Transition From Rationing To Gift Economy Theory

[JazzRemington]

From my blog:

Given the idea that the value of a commodity is the socially necessary amount of labor necessary to produce it, I have developed a theory to explain how things will naturally become cheap and eventually free, leading to the full blown gift economy of communism. It's a little crude, but I think it will suffice for the time being.

Marx wrote that the value of a commodity, as stated above, is the socially necessary amount of labor to produce it. Meaning, if it takes a skilled individual 5 hours to produce a table on average, tables will be worth 5 hours. But this is if he does it by hand. Let us assume that he obtains a machine that helps him cut, trim, and shape wood (not necessarily the same machine, but bare with me). It cuts down the labor time to about 1 hour per table on average. By way of automation and new technology, labor time necessary to produce a good has gone down.

This is the key to the transition to a gift economy. Goods will be produced so easily and with little human labor that they will eventually become dirt cheap, leading to the eventual evolution out of a rationing system.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...3&action2=perma (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=blog&id=9734&entry=613&action2=perma)

Now, does this make sense to you? Would this be a possible evolutionary path toward a gift economy?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Since communism relies on the economic surplus created by capitalism (and in Marxist theory, socialism) an anarchist approach probably wouldn't require a transition. Furthermore, rationing of certain things will always occur becomes some resources are in limited supply. Rations would be a part of a gift economy, with them being unnecessary in certain areas depending on production.

[loveme4whoiam]

Makes sense. You're saying that as automation and technology will refine down the labour time the individual worker has to put in to all the products he makes that eventually he won't be required to put in any time (or at least, next to no time) so there will be no need for products to be rationed as they'll be able to be churned out so easily that there'll be no limit to them? Or have I misunderstood?

I guess this makes sense - the advances of automation (that other members on here are much hotter on than I, so correct me if I'm wrong) are moving forward so much that this is feasible and realistic. Nice explanation Jazz :)

[Delta]

Yes, I think it is certainly likely that all essential items will be produced with such ease that freely giving them out would be possible. However, for items that are on the cutting edge of technology, these usually require more labor or more resources, and so it seems like rationing would still be needed for these. As technology advances, these will make their way into the gift economy and new, yet uncreated products will be rationed.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 30 2006, 04:54 PM
Since communism relies on the economic surplus created by capitalism (and in Marxist theory, socialism) an anarchist approach probably wouldn't require a transition. Furthermore, rationing of certain things will always occur becomes some resources are in limited supply. Rations would be a part of a gift economy, with them being unnecessary in certain areas depending on production.
Well also you have to take into account that there might not be the same productivty during the armed aspect of the revolution as there was before it.

Some factories will be destroyed by the enemy.

[Janus]

Now, does this make sense to you?
Yes.


Would this be a possible evolutionary path toward a gift economy?
Technological progress is a must if we want goods to be abundant. Of course, this may take some time to fully progress to this stage but it is a must if we want the society to hold.

[Donnie]

Since communism relies on the economic surplus created by capitalism (and in Marxist theory, socialism) an anarchist approach probably wouldn't require a transition. Furthermore, rationing of certain things will always occur becomes some resources are in limited supply. Rations would be a part of a gift economy, with them being unnecessary in certain areas depending on production.

Actually even the Anarchist approach would need a transition from capitalism to communism especially during the social revolution, as the revolution would need to ration all it's resources in order to progress the social revolution, the only difference is that the state would not be used as transition to communism, only direct workers control of industries and factories can progress to communism and not a party elite. This transition would be known as collectivism. However, the rationing of resources in all industries and factories should be directed by workers councils. Worker councils would co-operate with other worker councils based on free agreement as would be used in communism. The autonomous commune would federate with other commune's to manage things administratively during the social revolution as they would do during communism.
Once a surplus is created by all industries and factories within the commune people would be able to take as much as they needed according to their ability.
However all forms of monetarism during the social revolution should be restricted or even abolished during the collectivist period of the social revolution.

[vyborg]

generally speaking, only improving human labour productivity socialism will be able to eliminate the heritage of centuries of poverty and moral misery that cripples humankind in this epoch.

but in order to acheve this situation u have to plan first. u cant go from the market anarchy toward complete freedom without an intermediate period of socialist and democratic planning, this is the basic difference between marxism and anarchism. of course this periodo will be different from stalinist planning as a nazi lager is from a garden full of roses.

as for the elimination of the labour content from the products. marx dealt with the problem in a very famous page of the Grundrisse. I have it in italian but it is so famous that i guess many of u can find it in english (it is the so called passage about the general intellect).

[Janus]

u cant go from the market anarchy toward complete freedom without an intermediate period of socialist and democratic planning, this is the basic difference between marxism and anarchism.
Anarchists support a transition economy to a free access system which will be democratically controlled. However, they do not support its control being in the hands of the state.

[Clarksist]

Technocrat! :P

Seriously, this is a very solid (and common) idea. It probably has a lot of truth behind it. However, capitalism right now is really going to hurt if it puts too much work under automation. You cut loss from the workfore but also lose precious money coming in.

The service industry was originally inflated to fix this problem. But the service industry can't make up the loss to the production. Since all those jobs are leaving for developing countries, the major first world countries really have a problem on their hands. It isn't extremely immediate, but it is definately a reason to worry for the bourgeois.

What's worrying (for us radicals) is that the automation is being met with anger because of the loss of jobs. Therefore, one side effect is the use of workers to overlook and aid the machines. That way the product can cost slightly less, but in high enough mass to local and global markets that the workers can be paid just enough to keep the wheels turning.

We'll see if they can.

[vyborg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 07:03 PM

u cant go from the market anarchy toward complete freedom without an intermediate period of socialist and democratic planning, this is the basic difference between marxism and anarchism.
Anarchists support a transition economy to a free access system which will be democratically controlled. However, they do not support its control being in the hands of the state.
very good. so we are in complet agreement about it.
The problem is: how u coordinate the world economy (this means millions of factories and billions of workers) without central planning? U cant. In order to have efficient planning u have to introduce and defend workers' democracy (the working class has to control production). The worker's state, as the marxists see it, is the workers' state. so if u agree on that u agree on the basic role of a workers' state.

[Janus]

how u coordinate the world economy (this means millions of factories and billions of workers) without central planning?
But here you're assuming that there needs to be a huge economy to manage in the first place. Why not have more decentralized planning since people are most familiar with their own local stuff?

When you have to create a bureaucracy to manage the entire world's economy, things can get pretty inefficient and messy.

[vyborg]

u cant contrapose decentralization and a central plan. u must have both and both must be controlled by the working class

[Janus]

u cant contrapose decentralization and a central plan. u must have both and both must be controlled by the working class
Contrapose? But I see what you're saying that there needs to be a central overlooker to all this.

There could be a federated council for these types of affairs when different communities need to coordinate stuff or at least that's what anarchists support. I suppose I don't have much of a problem with a central plan like you say during the DoP.

[1984]

I have a question - do you think a monetary system will take place under the transitional post-revolutionary period or the democratic planning and rationing of the economy would almost immediately turn money obsolete?

[vyborg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 06:48 PM

u cant contrapose decentralization and a central plan. u must have both and both must be controlled by the working class
Contrapose? But I see what you're saying that there needs to be a central overlooker to all this.

There could be a federated council for these types of affairs when different communities need to coordinate stuff or at least that's what anarchists support. I suppose I don't have much of a problem with a central plan like you say during the DoP.
u need a central plan. without it u only have incoherent contingent and local plans. this means a 1950s iugoslavia on a world scale. a nightmare.
there is nothing wrong with a central plan. its like the mathematical demonstration, it is needed to show if your reasoning sums up.

the problem is not the central plan, the problem is how it is created and who controls it.

[vyborg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:42 AM
I have a question - do you think a monetary system will take place under the transitional post-revolutionary period or the democratic planning and rationing of the economy would almost immediately turn money obsolete?
this is a very good question comrade.
there are many articles of the 20s and the 30s about this question. in particular i advise to read trotsky, preobrajensky and rakovski.

well the answer is, i'm afraid, very dialectic...i would say yes and no altogether.
the problem is: what is money? as we know money is the general equivalent, a particular commodity that has a number of features. in non commodity society (as in the asiatic mode of production or stalinism the money is not a proper money but a money used only as a balance-sheet money just like inside a company they make computationt of the different stages of production with dummy money.

so, yes in the transition period money will be used but wont be money in a commodity sense, it will be a semi-money just like we will have a semi state

[JazzRemington]

Money will most likely be based on labor or something similiar.

I'd like to add a small point to this. Since in a communist society, goods are to be based on their use value (and not their exchange value), they WILL be rationed, but rationed based on their use value, thus fulfilling some sort of need or use. Without use, there is no good and when there si no longer a use for it (either temporary or permenantly), there will be no good produced.

But I'm not sure if this will lead one back into supply and demand economics, at least a market based supply and demand.

[vyborg]

I don't think money will ever based on use value as use value are subjective and money must be a social tool of exchange. what socialism will achieve is the progressive fading away of money as more and more use value will have no price at all (they will be supplied for free: think about an enormous and efficient welfare state for example).

i think the use of term rationing is misleading. i understand the logic (the division of the good wont be based on money) but as long as u have to use rationing, u cant have socialism because rationing means u have to prevent someone to consume something. this mean u have to force him not to consume, ie u will have a state, policemen or queus etc.

money, state and misery are inseparable and will fade away altogether

[Janus]

the problem is not the central plan, the problem is how it is created and who controls it.
Right, generally such plans have destroyed all local autonomy and put sole control in the hands of a central state.

[vyborg]

i could reply that the decentralized alternative is so inferior and useless that we dont have even historical exemple of it (unless janus thinks to iugoslavia as one of it).

anyway socialism without a central plan is a joke because no one could knows what to produce, well of course if u rule out the domination of world market as i think a socialist of any flavour must do.

if not, we go back to the market socialism of lange et alii and any strange idea is possible

[Janus]

i could reply that the decentralized alternative is so inferior and useless that we dont have even historical exemple of it (unless janus thinks to iugoslavia as one of it).
There are autonomous communes being established now and there certainly were before. No, I don't consider Yugoslavia to be an example, the worker's control there was a sham.


anyway socialism without a central plan is a joke because no one could knows what to produce, well of course if u rule out the domination of world market as i think a socialist of any flavour must do.
The whole point of the decentralized approach is to avoid socialism.

[vyborg]

if i understand then u think of a series of commune comin out from capitalism as worms from a dead body?

well this wont work for sure, unless u destroy any industry and go back to the rural commune of before the sumerian society

[Janus]

if i understand then u think of a series of commune comin out from capitalism as worms from a dead body?
That's one strange way of putting the anarchist's goals.


well this wont work for sure, unless u destroy any industry and go back to the rural commune of before the sumerian society
The whole point is to keep the means of production in the hands of the people who work in autonomous communes.

[vyborg]

well this seems easy and it is if the means of production are cows and knifes, but what about the enormous factories we have now?

in order to built a great plant or a big factory or to to R&D etc., u have to use the resources of the entire society. the factory so will be owned by who? the people that happen to live nearby the factory? of course this is nonsense.

the investment needed to develop the productive forces are ownership of the society as a whole, not of this or that community.

the ideal of separate communities is logical and in a sense viable only where there is not any division of labour whatsoever, as in the countryside.

in our society, where billions of products are created any moment, an isolated community simply cant live.

[Janus]

in order to built a great plant or a big factory or to to R&D etc., u have to use the resources of the entire society. the factory so will be owned by who? the people that happen to live nearby the factory? of course this is nonsense.
That is the whole point of the federated councils.


in our society, where billions of products are created any moment, an isolated community simply cant live.
I agree with you there. I'm simply stating the anarchist POV on this subject, you should debate this with one of them.

Question Everything (http://question-everything.mahost.org/)

This is a site that I found helpful in understanding anarchist theory.

[red team]

A coherent and precise system of accounting is indispensible. Just stating that we'll have a gift economy is a short recipe to a disaster. For instance, why couldn't we say that inheritance are gifts or bribes? Don't be so naive as to assume everyone share Communistic ideals especially if the culture of selfish individualism and materialism is still ingrained. Furthermore, who's to guard against personal prejudices for those doing the giving and those doing the receiving? If I don't like your production plan or I don't like you personally what's to stop me from not giving a gift to you? If for example an egomaniac states, I like to do things my way. Who's to stop him if he has the power of "gift giving". It seems more like a black market economy than a gift economy to me.

No, a modern economy must have an accounting system for resources allocated and spent using a precise and unambiguous accounting system. But, what needs to happen is we get rid of a system of debt trading that we have now and that requires that we have an environment of material abundance in the first place. Most of the production today takes place with machines doing most of the work anyway so an energy accounting system seems most appropriate. Debt trading is only sensible if we have a system in which debt is valued, that is we psychologically value a debt that is owed to us for a service performed for anyone other than ourselves. But, does this makes sense if production is done by machines and further the machines are automated so no one needs to sacrifice their precious time operating or monitoring them? Only then can we truly dispense with the debt tokens that is money, since it doesn't make sense to owe a machine a debt. Machines operate on energy not psychologically valued debts. But at this point the cost of materials and energy used by the machines still need to be precisely accounted for, otherwise there won't be any difference between giving and looting.

[nickdlc]

Why must we have a central plan controlled by beaureacrats? Why couldn't workers councils meet up every month (or more) to co-ordinate production? Infact why even meet up at all? It seems as if communists are stuck at the begining of the 20th century as if we don't have computers or modern technology to help facilitate workers control over the MoP. But even if a backwards country did not have technology it would still be possible for workers to set up a real socialist society.


No, a modern economy must have an accounting system for resources allocated and spent using a precise and unambiguous accounting system. Exactly. To me the labour hour and labour time accounting would be the most unambiguous way of social book keeping.

The transition to full fledged communist system (from the lower communist phase) would also be quite easy. Workers simply vote if a certain set of use-values should be free or not. If these use-values cannot be made easily available due to available technology then it would be assumed that since workers set such a high priority on a certain set of goods to be free that volunteers would instantly work in the factories that makes that certain set of use-values and increase productivity and introduce necassary technology so that these goods could be fully socialised.

[vyborg]

every months? the workers' council will meet endelssly to make world economy work. and doing it they will fulfill the plan. thats exactly the point. the functionaires of the plan r not bureacrat as long as they are politically controlled by the working class.

plan doesnt equal to deformation. u must have a document that conveys all the information in a coherent and unified whole, if not it is useless.

workers can run the economy and they will run a socialist economy. the central plan will be a tool of this economy as an aircraft is a tool to go somewhere.
there is nothing ineherently bureacratic in a central plan, exactly as u can have a series of local communes completely bureacratizes as was the case in the amoist china of the 60s and 70s