlimited skills and can easily pick up any trade they want on a dime. That simply isn&#39;t so.

Plus, since nearly everyone is going to be working on "needs" instead, they are presumably going to become experts in building the "need" products. Expertise does after all lead to more efficiency and better quality. I&#39;m an expert at analyzing policy and legislation but I sure as hell can&#39;t make fluffy towels or build cars, so even if I decide to make "fluffy towels" in my spare time, it&#39;s going to take me quite a while to learn how to make those towels, meaning I will be inefficient at making them for a long time.


I would contend that innovation will increase under communism.

By eliminating "intellectual property" you are freeing the ability of innovators to "play around" and come up with improvements with additions, etc...

Innovation won&#39;t die but it&#39;ll suffer, and here is why I think that will be the case: When labor is put towards creating "needs" that are voted on by society, it will likely (as in 99.5%) develop standard operating procedures and methods of production. Since everyone who can work on need A will be put to work creating need A, that means everyone who knows anything about need A will adopt the new standards. Since people and especially organizations are creatures of habbit, and since the focus will be on giving people what we presume they need instead of what they want, then innovation will be frowned upon because people and organizations, unless forced to, don&#39;t like to make changes to their daily practices. Worse, when something changes, new procedures need to be taught and learned, leading to inefficiency in the short term. This being the case, an organization will tend to refuse to innovate because it doesn&#39;t have to and because it&#39;s already comfortable doing what it&#39;s doing.

Take towels. Towels are a need I guess, unless we plan on rolling around in the grass after a shower. Anyway, the towel collective sets up its factory, and of course it&#39;s the only towel factory in town because there is no competition and because it can create an economy of scale. The towels are decent quality. Everyone gets used to the production method after a few years. Everything is rolling along nicely.

One day Ed figures out on his own that if we change this or that procedure by using a new machine, we can make better towels. He takes it to the collective. Producing this new, better towel he says, would require a new production method and new equipment. The workers think about it. They&#39;ve got a routine, they&#39;re happy, noboody has really complained about the quality of the towels, and nobody can get towels anywhere else, so it&#39;s not really an imperative that they make the new towels. Joe and Frank, who are experts at using the machine that would be phased out, think they&#39;re under attack. Dammit&#33; they say, we work hard and do good work, why are you trying to make us obsolete? We don&#39;t need to change. It would be hard. Production would be down for 2 months while we switch to the new production method, and summer is almost here which is prime beach towel season. Let&#39;s form a blue ribbon commission to study it and think about it and maybe do it later.

Now imagine that scenario with every product.


If your talking about within "need" areas, then you, as a worker, in that field, will propose that instead of working a certain area or amount of time, you be permitted to, instead, work on an idea you have. Yes, you will have to have that idea approved. But by this time, you will have worked out the basic idea and since you&#39;re showing it to fellow workers and not a "boss" interested in "profit", they will probably agree.

See my example above. And what if allowing you to go work on your new idea required that they pick up your slack (no other available workers) and work an extra half hour every night? How likely are they to do that?



You seem to believe that there&#39;s some sort of "central committee" deciding resource allocation. There isn&#39;t&#33;

As I understand it, according to most commies, socialism with its centrally-planned economy would precede communism. My contention is that this central planning committee will not want to give up power.


Rather all resources are cumulatively available to all members of society. Yes, only a certain amount of, say, copper wiring is produced, but since most people really don&#39;t want any ...geting you your required amount, shouldn&#39;t be that difficult.

That&#39;s an awful big gamble. You&#39;re basically making the assumption that demand for every resource will decline to the point that there&#39;s always enough of it to go around. That&#39;s completely unrealistic in my view, especially since you&#39;re planning to give everyone as much product, made of those resources, as they democratically decide that they "need".

What happens if demand (want or need) doesn&#39;t decline enough? You really can&#39;t guarantee that it will, so I&#39;d really like to know what would happen under that scenario.


But the most important element of communist innovation is the concept of collaboration. Unlike in capitalism where it&#39;s essential that everyone keep their ideas to themselves in order to make sure they they reap the profdits, under communism everyone will be sharing their ideas meaning that they will be able to explain and indeed colaborate with members of the collectives in question&#33;

It&#39;s another massive and unrealistic assumption that everyone is going to come to agreement on every product and resource in question. Even more so than the first one.

I mean, I really can&#39;t argue with the assertion that "everyone will agree", except to point out how unrealistic it is, and ask what happens if they don&#39;t?



The free software movement is a current, real example of an industry in which people are woking not for material goals but for their own enjoyment and on their own time. It is a refutation of the fundamental capitalist contention that people require material "incentive" to work.

I strongly doubt that because I&#39;m willing to bet 95% of these programmers have other jobs that provide their means. So, programming free software is a hobby that they enjoy. I find it highly unrealistic to take a hobby that people enjoy and translate that to a local, regional, or global economy.




Won&#39;t this list require centralization then?

Not at all.

Just coordination between the workers collectives and the commune in general.

Again, it&#39;s easy to claim everyone will coordinate and agree. Human history shows that coordination and agreement often breaks down.

What happens then?


Yes, people will have to do required work. Much less of it than present, but they will still have to do so.

With no government, who forces them to work?


The difference between this and wage-slavery is that they are not slaves to their wage&#33;

They don&#39;t depend on "wages" week to week to stay alive. Furthermore, they can change anytime they want. They can go to school or get training any time they want and they have control over the industry in question.

I still see little difference. People are required to work to stay alive: wage slavery.

In capitalism, people are free to go to school to change careers while working, as you say they&#39;d be in communism. Same thing.


If you answer only one question in this long, drawn out discussion, please answer me this one: your theory rests on a very, very high level of agreement, coordination and cooperation that has yet to happen in human history. It seems to me that if that coordination or agreement were lacking, the system would have very serious problems. How would disagreements or failure to coordinate be addressed?

[t_wolves_fan]

I just skimmed through a lot of the stuff here... I think it is important to keep in mind... in communism the frivolous consumer items which infest modern living (under the guise of fasion ect. ect.) is what will be stripped from society...

You&#39;re presuming society, or at least a majority, will agree with you as to which products and services are frivilous and therefore ought to be stripped from society.

That&#39;s a bold presumption.

What if a majority of society doesn&#39;t agree with your opinion? You&#39;re not naive enough to assume we can apply "rational" analysis to every product and based on that analysis, society will easily agree to keep it or chuck it, are you?

:o

[Zangetsu]

ban commercial advertising, and we will where the pins fall...

Although it cannot be proven so easily without stats and numbers... which i dont have at my disposal to give you now... surely we can agree that advertising creates, maintains and engineers demand. Corperations force feed their products to poeple - making them feel incomplete through phycological warfare, a culture of comsumerism is instilled in the public... people have emotional holes in their live&#39;s that only consumerism can fill; your only alive when your shopping, consuming, ontop of the latest fasionable FRIVOLOUS excessories...


Right now frivolous consumption is required by the economy to keep every1 (or almost every1) in their job... so that the economy doesnt totaly collapse... one day when coniditions reach a breaking point... people will realise- why work so hard to maintain the economic regime called capitalism, when a much more comfortable living arangement could be afforded by a differant economic system.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 02:19 PM
ban commercial advertising, and we will where the pins fall...

Although it cannot be proven so easily without stats and numbers... which i dont have at my disposal to give you now... surely we can agree that advertising creates, maintains and engineers demand. Corperations force feed their products to poeple - making them feel incomplete through phycological warfare, a culture of comsumerism is instilled in the public... people have emotional holes in their live&#39;s that only consumerism can fill; your only alive when your shopping, consuming, ontop of the latest fasionable FRIVOLOUS excessories...


Right now frivolous consumption is required by the economy to keep every1 (or almost every1) in their job... so that the economy doesnt totaly collapse... one day when coniditions reach a breaking point... people will realise- why work so hard to maintain the economic regime called capitalism, when a much more comfortable living arangement could be afforded by a differant economic system.
Sure, advertizing creates demand.

Without a government, how do you plan to ban advertizing?

[Morpheus]

Advertising will be difficult when there is no money or private property. Those require a state to exist.

[OleMarxco]

Oh....so I can&#39;t just make a sign of a paper and wave with: "You should get some cofee&#33;" (f.eg.) on it. That&#39;s still advertising for a product, and is possible even if you don&#39;t gain much from doing it...Advertising would be DIFFICULT without media, but MEANINGLESS withouth property and money, that&#39;s more like it - Unless you EXCHANGE something for it - i.e. barter - in return of them taking it, but then again, I see no reason why anyone should when they can just...well, get it for free ;)

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 10:00 PM
Oh....so I can&#39;t just make a sign of a paper and wave with: "You should get some cofee&#33;" (f.eg.) on it. That&#39;s still advertising for a product, and is possible even if you don&#39;t gain much from doing it...Advertising would be DIFFICULT without media, but MEANINGLESS withouth property and money, that&#39;s more like it - Unless you EXCHANGE something for it - i.e. barter - in return of them taking it, but then again, I see no reason why anyone should when they can just...well, get it for free ;)
Frankly I can&#39;t imagine that a total ban on advertizing is possible.

In my "Free time" from the "needs factory" I may have a hobby that involves creating something I like, say a new glass bong or some bongo drums. Maybe after I&#39;ve created it, I&#39;d want to share it with people, so I&#39;d "advertize" what I&#39;ve created in order to share it.

[Zangetsu]

"commercial advertising"

I was just illustrating my point in saying "ban" it... as in practice it would just not exist in a socialistic society, "commercial advertising" that is...