How's it gonna work

[t_wolves_fan]

Explain how a given commune is going to work.

Specifically:

1. Who decides how much food and other products are going to be produced?
1a. Where does the material come from?
1b. What happens if there isn't enough?
2. Who decides how many people and which peope specifically are going to work in a given industry?
3. What happens when more of something is demanded than ends up being produced?
4. How, specifically, will a given industry react to new market trends (i.e. demand for their product skyrockets)?
5. How will subjective opinions be taken into account?
6. What happens to dissenters, people who are unhappy with a decision and refuse to abide by it?
7. What happens when scientific opinion does not reach consensus?
8. How will plans and investment for the future be decided?
9. How will natural resources be conserved?
10. How will people who hoard or engage in black market activities be punished, if at all given that neither government nor property exist?
11. What happens to people who want to engage in a profession that is totally useless?
12. What happens when scientific consensus and popular will conflict?
13. What happens to freeloaders?
14. What happens if one commune does something that has a negative effect on another commune?


Be specific. Don't answer with "the workers vote" or "a council decides" or "the robots do the work". Explain contingencies - what happens if your plans fall through.

[Whitten]

1. Who decides how much food and other products are going to be produced? - The workers

1a. Where does the material come from? - Same place it does in capitalism

1b. What happens if there isn't enough? - We get more or try to figure out a reasonable substitute.

2. Who decides how many people and which peope specifically are going to work in a given industry? - The people

3. What happens when more of something is demanded than ends up being produced? - Then there is a temporary shortage until more is produced, the same as under capitalism.

4. How, specifically, will a given industry react to new market trends (i.e. demand for their product skyrockets)? - market trends? :lol: thats a good one, markets, lol.

5. How will subjective opinions be taken into account? care to give an example?

6. What happens to dissenters, people who are unhappy with a decision and refuse to abide by it? - They will be dealt with in some fashion, depending on what it is, just like breaking a law.

7. What happens when scientific opinion does not reach consensus? - Thats an issue for the academic community. It shouldnt dramaticly effect politics.

8. How will plans and investment for the future be decided? - The people vote

9. How will natural resources be conserved? - We stop using them as much, use alternatives and renewable resources more.

10. How will people who hoard or engage in black market activities be punished, if at all given that neither government nor property exist? - They will be dealt with by the local militia.

11. What happens to people who want to engage in a profession that is totally useless? - Then they arnt producing anything by choice, so arnt entitled to anything.

Other peoples views may vary. While you ask "Don't answer with "the workers vote" or "a council decides"," cometimes it really is that simple.

[KC]

Who knows? That question is completely irrelevent to anything and it's a big waste of time to even consider it right now.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 16 2006, 06:06 PM
Who knows? That question is completely irrelevent to anything and it's a big waste of time to even consider it right now.
So you're pushing for something you don't even understand.

Bravo.

[t_wolves_fan]

1. Who decides how much food and other products are going to be produced? - The workers

What if the workers decide to produce too little?


1a. Where does the material come from? - Same place it does in capitalism

Communes will buy it from resource owners? Obviously you did not understand my request to expand on your arguments and be specific.


2. Who decides how many people and which peope specifically are going to work in a given industry? - The people

And they do it by...


3. What happens when more of something is demanded than ends up being produced? - Then there is a temporary shortage until more is produced, the same as under capitalism.

What if the workers don't want to produce more or cannot produce more? Since everything is to be split equally, what will happen? How will you prevent a black market from forming?


4. How, specifically, will a given industry react to new market trends (i.e. demand for their product skyrockets)? - market trends? :lol: thats a good one, markets, lol.

Do you know how a market works?


5. How will subjective opinions be taken into account? care to give an example?

The mass of the people wants to do something irrational.


6. What happens to dissenters, people who are unhappy with a decision and refuse to abide by it? - They will be dealt with in some fashion, depending on what it is, just like breaking a law.

That would suggest government. How will this work?


7. What happens when scientific opinion does not reach consensus? - Thats an issue for the academic community. It shouldnt dramaticly effect politics.

So science will have little input into public policy?


8. How will plans and investment for the future be decided? - The people vote

Based on what?


9. How will natural resources be conserved? - We stop using them as much, use alternatives and renewable resources more.

What if people don't like that and vote against their use, or the alternatives don't work as well?


10. How will people who hoard or engage in black market activities be punished, if at all given that neither government nor property exist? - They will be dealt with by the local militia.

Again, government. On what authority will the militia act? Will there be a right to trial?


11. What happens to people who want to engage in a profession that is totally useless? - Then they arnt producing anything by choice, so arnt entitled to anything.

How do we know what field they are in when they go to the commisary?


cometimes it really is that simple.

Cometimes people want cpecifics, and cometimes clogans don't ancwer more intuitive questions because life isn't that cimple. If you're going to convince me that your cystem works, you have to explain how it's actually going to work.

"Kill all the pigs and let the workers rule man! woo hoo!" isn't gonna get the job done.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 05:21 PM
Explain how a given commune is going to work.

Specifically:

1. Who decides how much food and other products are going to be produced?
1a. Where does the material come from?
1b. What happens if there isn't enough?
2. Who decides how many people and which peope specifically are going to work in a given industry?
3. What happens when more of something is demanded than ends up being produced?
4. How, specifically, will a given industry react to new market trends (i.e. demand for their product skyrockets)?
5. How will subjective opinions be taken into account?
6. What happens to dissenters, people who are unhappy with a decision and refuse to abide by it?
7. What happens when scientific opinion does not reach consensus?
8. How will plans and investment for the future be decided?
9. How will natural resources be conserved?
10. How will people who hoard or engage in black market activities be punished, if at all given that neither government nor property exist?
11. What happens to people who want to engage in a profession that is totally useless?
12. What happens when scientific consensus and popular will conflict?
13. What happens to freeloaders?
14. What happens if one commune does something that has a negative effect on another commune?


Be specific. Don't answer with "the workers vote" or "a council decides" or "the robots do the work". Explain contingencies - what happens if your plans fall through.
t wolves fan, I swear that every post you make and every question or situation you ever bring up could be answered and understood by just taking the time to read one goddamned book on anything even remotely related to historical materialism.

It would be a little easier for you I would think.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Raj [email protected] 16 2006, 06:33 PM
t wolves fan, I swear that every post you make and every question or situation you ever bring up could be answered and understood by just taking the time to read one goddamned book on anything even remotely related to historical materialism.

It would be a little easier for you I would think.
One would think that the communists on this board have read those same books, and so would be able to report the answers to these specific questions to me. Based on this likelihood, I'm going to assume that I wouldn't find many specifics in those books, either.

[KC]

So you're pushing for something you don't even understand.

Bravo.

No, we're pushing for something we understand generally. We know the conditions of existence of the new system in which we desire to implement; we just don't know the details, because really any speculation on our part presently would be just that - speculation.

Now you could ask us how we would want it to be run, but that's a completely different question than how it's going to be run.

We already know that wage labour will be abolished, property will be abolished, the state will be abolished (and along with that goes politics and government), commodities will be abolished, and, ultimately (and at the root of all of the aformentioned events), class will be abolished. That is the most sufficient answer you will get other than pure speculation on anyone's part.

And speculation is really a waste of time.

[t_wolves_fan]

No, we're pushing for something we understand generally. We know the conditions of existence of the new system in which we desire to implement; we just don't know the details, because really any speculation on our part presently would be just that - speculation.

:o

Stunning admission.

Two important questions:

1. What should come first, figuring this stuff out, or the revolution? Why?

2. You do understand that you probably do not know just how complicated life - including important economic and political decisions - really is, don't you? I mean deep down you've got to know that maybe the slogan "the people will decide" does not begin to express the complexity of actually implementing a socio-political system, yes?


Now you could ask us how we would want it to be run, but that's a completely different question than how it's going to be run.

Fine, step up to the plate and answer specifically how you'd want all this to be run.

[bezdomni]

Constitutions are not written before revolutions. The basic ideas are put in place and the details fall in afterward.

You are asking for an impossibility.

That would be like asking Thomas Jefferson in 1770 what American government would look like after the revolution. He would be able to tell you "well, different than it is now", but not a whole lot more.

Has there ever been ANY revolution in all of history in which the exact constitution and legislation were written before the revolution was over? All of my knowledge of history says no.

The ideas that move a revolution are usually expressed in some sort of declaration (like the American Declaration of Independence) immediately before or at the very beginning of a revolutionary war. This serves as the basis for post-revolutionary society, but does not count as the EXACT rules by which post-revolutionary society will play by.

[Zero]

You keep saying not to say "The workers will vote", but thats just like saying "How will Capitalism work? Don't say anything about business." It may be generic, but its the cornerstone of all leftist ideologies. Direct Democracy is the foundation of all the left past Marxist-Leninism (I'll catch some shit for that, but for the most part I'm right) and however simple "The workers will vote" seems, that is how it is ran in a hypothetical situation.


Originally posted by "t_wolves_fan"+--> ("t_wolves_fan")1. Who decides how much food and other products are going to be produced?[/b]
Constant and consistant polling will result in accurate indications of population density and distribution. Resources will be appropriated according to the basic principle of "From those according to ability, to those according to need."; just like everything else.

To be more specific there is no need for a singular person, persons, council, or otherwise to determine this. You can plainly see in everyday situations that we need nobody to tell us when we're hungry, we need nobody to motivate us to obtain food. Why should it be any different in a communal situation? Our food can be delivered to us through airtight tubes, or it could be delivered the same way it is now. However since we no longer require farmers to produce under capasity we can work at 100% surplus to produce goods to feed those living in habitats that are not suitable for food growth, as well as feed our general population. It all really just depends on what direction society takes during the process of Socialism; and THAT is a new question in and of itself.


Originally posted by "t_wolves_fan"+--> ("t_wolves_fan")1a. Where does the material come from?[/b]
Only a true capitalist wouldn't understand that farmers don't become farmers because its profitable. Quite the contrary, in fact it is one of the fastest declining fields today.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/images/ocotjc05.gif (http://www.bls.gov/oco/oco2003.htm)

and according to the U.S. Department of Labor (Bureau of Labor Statistics) (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos046.htm) 1 in 3 agricultural workers are self employed, making roughly 10,000 farmers (30,000 employed, 1 in 4 working for Federal, State, and Local governments), and is still increasing (Key (http://www.bls.gov/oco/oco20016.htm), look under the first line of 'Job Outlook', and click on the Hyperlink of "as fast as average", it should make sense) by 9 to 17% per year.

Think about that. This field is increasing 9 to 17% a year, and yet is one of the most rapidly declining jobs today. I'm sure nobody would ever want to work on a farm :lol:

("t_wolves_fan")1b. What happens if there isn't enough?[/b][/quote]
30,000 agricultural workers in todays market, alongside the thousands and thousands of pounds of food we import every day... and you think we will run out? We're allready operating at a complete abundance, as well as operating innefficiently. I think you should take a look at this (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/foodreview/jan1997/jan97a.pdf) USDA release... (It is a .pdf file, if you don't have a reader, try Foxit Reader (http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php).) It details the innefficiency we handle, supply, and produce food in America. Along with the declining salary and declining job opportunities do you really think farms are opperating with up-to-date equipment?

Now Chomsky's warnings about privitization make a bit more sense ehh? ;)

("t_wolves_fan")2. Who decides how many people and which peope specifically are going to work in a given industry?[/b][/quote]
Now, uhh, it's usually customary to educate yourself, or at least run down the basic questions you have of free federations before you come crashing headlong into battle.

If you run a few searches you will most definately find this question answered in great detail from just about every perspective. Every leftist ideology has their theories, evidence, and rhetoric of labor structures. Some push emphasis on Quota systems, some on top down state run Planned economies. However post-left mostly ranges from gift economy, extended quota systems, bottom up planned... the works.

You'll hate to hear it, but by that time we'll both be dead. Probably our children's children will make the decisions we can only theorize about today. The Proletariat of their time will dictate the responses they will give at that time. It's a bit insensitive to change if I were to presume I knew what the ideal structure would be at this point in time. Environments shift, ideology shifts, knowlege, etc... Besides, not every region should be constructed along the same guidelines. Thats like building a shoe without taking measurements :P .

("t_wolves_fan")3. What happens when more of something is demanded than ends up being produced?[/b][/quote]
Well, seeing as direct democracy opens up a plenthora of options for polling needs/wants I really doubt a surplus or shortage would occur, however if there was extenuous circumstances there would be a drop in availability, and a temporary fall in popularity.

I really don't see what that has to do with anything. If it is life threatening there is no doubt that it would be corrected as soon as it is Humanly possible to do so. If it is a psychological or physiological need there is no reason to assume that this wouldn't be taken care of just as fast. If it is a petty want, then there is notoriety involved in reconciling the problem. The greater the problem, the more people will know the name of the man or woman who rectified this problem.

("t_wolves_fan")4. How, specifically, will a given industry react to new market trends (i.e. demand for their product skyrockets)?[/b][/quote]
I really don't see what the proposed problem would be for this. In the case of ever-changing technology, periphriels would be rolled out as technology advanced. As changing parts is a time-consuming, and annoying task I don't really imagine there would be too much of a following that would demand the absolute newest model at the moment of launch. I know I'd rather give new technology about 3-4 months of cooling-off time before I buy it, and I'm a hardware-phile :lol: .

I don't see how any other fields would be that radically different. As there is no need to over-hype things to sell more copies to satisfy stockholders, there is very little need to release a whole bunch of new technologies at once. It seems a bit counter-intuitive, as those who would be doing the designing would desire imediate feedback to correct problems.

("t_wolves_fan")5. How will subjective opinions be taken into account?[/b][/quote]
If the "Mass of people want to do something irrational" then there is no need to stop them. Just as in a Capitalist state if everyone (or even a majority) decided to do something irrational there would be very little to stop them. You want to put 51% of the country behind bars? Be my guest :lol: .

Although as this is hardly a problem in our society there is no reason to suspect the majority of people to do something irrational in a society that values education over military. Who heard of a bunch of MIT graduates jumping off a bridge?

("t_wolves_fan")6. What happens to dissenters, people who are unhappy with a decision and refuse to abide by it?[/b][/quote]
You'll probably hear views from the Stalinist "Shoot them" to the Leninist "Lock them up" to the Anarchist "Let him alone." Here. In my opinion dissenters should be given as much freedom as we are given today minus police brutality. Assuming we are living in a genuine Communist post left world-society. Any "Dissenter" would be dissenting against popular will of the people, as well as (most likely) popular will of the commune. I imagine people would give him as much credit as we give the Monarchists :lol: .

("t_wolves_fan")7. What happens when scientific opinion does not reach consensus?[/b][/quote]
Then scientific opinion doesn't reach consensus, this changes vary little. Any solid information worth acting upon will be decided according to degredation vs benifits, obviously Global Warming --even if it doesn't exist-- would be taken care of, not just because car exaustion helps quite signifigantly to degrade the quality of our atmosphere that is protecting us against deadly ammounts of ultraviolet rays, as well as signifigant ammounts of radiation; but car exaust also adds to the millions of people who die every single year from everything from Lung Cancer to the effects of Acid rain on our ecosystem (and the resulting health effects.) However if you were talking about simple things such as development of conciousness in featuses prior to abortion... Well... I personally believe that aborting a featus is a lot less damaging to a person than rasing a child in a unprepared environment, and all that unpleasesntness it entails.

("t_wolves_fan")8. How will plans and investment for the future be decided?[/b][/quote]
Since there is no need for money, there is no need for investment for the future. If you mean material goods that may become antiquated, or goods that may fall under shortage then theres little reason to assume that supplies wont be available untill they run out. After that point if there is still demand, and no resources to use... well tough luck.

Unless Capitalism can create resources out of thin air there is little to suggest that this wouldn't be the case in a Capitalist country as well. Just imagine the gold supply running out. What would we do? No more gold plated jewelry?! :o Ohh no!

Not like I really care anyway. I'm more concerned about the betterment of society as a whole, not what meterial goods I can possess.

("t_wolves_fan")9. How will natural resources be conserved?[/b][/quote]
Do you really think that people who know their demanded production quota, and who love their job will disreguard the natural resources that keep them there? And if they cannot be preserved, or expanded upon won't disclose this?

("t_wolves_fan")10. How will people who hoard or engage in black market activities be punished, if at all given that neither government nor property exist?

13. What happens to freeloaders?[/b][/quote]
I really don't see this as a viable problem. If a person has refuge in a commune that supplies all their needs, and most wants, there is no viable drive for portions of society to horde goods. Though, if for some odd reason someone decides they need to horde goods, they will be tried against the people in a courtly mannor with a impartial jurry of their peers.

That is the system I would support anyway. There is no reason for someone to horde goods for no viable reason. If someone is doing so, they should recieve a relocation to a different commune, or maybe a few extra shifts/hours of work to repay damages to the common good. The Proletariat should decide all the punishments to those who go against the common good.

("t_wolves_fan")11. What happens to people who want to engage in a profession that is totally useless?[/b][/quote]
That is called a hobby. Not everyone has hobbies that are all-consuming of our time, nor would I have the patience to spend as much time as I do working, on my hobby of fixing computers. I do spend quite a lot of time on my hobbies, but I still have room for school and part-time employment at two jobs.

Even if I had the time to spend working on fixing computers all day, and I had the abundance of broken hardware and faulty computers, I would still be doing a service to the community. I could do what I do now and fix up computers for free for my friends. I could open a small computer repair shop and fix computers for free (which is what I plan on doing anyway.)

We all have our calling, but not everyone can do it as a career. I'd love to make my hobby into a career personally, but even if I did, I'd still be helping out the common good, and it wouldn't be quite that useless. ;) Though I do see your point, if someone wasn't contributing to the common good, but he was in a commune of people who were contributing to the common good... I suspect he wouldn't stay there long if he valued his useless creations :lol: .


"t_wolves_fan"@
12. What happens when scientific consensus and popular will conflict?
Then scientific discovery would be rationally analysed, and shown to be true. If doubt still followed, scientific inquarry would reviel either a flaw in the scientific consensus, or a flaw in the inquarry.

Remember, Science is about creating a viable hypothesis and trying to disproove it. If someone can disproove a hypothesis of a commonly held claim, then that draws into question the nature of everything relating to this claim. Thus more scientific inquarry. Doubt me? Ask a scientist.


"t_wolves_fan"
14. What happens if one commune does something that has a negative effect on another commune?
Then it would be expected that both communes act like responsible adults and resolve this issue between them. If no resolution is derrived then a 3rd party can become involved to settle disputes, as well as silent ballot to determine the terms, negotiations, and settlements according to need and damages.

You'll have to be more specific if you'd like a more specific response. ;) Hope that helped.

EDIT: Yes, like everything said above... this is only speculation on my part. Everything should, and will be decided by those whom the meterial reality ultimately effects. It is useless for me to try to discribe the future life of a Nigerian man or woman without knowing exactly what their material reality is for them, what it has been, and what possible effects could happen. Further then that, it is nither my place, or my right to decide things over the heads of perfectly capable people in Nigeria. Likewise for the rest of the world.

[JazzRemington]

Why do you people always ask the same questions? Better yet, what's wrong with searching the internet for resutls and not waisting everyone's time here with a repeating cycle of the same questions?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 06:23 AM
Why do you people always ask the same questions? Better yet, what's wrong with searching the internet for resutls and not waisting everyone's time here with a repeating cycle of the same questions?
Isn't asking via an internet message board the people who practice the ideology the very definition of researching that ideology on the internet?

[Zero]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 17 2006, 06:34 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 17 2006, 06:34 PM)
[email protected] 17 2006, 06:23 AM
Why do you people always ask the same questions? Better yet, what's wrong with searching the internet for resutls and not waisting everyone's time here with a repeating cycle of the same questions?
Isn't asking via an internet message board the people who practice the ideology the very definition of researching that ideology on the internet? [/b]
Isn't that sort of cheating a bit? You can argue for doing the exact same thing by going to Wikipedia, or to marxists.org and reading from "the people who practice[d] the ideology".

[t_wolves_fan]

I'm going to edit this for brevity's sake.


You keep saying not to say "The workers will vote", but thats just like saying "How will Capitalism work? Don't say anything about business."

You are correct which is precisely why I quizzed uber-capitalist morons with the same specific questions on another board.


Constant and consistant polling will result in accurate indications of population density and distribution. Resources will be appropriated according to the basic principle of "From those according to ability, to those according to need."; just like everything else.

To be more specific there is no need for a singular person, persons, council, or otherwise to determine this. You can plainly see in everyday situations that we need nobody to tell us when we're hungry, we need nobody to motivate us to obtain food.

So if I walk up to the food commune and tell them I'm hungry, I get fed just like that with no further questioning. Or do I get ration cards? Aren't ration cards a violation of my individual autonomy?

What if I'm not really hungry but just can't get enough of food product X? What if a lot of other people do the same? How am I deterred from doing this? In capitalism when you start to run out of food, the price goes up, which reduces demand. People substitute. What happens in communism when there is no price deterrence?

Are you going to tell me "the people" would know that I'm taking more than my share? In a city of millions of people, how are they going to keep track of me? What if I just travel between communes?

Real-time polling cannot instantly grow cows, corn, or soybeans you understand. This also begs another question: other communists will tell me it's the workers who determine how much product is produced. So what happens when the workers decide to produce 5,000 bushels of wheat but the real-time polling indicates demand for 10,000 bushels of wheat?


Only a true capitalist wouldn't understand that farmers don't become farmers because its profitable. Quite the contrary, in fact it is one of the fastest declining fields today.

You're talking to someone who comes from a family of farmers.


I'm sure nobody would ever want to work on a farm :lol:

Well...what if not enough people want to work on a farm?


30,000 agricultural workers in todays market, alongside the thousands and thousands of pounds of food we import every day... and you think we will run out? We're allready operating at a complete abundance, as well as operating innefficiently. Along with the declining salary and declining job opportunities do you really think farms are opperating with up-to-date equipment?

Family famrs are not, corporate farms are.

The problem is that the revolution would allegedly be global. That means American abundance meets third-world shortages. There is also the postulation that food would be distributed equally, meaning we in the United States would presumably have to accept reduced rations so that those in the third world could receive more. How do you plan to sell that?



How would labor be distributed?It's a bit insensitive to change if I were to presume I knew what the ideal structure would be at this point in time.

So you don't know.



What happens when more of something is demanded than ends up being produced?
Well, seeing as direct democracy opens up a plenthora of options for polling needs/wants I really doubt a surplus or shortage would occur

How do you "poll" needs or wants? Again the problem of poll vs. worker arises: public poll says 425 of X are needed, while the workers agree to produce 300. Who wins? How would the goods be distributed if demand is not met? If workers are slaves to the polls of the public, what have they expressly gained? What if the technocracy determines that to produce 500 X as the public demands would result in irreparable environmental damage? Do the experts overrule the will of the public?


however if there was extenuous circumstances there would be a drop in availability, and a temporary fall in popularity.

Who loses popularity?



If the "Mass of people want to do something irrational" then there is no need to stop them. Just as in a Capitalist state if everyone (or even a majority) decided to do something irrational there would be very little to stop them. You want to put 51% of the country behind bars? Be my guest :lol: .

Pure capitalist thought says irrational consumption will lead to an increase in prices which will dampen consumption. I do not buy that this theory is fool-proof, but it has been shown to work in some real-life examples. For instance, when gas was over $3 a gallon this summer in the states, consumption actually declined vs. the same time period last year. But in communism, what happens? What if people do not want to change their lifestyles regardless of the availability of a resource? They have no incentive to do so in the short-term, since theoretically their needs will be met based on a poll of their demands.


Although as this is hardly a problem in our society there is no reason to suspect the majority of people to do something irrational in a society that values education over military. Who heard of a bunch of MIT graduates jumping off a bridge?

The problem is that only a very small fraction of society is let into MIT, and for good reason.


not just because car exaustion helps quite signifigantly to degrade the quality of our atmosphere that is protecting us against deadly ammounts of ultraviolet rays, as well as signifigant ammounts of radiation; but car exaust also adds to the millions of people who die every single year from everything from Lung Cancer to the effects of Acid rain on our ecosystem (and the resulting health effects.)

What if people vote to keep their cars?


theres little reason to assume that supplies wont be available untill they run out. After that point if there is still demand, and no resources to use... well tough luck.

A black market results.


Unless Capitalism can create resources out of thin air there is little to suggest that this wouldn't be the case in a Capitalist country as well. Just imagine the gold supply running out. What would we do? No more gold plated jewelry?! :o Ohh no

Then gold jewelry could still be bought at a price. But in communism where goods are distributed equally, what happens?


Do you really think that people who know their demanded production quota, and who love their job will disreguard the natural resources that keep them there? And if they cannot be preserved, or expanded upon won't disclose this?

They may disclose it but it may not matter - what if society decides they don't care if the last bit of a resource is used up? What if a commune is more interested in the noteriety and popularity you spoke of a second ago than in conserving a resource?


I really don't see this as a viable problem. If a person has refuge in a commune that supplies all their needs, and most wants, there is no viable drive for portions of society to horde goods. Though, if for some odd reason someone decides they need to horde goods, they will be tried against the people in a courtly mannor with a impartial jurry of their peers.

What if that person says they needed that quantity of goods? Who decides "need" vs. "hoard"?


That is the system I would support anyway. There is no reason for someone to horde goods for no viable reason.

Is it up to you to decide whether another person's reasons are valid?



Originally posted by "t_wolves_fan"
11. What happens to people who want to engage in a profession that is totally useless?
Though I do see your point, if someone wasn't contributing to the common good, but he was in a commune of people who were contributing to the common good... I suspect he wouldn't stay there long if he valued his useless creations :lol: .

Does this not violate the supposed communist idea of individual autonomy?


Further then that, it is nither my place, or my right to decide things over the heads of perfectly capable people in Nigeria. Likewise for the rest of the world.

But apparently you have an opinion on whether their needs are appropriate or not...

[Rollo]

I think the real question is.

When the hell are you going to stop asking the same damn questions, logg onto marxists.org and read?

[t_wolves_fan]

Isn't that sort of cheating a bit?

No. Why would I read something from which I can get no feedback? I can't ask a book, "what do you mean by that" or "can you expand on that a bit?" can I?


You can argue for doing the exact same thing by going to Wikipedia, or to marxists.org and reading from "the people who practice[d] the ideology".

Right, if you can argue the exact same thing then what's the difference? If you can't or won't answer the questions, then move along. Nobody's forcing you to interact with me.

[Zero]

So if I walk up to the food commune and tell them I'm hungry, I get fed just like that with no further questioning. Or do I get ration cards? Aren't ration cards a violation of my individual autonomy?
Presumeably if a Technocratic distribution system hasn't been implemented (more information here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56869), or here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocratic_movement).) It should be the primary goal. Personally I believe such an elaborate system would need to start in the days of pre-Socialism. Anyway, Technocracy is the cornerstone of a efficient future society based on free federations.

As for ration cards, not necisarraly. A Technocratically structured distribution system would be based on a concept known as 'Energy Accounting', which is basically giving out an equal share of what is spent creating the end product. If little energy is spent, lets say, milking cows, processing the milk, transporting this milk to a supermarket, marketplace, square, distribution centre, or whatever happens to be created then the price will be very small (energy used by the milking machine, energy used to process the milk and create additives, energy used to refridgerate and transport the milk, and final cost of energy to store the milk. This combined with a either top down, or bottom up quota system combined with direct democracy would result in both accurate production, accurate consuption, freedom of movement between jobs inside free federations/unions, and 100% up-to-date statistics on trends of production, consumption, projected shortages... etc, without the profit margin to muddle everything up.

Very basic explanation, I'm sure Jazzratt or Serpant would elaborate.


What if I'm not really hungry but just can't get enough of food product X? What if a lot of other people do the same? How am I deterred from doing this? In capitalism when you start to run out of food, the price goes up, which reduces demand. People substitute. What happens in communism when there is no price deterrence?
See above, as product quantity and base resources deteriorate (presuming they aren't renewable) the energy cost of such resources would go up (harder to find, more minute, etc) therefore the same effect would occur.

You are assuming that Communism somehow adds to finite resources available. We simply want fair distribution, rather than inherited privilage.


Are you going to tell me "the people" would know that I'm taking more than my share? In a city of millions of people, how are they going to keep track of me? What if I just travel between communes?
You can travel throughout communes as much as you'd like, just as traveling between towns doesn't change your Social Security identification, introducing new identities wouldn't change your physical allotment of energy (assuming it is stored correctly.)

Reguardless, there is no need to obtain more. Assuming there was a problem with the ammount of energy alloted to you such a complaint can be issued (in all likelyhood though your probably just being greedy.) If a lack of energy was introduced, then it would be plain to see that a Technocractic Communist/Anarchist society would respond to such a change far faster, and better than a Capitalist state would. Free Federations/Unions of Proletariat working for the common good of all wouldn't have the innefficiencies of bureaucracy hovering over them approving changes, or being afraid to force those who see only profit to change thier ways; especially for the sake of an externality.


Real-time polling cannot instantly grow cows, corn, or soybeans you understand. This also begs another question: other communists will tell me it's the workers who determine how much product is produced. So what happens when the workers decide to produce 5,000 bushels of wheat but the real-time polling indicates demand for 10,000 bushels of wheat?
Real-time polling cant grow corn, but it will most definately change the rate at which corn is grown/imported. Therefore smoothing out sharp increases or decreases in demand without the Capitalist method of overproduction and waste.

In your example, the same thing would happen that would happen in a Capitalist state if such a thing happened (excluding a price spike); import from regions that are producing under maximum efficiency. All of this would happen seemlessly, as with real-time polling of both demand and supply would show inconsistancies immediately. Energy cost of the imported wheat would then go up slightly with the cost of importation, which would apply pressure to Farmers unions to increase production.

Just a guess.


You're talking to someone who comes from a family of farmers.
Then you of all people should realise that the farmland is more than just simply dirt and seeds, that the tools used are more than just metal and wood. These are the tools that not only keep you alive, but someone else alive as well.


Well...what if not enough people want to work on a farm?
Then energy cost of food would rise as farmers take to more land then they are comfortable with.


Family famrs are not, corporate farms are.

The problem is that the revolution would allegedly be global. That means American abundance meets third-world shortages. There is also the postulation that food would be distributed equally, meaning we in the United States would presumably have to accept reduced rations so that those in the third world could receive more. How do you plan to sell that?
So your telling me that a revolution would not occur because people wouldn't want to feed starving people?

Besides that, I sincerely doubt that farmers of the third world are opperating with up-to-date agricultural technologies. Most are still farming with traditional methods passed down by word of mouth. Charities such as Heffer have already been successful in training individuals to go into rural parts of Africa and Asia to train locals with stratagies for improving the yield of crops and livestock to yield surplus food so that these people have a inch of upward mobility. After a successful worldwide revolution the issues of upward mobility and starving countries kept in place with economic imperialism would be moot. Specialists could update the technologies used by farmers in the third world to provide (at first) a small surplus, and eventually a sustainable food network produced by the local Proletariat, for the local Proletariat with room for exports.


So you don't know.
Yes, I don't know. I cannot read the future, I cannot accuratly predict the consuption of goods in relation to the region, I cannot accurately predict anything. I can take guesses, but even if I am right in guessing theres no point in trying to make a blueprint for a house I know nothing about.

There are already some theories out on the distribution of labor. I'd suggest you take a look at Das Kapital, and maybe a stroll down marxists.org


How do you "poll" needs or wants?
I'd start by asking them.


Again the problem of poll vs. worker arises: public poll says 425 of X are needed, while the workers agree to produce 300. Who wins? How would the goods be distributed if demand is not met?
Remember the saying "From each according to ability, to each according to need." This applies in the distribution of production just as much as it applies to everything else. If demand is not met globally, then those who have it the worst off recieve the good. Or possibly it would be based on work done to improve the common good.


If workers are slaves to the polls of the public, what have they expressly gained? What if the technocracy determines that to produce 500 X as the public demands would result in irreparable environmental damage? Do the experts overrule the will of the public?
First off, products produced based on quota systems doesn't result in the Proletariat being "slaves" to public opinion, it simply means that on a global scale the needs/wants of the people will dictate the creation of jobs based on real-time analysis of production vs consumption. Rather than the current method of overproduction in estimated fields, and wasting the excessive production.

In the case of environmental degredation vs public demand, the union involved with production would cease to operate, since the more dangerous such an activity is to the environment the higher the cost of energy would be accounted for, therefore higher energy consuption to the end consumer.

If you want to read more about Energy Accounting, look up Technocracy, and Energy Accounting on Google/Wikipedia/previous topics.


Who loses popularity?
Whoops, my mistake, rise in popularity of the item in question.


Pure capitalist thought says irrational consumption will lead to an increase in prices which will dampen consumption.
Which is theoretically true, but doesn't take into account international business/imperialism, black markets, corporate crime/mismanagement/embezzlement/purgery.


What if people do not want to change their lifestyles regardless of the availability of a resource? They have no incentive to do so in the short-term, since theoretically their needs will be met based on a poll of their demands.
And thus if more energy is spent refining, creating, extracting, or locating a resource more energy would be used when such a product is aquired. Thereby rasing the energy cost and lowering demand to those who depend on such a resource. The same effect minus corporate greed.

However I don't see this happening, as there would be no limit on technological expansion, and presumably if there was a signifigant increase of use of a single resource there would be extra investigation on this resource for technological improvement to ease dependancy on this. Which doesn't motivate a Capitalist untill it is too late (most of the time.)


The problem is that only a very small fraction of society is let into MIT, and for good reason.
Yes, for a good reason; facillity capasity, and comfortable student to teacher ratio. I have no qualms about allowing only the brightest into certain universities, however this does not mean that ONLY the smartest should be able to go to college... If thats what your getting at.


What if people vote to keep their cars?
Then people keep their cars. Most likely change will happen as future generations and education starts to show that if people don't change their cars, and production habbits, then eventually we may die off as a race.


A black market results.
A black market survives on a profit margin. If you mean to say a black market operating on mutual trade then I suppose Ebay can take over the Black Market. :lol:

[qupte="t_wolves_fan"]Then gold jewelry could still be bought at a price. But in communism where goods are distributed equally, what happens?[/quote]
"in communism" goods are distributed according to need, not equally. I don't really see any need for gold jewelry... but if such a "need" was prevelent enough to warrent a industry I suppose it would be a rather high energy costing production field.

Not too educated on the process of smelting gold and other metals myself.


They may disclose it but it may not matter - what if society decides they don't care if the last bit of a resource is used up?
Then a catestrophic event such as the current issue of oil would ensue. I trust the general public not to demand something to the edge of destruction... -.^


What if a commune is more interested in the noteriety and popularity you spoke of a second ago than in conserving a resource?
Then after investigation such a commune would recieve punishments dictated by consensus of those whom thier transgressions affected the most... I suppose.


What if that person says they needed that quantity of goods? Who decides "need" vs. "hoard"?

Is it up to you to decide whether another person's reasons are valid?
Then if someone needs this quantity of goods they will have a viable reason for this. If that need is genuine then they deserve this quantity of goods.

It is not up to me, it is not up to any single individual. It is up to the consensus of a jury.


But apparently you have an opinion on whether their needs are appropriate or not...
What I've been saying is that if people have real reasons for ordering in excess of the everyday population, and they do not have a reason for this, then there is no reason for this person to have in excess of the usual fluxuation of goods. I'm not talking down to individual units, I'm talking in excessive quantities over extended periods of time.

However haven't I already told you that I'm not laying a roadmap? I'm simply stating my opinion of a future society. I don't know if I'm right, nor am I telling future civilizations that they are wrong if they don't follow my instructions.

[Zero]

Aww shit. I hate quote limitations. Sorry about that.

[t_wolves_fan]

It'd help if you'd fix your tags so I can address your larger post, but...


Technocracy is the cornerstone of a efficient future society based on free federations.

Technocracy won't work. Too many subjective opinions and human irrationality. Objective data will not provide an optimal solution to any given problem.

Start at the bottom of page 13 (http://www.gdnet.org/rapnet/pdf/Beyond%20Economics%20Stone.pdf) (the rational model) for a great critique of technocracy.

It's fool's gold.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 08:59 PM
Aww shit. I hate quote limitations. Sorry about that.
Not a problem. I'll work through it when I get a chance.

:P

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 09:14 PM
It'd help if you'd fix your tags so I can address your larger post, but...


Technocracy is the cornerstone of a efficient future society based on free federations.

Technocracy won't work. Too many subjective opinions and human irrationality. Objective data will not provide an optimal solution to any given problem.

Start at the bottom of page 13 (http://www.gdnet.org/rapnet/pdf/Beyond%20Economics%20Stone.pdf) (the rational model) for a great critique of technocracy.

It's fool's gold.
That rag you keep directing people to is worth fuck all. Then again you would know that if you had actually listened when I pointed out that technocracy was not purley rational in its discion making, only as rational as possible.

Here is your 'fools gold' (http://technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=7&page=1). If you want you can even read it, and some of the other articles on technocracy.ca.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by t wolves filth flarn filth flarn filth
Explain how a given commune is going to work.

To begin with, lets get away from using the word "commune"; it's an antiquidated word too easily related with communalist hippy theory.

Let's try using something like "districts".


1. Who decides how much food and other products are going to be produced?

As far as food production is concerned, initially each district must be aware of how many individuals reside within each respectable district and produce accordingly. This includes a small percentage of overproduction to account for "bleed-over".

No one expects every individual to do all their shopping in the "district supermarket" do we?

After the initial structure is places into operation, I would suspect similar models that exist today to assist production will be used as well; market trends for example.

I can say with all sincerity that even during times of severe over-production of perishable items, there will be less waste over the period of a month than modern capitalist production methods allow for on a daily basis.

I don't see why non-perishables and luxury items can be produced based again, on district census data and market research.

Over production in this case is not much of a factor as "over produced" non perishable items can simply be shipped to other district facilities that may require addition goods of this nature for their populations.

Considering that "expense" and "cost" are meaningless, It's really a simple matter of cooperation.


1a. Where does the material come from?
1b. What happens if there isn't enough?

There is no "capitalist fairy" that will make all the production materials vanich oncecapitalism is replaced.

In addition, I'm, sure "shortages" will be handled much as they are today but without the mess.


2. Who decides how many people and which peope specifically are going to work in a given industry?

The individuals themselves decide on what kind of work they would like to do. I'm sure the only "shortages" of labour will be in areas where the work is somewhat "distateful".

In these cases, the jobs can be rotated collectively within the district or be done by those being punished.

If there is a "surplus" of workers in a certain field they can easily be asked to move to another district that requires their services, train for a new job or simply "wait their turn".

Remember son, we are talking about a society that is free of money, therefore "cost" is never an issue.


3. What happens when more of something is demanded than ends up being produced?

This happens every day in the modern 1st world so I'm sure they will handle it much as they do today: by shipping overstock to understocked areas while producing more of the needed goods.


4. How, specifically, will a given industry react to new market trends (i.e. demand for their product skyrockets)?

You're beginning to get like a broken record so I'll treat you as such...

Like they do today....like they do today.....like they do today....like they do today....

Get it yet?


5. How will subjective opinions be taken into account?
Non sensical and irrelevant to anything.

I think you just wanted to say "subjective opinions" thinking it "meant something".

Oooops.


6. What happens to dissenters, people who are unhappy with a decision and refuse to abide by it?

Someone has to clean toilets, mop floors, make french fries, clerk convenient marts at midnight on Friday and Saturday nights, shovel shit, slaughter animals, work a factory assembly or quality control line etc.



7. What happens when scientific opinion does not reach consensus?

In regards to what? How sea life fucks at 40 thousand feet? :lol:


8. How will plans and investment for the future be decided?

Good grief......


9. How will natural resources be conserved?

Considering of courts if a natural resource even needs to be "conserved", it's safe to say that the any future society can't possibly fuck that concept up any worse that modern capitalism already has.

The rest of this crap is really a bit to remedial to even bother with, at let me tell you, that's not saying that the crap I already responded to was not just as remedial; It was merely "first in line".

Hey kid, go back to school.

[Zero]

Vinny, you are a person in front of a monitor just as he is a person in front of a monitor. Theres no reason to be all 'in your face' about everything.

EDIT: And its not a tag problem I'm pretty sure. I've ran into this before when having extremely long posts with a lot of quotes in them. I think its just a serverside limit on quotations per post.

[t_wolves_fan]

That rag you keep directing people to is worth fuck all.

That's a solid refutation.


Then again you would know that if you had actually listened when I pointed out that technocracy was not purley rational in its discion making, only as rational as possible.

:lol:

Then it's not technocracy, it's satisficing and is basically no different than what we're already diong.


Here is your 'fools gold'.

It is indeed hilarious. Let's take a look:


Example 1: Product Quality.

The razor blade story. This is a nice one. Seen it before. It pretends that all products are like razor blades, in that if it can last for 3 years then people will be happy with owning the same thing for 3 years. Who's going to care about their razor blades? Well not all products are as simple as razor blades. Are people really going to want to use only one of something for an extended period of time? Or will they change their taste, change their style, or determine that the product is not meeting their needs? Think of a vehicle: can you really determine that one individual vehicle will meet your needs for the next year, two years, or five years? What if I have children? I need more room. What if I take up camping? I need a 4X4. What if my original vehicle breaks down? Sorry, the technocracy determined one car per person for 5 years so no new car for you until 2011. Shortage, black market. Oh wait I see that I can only use a car when the right one is available down at the Glorious People's Auto Depository.

Next!

Load Factor

First, and funniest, "perultimate" is not even a word. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perultimate)

So we can assume our techocrat friends mean that if money were no object, farmable land could produce a maximum yield every year, with very little effort, meaning nobody goes hungry.

Well duh. But seriously: what does it take to ensure maximum yield in agriculture? It takes a lot. (http://elkhorn.unl.edu/epublic/live/g481/build/#yield)

"Maximum yields obtained in corn yield contests are reasonable estimates of yield potential because corn is grown in these plots at high density with nearly unlimited water and nutrient supply, and full weed and pest control. During the past 20 years, annual yield records of the irrigated corn contest winners in Nebraska have averaged 295 bu/acre, with a standard deviation of +40 bu/acre among years (14 percent), which indicates the effect of growing season weather on the yield potential. During the same period, annual yield records of the dryland corn contest winners in Nebraska averaged 215 bu/acre. Although these numbers illustrate the upper yield limits that could be achieved, it is neither possible nor economical to grow corn at such yield levels everywhere in Nebraska."

Why do the experts agree with me and not you? Well, there are a lot more variables involved in growing crops than just the farmer's economic standing. There is weather, there is sun, and there are pests and irrigation requirements. Those last two are important: how many pesticides are you going to produce and pump onto the crops? And more important, how quickly do you plan to drain the water table and the Great Lakes in order to assure maximum yield annually?

Operations

It's getting funnier.

Why did BellSouth operate the way that it did? It brought phone service to people because there was money to be made, not because it was good for society. I'm willing to bet that most of those 800,000 people did not go to work for BellSouth because they loved putting up telephone poles, or because they loved tracking material orders, or because they loved working in accounts payable, or because they loved typing memos for the CEO. They worked for BellSouth because it paid well and in some parts of the country was likely the only good job in town.

Funnier still is at the beginning, the post simply declares that political considerations will be eliminated. Laughable. When a technocrat comes to town to tell you that the property next to yours is ideal for a nuclear power plant, a rendering factory, a coal mine or a paper factory, you think there aren't going to be political problems? You think the town is going to collectively say "For the good of the Borg, we accept this power plant." If you do, then you seriously need to tell a licensed psychologst about your Candy Land dreams.

But funniest of all is at the end, where it claims corruption would be eliminated because the data would show who is pulling their weight and who is not. The person who wrote this has obviously never had a real job, because they have not experienced office politics.

Social Control

Rests on the theory that abundance can be guaranteed based on the faulty assumptions from Product Quality (everyone will be hapy with the same product over the course of time!) and Load Factor (maximum production is no sweat, never mind the resources needed to achieve it!), which makes it faulty itself.

It also skips over the fact that native american tribes routinely engaged in intertribal warfare over resources, territory, and what they'd call irrational grievances.

Economic Stability

This passage was Clintonesque. "We won't ration, but what we'll do is ration goods based on energy credits". Presumably, based on the previous passages about Candy Land, people will receive far more credits than they can spend, meaning that without worrying about scarcity they'll be less materialistic. This is a huge gamble because by giving people far more than they can spend, there is a good chance they will become completely disconnected from the cost of producing the good and so actually increase consumption. Look at gasoline in the United States. For years it was cheap - 99 cents a gallon, even with the taxes that were collected to build the roads that were otherwise free of charge to use. Cheap gas meant consumers did not have to worry about the human toll of its production (tyranny in the middle east) nor the environmental toll of its use (smog and global warming). The result was a rapid increase in SUV purchases and people moving farther out into the suburbs because it was affordable. Now, with high gas prices, people have to take into account the cost of the product they want. The result is fewer SUV purchases and more efficiency - gasoline consumption actually went down this summer compared to last.

This is the likely outcome: people increase consumption because they have no reason to consider the human and environmental costs of what they consume. In a Native American tribe, if people wanted more buffalo they had to go hunt for them because the tribe was small enough that everyone had to participate. Not so in a city, a region or a nation where people do not know who produces what and how it is produced. So the experts have to find a way to keep up production. If and when the experts realize production cannot keep up with demand (which is inevitable in many cases because technology will not always bail people out without fail), they face a choice: cut corners (increase externalities like pollution) or tell people they can't have as much as they had last year. The problems with the first choice are obvious. The problems associated with the second are worse: "What do you mean I can't have as much? what's wrong with you? You said I could have as much as I wanted. I don't trust you anymore. System fall down go boom.

Load Factor Part 2

"You don't get to own your own car."

Good luck with that.

Standardization

"You get to choose between 3 models and styles of everything."

What will the three styles be? Who chooses?

Oh and good luck with that too.

Wasteful Activities

"t_wolves_fan, you will be working for 6 hours in the coal mine today. Report at 9 AM with your technocracy-provided uniform."

Good luck with that.

Load Factor Part 3

"t_wolves_fan, your vacation is scheduled for January through March. And you will be working the 3 AM to 9 AM shift at the boot store. Report at once with your technocracy-provided uniform."

Good luck with that.

Urban Wastage

"t_wolves_fan, your home has been appropriated for the glorious state. Report to dormitory 3A-VX2 in Cleveland at once."

Good luck with that. I like the Jetsons fantasy that runs through the rest though.

Hydrology

Odd since the Army Corps of Engineers already does this, and even more odd considering most environmentalists believe flood control efforts have actually made things worse. (http://www.ucowr.siu.edu/updates/pdf/V97_A6)

Again, the key problem with your technocracy: flood control or wild wetlands? There's one of those political problems that Candy Land pretends will not exist.



You need to stop watching the Jetsons. Like right now.

[t_wolves_fan]

Your responses were nothing but rehashed slogans about how the community will decide how everything is done yet somehow every individual will also decide everything they do, but...


Hey kid, go back to school.

Are you seriously older than 17?

And what, pray tell, is your education level?

[KC]

Read soviet pants' post.