Question about private enterprise

[Captain Morgan]

Okay, we are living in a socialist society now. Revolution has succeeded and power is in the hands of the working class and capitalist tyranny has been vanquished yadda yadda

Now, let's imagine that me, my imaginary sister Mary Lou and my imaginary best friend Frankie are willing to put up a shop. Little grocery store in our imaginary, rather small village area. We three are keeping the wheels in the move and handling the business all alone.

Is this kind of activity permitted in your Wonder World? We don't really exploit anyone - seeing there is no one to exploit. In other words: do you think people should be free to earn their living through private enterprise in smaller scale; business of only one, two or three people were there really is no workers to exploit expect the owners themselves. Cleaning company, catering service, baking service.. you'll catch the drift.

[Winter]

At the very beginning of a socialist state small businesses would be allowed to operate.

The first steps of socialism is to socialize most of the neccesetties such as healthcare, education, electricity, housing, and water. A small restaurant or a small grocer has no fear to lose his/her business. Eventually, large corporations are the ones that would be targetted, and slowly they too would be socialized. All this, mind you, would not happen overnight.

What would change for small businesses however, and gradually, is that more workers' rights would be established, eventually to the point where it wouldn't be neccesary to run your own business. The owner would be better off working for the state. No longer would healthcare and gas be a problem to afford, because they would be very cheap or even freely given, depending on how far advanced this socialism would be.

The last stage of a workers state would be to target small business, not forcefully, but by offering the owners something better. Socialism for the small business owner would be a relief for him/her because they would no longer have to compete with multi-billion dollar corporations just to feed themselves on a daily basis.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Keep in mind the difficulty of socializing niches. What if this grocery store specializes in selling something that the supermarkets don't sell?

[Dr Mindbender]

Okay, we are living in a socialist society now. Revolution has succeeded and power is in the hands of the working class and capitalist tyranny has been vanquished yadda yadda

Now, let's imagine that me, my imaginary sister Mary Lou and my imaginary best friend Frankie are willing to put up a shop. Little grocery store in our imaginary, rather small village area. We three are keeping the wheels in the move and handling the business all alone.

Is this kind of activity permitted in your Wonder World? We don't really exploit anyone - seeing there is no one to exploit. In other words: do you think people should be free to earn their living through private enterprise in smaller scale; business of only one, two or three people were there really is no workers to exploit expect the owners themselves. Cleaning company, catering service, baking service.. you'll catch the drift.

depends on the economic system involved, which differs according to the flavour of the revolutionary you happen to speak to. Anarchists seem to favour bartering trades, while technocrats envisage energy vouchers.

Its unhelpful to think of revolution as a single stage, it isnt going to happen like that. As other people have said small enterprise may be allowed but dependent on the condition that there is no wage employment of others, it must be the labours of those concerned.

After the transition to total communism, after the removal of all currency and capital there would be no motive for businesses of any sort since all industrial activity would be of materialist pursuit rather than 'profit driven'.

[534634634265]

Keep in mind the difficulty of socializing niches. What if this grocery store specializes in selling something that the supermarkets don't sell?

(thread hijack imminent)
you know Jacob, when i first read through the articles you linked me to, i thought you were trying to bait me or something. now i think you and i might just share some ideals. sorry if i have been unnecessarily hostile towards you.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Captain O Captain, socialism is not a stagnant idea. There are different forms of socialism, including participatory, mutualism (free market socialism), and gift. The difference between socialism and capitalism is quite simple: socialists believe only labor should be the source of wealth - since it is the only legitimate part of you, and capitalists do not (private property). Very likely a libertarian socialist would propose all forms of socialism are permissible. Panarchy. So to answer your question, yes, it probably would be allowed, supposing people still needed the price system.

[Die Neue Zeit]

(thread hijack imminent)
you know Jacob, when i first read through the articles you linked me to, i thought you were trying to bait me or something. now i think you and i might just share some ideals. sorry if i have been unnecessarily hostile towards you.

* No problem *

Why would I bait you? :confused: I was trying to make a point in those two articles about the different degrees of reformism and the adherents to those different degrees, depending also on the "road to power" being employed. :crying:

While there is no parliamentary road to socialism and no "referendum road to socialism," I can work with those adhering to the latter (amongst those adhering to other, more possible participatory roads to socialism), but not with those adhering to the former (either "social-democrats" or traditional "democratic socialists"), given my contempt for bourgeois parliamentary electoralism ("representative democracy" which is neither statistically representative nor "democratic" by any stretch).

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1879/09/17.htm

We have raised to prominence the idea of the class struggle as the immediate driving force of history, and particularly the class struggle between bourgeois and the proletariat as the great lever of the modern social revolution; hence, we can hardly go along with people who want to strike this class struggle from the movement. At the founding of the International, we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself.

We cannot, therefore, go along with people who openly claim that the workers are too ignorant to emancipate themselves but must first be emancipated from the top down, by the philanthropic big and petty bourgeois. Should the new party organ take a position that corresponds with the ideas of those gentlemen, become bourgeois and not proletarian, then there is nothing left for us, sorry as we should be to do so, than to speak out against it publicly and dissolve the solidarity within which we have hitherto represented the German party abroad. But we hope it will not come to that.



THAT BEING SAID, HOWEVER, there is a lot of latitude in applying external pressure for initial reforms like MLK Jr. against the bourgeois parliamentarians.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I think that (in a socialist world) the large producers should be socialized. Pretty much all large-scale agriculture (this wouldn't be too hard in the US, since most farming is done by large corporations), the infrastructure (transport), and most other large insdustrial producers (your steel mills, etc). However, while these are owned by the people, they should be run by experts in these fields. No sons-of-the-bigwig to run a farm, that's done by a farmer. Also, the specialization between running a grain farm and a barley farm, or a arc-steel mill and a mini-mill will require this.

While all these industries would be socialized, they should be run as seperate entities. That way, efficiency will still be a factor, and a railroad, for example, will need to decide what lines get expensive steel and which get lower-grade based on projected traffic. All of these entities will be on a budget.

Now, when it comes to businesses which sell direct-to-consumer, this should still be done by individuals. If Burger Chain A wants to slap together some OK meat and sell a cheeseburger for a buck and go after that consumer, that shouldn't mean there isn't Burger Chain B spending more and making a 'high-quality' hamburger for $3 or $4 for someone who wants a little better taste. If healthcare, education, and some form of employment were guaranteed by the govt, why should this be stopped? The last thing we would want is everyplace tasting like your high-school cafeteria, right?

Now, of course, this is a very simplistic view of things.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

What you're talking about was discussed in a forum hosted by local socialists and geolibertarians (mostly geoanarchists and anarcho-socialists) as a means of conjoining the two movements. Both socialists and geoists are in agreement that claiming exclusive use of land is ridiculous. akin to claiming ownership over a cloud, ocean, or planet. There was talk of having workers' councils not pay rent, while having people claiming "use rights" pay rent. These geolibertarian and socialist libertarian communities, in anarchy, would join ranks and provide people an escape from statist (capitalists, feudalists, slave owners) elements.

It was a very good discussion. :)

[IcarusAngel]

What you're talking about was discussed in a forum hosted by local socialists and geolibertarians (mostly geoanarchists and anarcho-socialists) as a means of conjoining the two movements. Both socialists and geoists are in agreement that claiming exclusive use of land is ridiculous. akin to claiming ownership over a cloud, ocean, or planet. There was talk of having workers' councils not pay rent, while having people claiming "use rights" pay rent. These geolibertarian and socialist libertarian communities, in anarchy, would join ranks and provide people an escape from statist (capitalists, feudalists, slave owners) elements.

It was a very good discussion. :)



Well put. I could even tolerate a "Georgist" society and economics, so long as politics itself was "Kropotikin" in nature, as Aldous Huxley put it. :)

The big problem with society is land ownserhip. Unfortunately it seems there are few libertarian-socialiwsts here. :(

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The big problem with society is land ownserhip. Unfortunately it seems there are few libertarian-socialiwsts here. :(

What do you mean by 'land-ownership?" I don't know if you're in Britain, were I could understand such a position. After all, that's a tiny island and I'd get pissed if all my people were fighting over each other for an extra few feet in an apartment, and only the relatively wealthy can purchase a house.

But here in America, land is cheap. Sure, a pad in NYC would take a fortune to own, but land is still pretty inexpensive. When I drive from Dallas back to my former haunts in Tucson and Oakland, I pass signs in the "West Texas Wasteland" (as I refer to that dry place) advertising land from $8,000/80 acres and $12/acre after that. No joke. I work at a Petstore and that'd be attainable in a few years with my current job.

Now, I don't want to live there, but I do hope to put away some money throughout my career and eventually buy a plot with some pine trees, a creek or two, a nice big-screen view of a mountain from the back porch, and, most importantly, no neighbors (which will help with the garden :rolleyes:). I'm thinking Colorado, probably Northern Arizona, though maybe even Montana, Wyoming, or Idaho (if it's not by all those White-Pride Crazies that live in the mountains up there, and there are lots of those people in that region. That's worth a whole other thread in itself...).

That said, the pads on Lake Tahoe are ridiculous (Corleone or not hehe). There are certain areas that should remain public lands, as millions of acres are. Monument Valley should never be up for grabs, as an example. But it'll be nice to have a piece that's mine. All mine. Not yours, and NOT THE GOVERNMENTS (No warrant? let me go grab my gun and Shepherd before we continue this conversation....).Where I can go out back with the 30-ought-6 butt naked if I so choose. Shoot a 12-gauge from the back porch. Build a giant bonfire and dance around it with a bottle of Jameson, after already eaten my homegrown fungi.

If you don't think there's enough land, drive around the West for a while. The West is the Best.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Okay, we are living in a socialist society now. Revolution has succeeded and power is in the hands of the working class and capitalist tyranny has been vanquished yadda yadda

Now, let's imagine that me, my imaginary sister Mary Lou and my imaginary best friend Frankie are willing to put up a shop. Little grocery store in our imaginary, rather small village area. We three are keeping the wheels in the move and handling the business all alone.

Is this kind of activity permitted in your Wonder World? We don't really exploit anyone - seeing there is no one to exploit. In other words: do you think people should be free to earn their living through private enterprise in smaller scale; business of only one, two or three people were there really is no workers to exploit expect the owners themselves. Cleaning company, catering service, baking service.. you'll catch the drift.
Sure, why not. That small business of yours will never be able to expand, though, because all the means of production other than the stuff in your own home - all the factories, office buildings and so on - belong to the state, and the state will be constitutionally prevented from selling them to anyone.

Also, in a proper socialist system, you won't be able to employ workers as wage labourers not because the state will be breathing down your neck, but because the workers will be able to sue you and take you to court for exploiting them. It's not so great being an employer when you know that even a single unhappy employee could go to the police and bring down your entire business.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Not so much that - the institution of non-transferrable, expirable labour credit will prevent the formation of capital in the first place. :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

But it'll be nice to have a piece that's mine. All mine. Not yours, and NOT THE GOVERNMENTS (No warrant? let me go grab my gun and Shepherd before we continue this conversation....).Where I can go out back with the 30-ought-6 butt naked if I so choose. Shoot a 12-gauge from the back porch. Build a giant bonfire and dance around it with a bottle of Jameson, after already eaten my homegrown fungi.

A post of true power and beauty.

I couldn't agree more. There is nothing more wonderful than owning land.

[534634634265]

A post of true power and beauty.

I couldn't agree more. There is nothing more wonderful than owning land.
except being free to do all of that shit WITHOUT owning the land. native americans didn't "own land, everyone owned it equally, and they would welcome the naked, drunken, shroom-crazed fire dancer. just an expression of the great spirit inside you.

[Plagueround]

except being free to do all of that shit WITHOUT owning the land. native americans didn't "own land, everyone owned it equally, and they would welcome the naked, drunken, shroom-crazed fire dancer. just an expression of the great spirit inside you.

I agree with your response to Tom, except we also had our fair share of murderous, greedy, bastards who stole land from each other. ;)

[534634634265]

yeah well, theres always deviants. you just try and show them the error of their ways. and if that doesn't work try the "all-american" solution, Drugs!

[Schrödinger's Cat]

What do you mean by 'land-ownership?" I don't know if you're in Britain, were I could understand such a position. After all, that's a tiny island and I'd get pissed if all my people were fighting over each other for an extra few feet in an apartment, and only the relatively wealthy can purchase a house.

But here in America, land is cheap. Sure, a pad in NYC would take a fortune to own, but land is still pretty inexpensive. When I drive from Dallas back to my former haunts in Tucson and Oakland, I pass signs in the "West Texas Wasteland" (as I refer to that dry place) advertising land from $8,000/80 acres and $12/acre after that. No joke. I work at a Petstore and that'd be attainable in a few years with my current job.

Now, I don't want to live there, but I do hope to put away some money throughout my career and eventually buy a plot with some pine trees, a creek or two, a nice big-screen view of a mountain from the back porch, and, most importantly, no neighbors (which will help with the garden :rolleyes:). I'm thinking Colorado, probably Northern Arizona, though maybe even Montana, Wyoming, or Idaho (if it's not by all those White-Pride Crazies that live in the mountains up there, and there are lots of those people in that region. That's worth a whole other thread in itself...).

That said, the pads on Lake Tahoe are ridiculous (Corleone or not hehe). There are certain areas that should remain public lands, as millions of acres are. Monument Valley should never be up for grabs, as an example. But it'll be nice to have a piece that's mine. All mine. Not yours, and NOT THE GOVERNMENTS (No warrant? let me go grab my gun and Shepherd before we continue this conversation....).Where I can go out back with the 30-ought-6 butt naked if I so choose. Shoot a 12-gauge from the back porch. Build a giant bonfire and dance around it with a bottle of Jameson, after already eaten my homegrown fungi.

If you don't think there's enough land, drive around the West for a while. The West is the Best.

I live in the same region in Texas, and while land is cheaper than what you would find in New England, the average cost of living is adjusted. Our minimum wage always follows the federal number. $8,000 is the low end (you won't find good mineral rights, and you probably won't find good business if utilized). Unless you're trying to create the next Disney World, or go hunting, or have a getaway home, it's money thrown away - there won't be schools, retail, or good jobs nearby. These packages are usually so large that you would have to expend $XXX,XXX (note my use of the world usual). Good plots will cost you $XX,XXX per acre.

As Henry George pointed out, someone could sit on a plot of land for 10 years and just wait for rent values to go up, then sell nature for a profit.

Landlords, like all lords, are authoritarian. You didn't crap the land out of your backside. It predated your existence by billions of years. It belongs to everyone. Your claim of ownership of land must be met - at a bare minimum - with compensation to those with lesser-valued property and those with no land at all.

I might add the land you use was won through theft over the years, so claiming you justly own it is hilarious.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

A post of true power and beauty.

I couldn't agree more. There is nothing more wonderful than owning land.

Slave owners could probably think of something.

Just because you can own something (or one) doesn't mean you should.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

^^^ Not so much that - the institution of non-transferrable, expirable labour credit will prevent the formation of capital in the first place. :lol:
True, very true, but there will still be potential for the formation of some physical petty "capital", if you can even call it that. For example, if you really want to bake cookies in your kitchen oven and barter* them with other people, you'll still be able to do that. The same goes for anything that you can normally produce inside your house.

* I said "barter", not "sell", because non-transferrable, expirable labour credit is, of course, non-transferrable. You won't be able to use your paycheck to buy stuff from private individuals. So if you really want those home-baked cookies, you'll have to barter for them.

[turquino]

I envisage socialism in practice as a continuing struggle in the direction of stateless, classless communism. After the means of production are socialized and exploitation ended, private accumulation would be gradually phased out altogether in favour of the giant commune model. There would be no place for this small enterprise at that juncture.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

True, very true, but there will still be potential for the formation of some physical petty "capital", if you can even call it that. For example, if you really want to bake cookies in your kitchen oven and barter* them with other people, you'll still be able to do that. The same goes for anything that you can normally produce inside your house.

* I said "barter", not "sell", because non-transferrable, expirable labour credit is, of course, non-transferrable. You won't be able to use your paycheck to buy stuff from private individuals. So if you really want those home-baked cookies, you'll have to barter for them.

I hope proponents of labor vouchers do realize that private currency could come into circulation with the need for bartering. It would be murky water to introduce LV at a time when large niches exist outside of the socialized, participatory economy.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I hope proponents of labor vouchers do realize that private currency could come into circulation with the need for bartering. It would be murky water to introduce LV at a time when large niches exist outside of the socialized, participatory economy.
Yes, people may well use some small and relatively valuable objects as private currency on a black market, but the absence of easily transferable, government-backed money would still greatly hinder any such black market. When you can use official money on the black market, you can then take your black market profits and use them to buy goods from legal shops. But if you are forced to use your own private currency on the black market, that currency is worthless in the legal shops, so there are much fewer things you can buy with your black market profits - making the black market far less attractive.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes, people may well use some small and relatively valuable objects as private currency on a black market, but the absence of easily transferable, government-backed money would still greatly hinder any such black market. When you can use official money on the black market, you can then take your black market profits and use them to buy goods from legal shops. But if you are forced to use your own private currency on the black market, that currency is worthless in the legal shops, so there are much fewer things you can buy with your black market profits - making the black market far less attractive.

It all depends on the "police state" that might be organized to stop the Black market. If the state is strong enough--of course it coul;d be stopped, but in an anacharistic society--it might be quite easy to start a Black market, it not an alternate currency system.

Gene is right that if the ENTIRE WORLD isn't socialized properly LV or something similar could become as good as money. As a matter of fact I could see them functioning similar to a cross between the promisary notes of governments and the futures market.

I bet if you could find a way to collect enough LVs--you could inject CAPITALISM right into the heart of the Post Revolutionary world.

Sounds like fun! :sneaky:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

It all depends on the "police state" that might be organized to stop the Black market. If the state is strong enough--of course it coul;d be stopped, but in an anacharistic society--it might be quite easy to start a Black market, it not an alternate currency system.
The point is that if you force the black market to use alternative currency, that means that whatever money you make on the black market can't be used to buy stuff from legitimate, legal shops - which makes that money, and the black market itself, a lot less attractive.


Gene is right that if the ENTIRE WORLD isn't socialized properly LV or something similar could become as good as money. As a matter of fact I could see them functioning similar to a cross between the promisary notes of governments and the futures market.

I bet if you could find a way to collect enough LVs--you could inject CAPITALISM right into the heart of the Post Revolutionary world.
No, not at all, because LVs would be non-transferable. That means that the LVs you earn - your paychecks - are tied to your name, and only you can use them to buy things. Think of them as money in a bank account, except the bank won't let you transfer it to anyone else's account.

Some people also propose that LVs should expire after a certain period of time so that you can't accumulate them - you'd have to spend them before they expire (within X number of years after you get them). Personally, I'm not sure if that's a good idea. For one thing, it would have to be coupled with similar time limits on credit - because if you can't accumulate money but you can still take out long-term loans, you'll just buy all your expensive stuff on credit and pay for it in monthly installments.

But I'm not convinced that there's any problem with savings or credit, so I don't see why a socialist economy should seek to limit these things.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I envisage socialism in practice as a continuing struggle in the direction of stateless, classless communism. After the means of production are socialized and exploitation ended, private accumulation would be gradually phased out altogether in favour of the giant commune model. There would be no place for this small enterprise at that juncture.

Is this before or after Jesus returns?

[Bud Struggle]

No, not at all, because LVs would be non-transferable. That means that the LVs you earn - your paychecks - are tied to your name, and only you can use them to buy things. Think of them as money in a bank account, except the bank won't let you transfer it to anyone else's account.


I bet you I (or somene like me) could make them transferable. This is where the capitalist bond market is so brilliant--they can figure the EXACT woth of something over time.

So if I give you a let's say 10% upcharge on your work--it may be worth it to me, because I can add a lot of workers using their credits together ad do something interesting with it. Such a scheme may beworth my while.

The real question here is how long after the Revolution will 1.) Capitalism insert itself into daily life and 2.) how long till Capitalism takes over again?

I have to say I, and a lot of other people out there, would be VERY interested in changing the status quo is Communism took over. Not in any mean way--but Capitalism is a lot of fun.

Capitalism's like Rock and Roll--it will never die.

[Bud Struggle]

Is this before or after Jesus returns?


The second comming of Marx and the second comming of Jesus--two good Jewish boys that just won't stay dead. :lol:

Everrybody either worships one or the other.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The second comming of Marx and the second comming of Jesus--two good Jewish boys that just won't stay dead. :lol:

Everrybody either worships one or the other.

Ever see the Simpsons episode where they fly into Russia, and the country reveals itself to be the Soviet Union? Russian flags are instantly replaced with ones bearing the hammer and sickle, the streets flip over to reveal tanks, all entertainment is drained out of the country. After someone signals the "in case of emergency" alarm, Lenin breaks out of his glass tomb muttering "Kill... capitalism."

Good episode.

[Bud Struggle]

Ever see the Simpsons episode where they fly into Russia, and the country reveals itself to be the Soviet Union? Russian flags are instantly replaced with ones bearing the hammer and sickle, the streets flip over to reveal tanks, all entertainment is drained out of the country. After someone signals the "in case of emergency" alarm, Lenin breaks out of his glass tomb muttering "Kill... capitalism."

Good episode.


Gene,

One of the little peccadillos I have with Communists is that their sense of humor for the most part vacillates from grim to dour and back again. You and Drosera99 (Dros as he calls himself these days) make up for the rest them quite nicely. True believers--but human, too.

Cheers. :lol:

[pusher robot]

No, not at all, because LVs would be non-transferable. That means that the LVs you earn - your paychecks - are tied to your name, and only you can use them to buy things. Think of them as money in a bank account, except the bank won't let you transfer it to anyone else's account.

Here's where I'm not understanding you, when you "buy" something, you must be "transferring" something of value to the seller. How could you buy anything from anybody if you were unable to pay them because your currency is nontransferrable?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Here's where I'm not understanding you, when you "buy" something, you must be "transferring" something of value to the seller. How could you buy anything from anybody if you were unable to pay them because your currency is nontransferrable?
Sorry, it was my fault for not explaining properly. The currency would be non-transferable between private individuals. However, it would be transferable between each individual and the state, or the collective, or whatever you want to call the entity that administers the means of production.

So this currency would circulate from the collective to individuals (wages) and from individuals to the collective (purchases), but not between individuals.

[Bud Struggle]

Sorry, it was my fault for not explaining properly. The currency would be non-transferable between private individuals. However, it would be transferable between each individual and the state, or the collective, or whatever you want to call the entity that administers the means of production.

So this currency would circulate from the collective to individuals (wages) and from individuals to the collective (purchases), but not between individuals.

So if I want to buy up your unused LV's at a discount and sell them to the state (with the owners authorization, of course!)--I could make a fortune.

(Don't mean to be a pest Edric--just planning for my retirement after the revolution!)

[Lynx]

When it returns to the collective is it redeemed, as in cancelled or taken out of circulation? (a comparison was made to an electronic version of food stamps)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So if I want to buy up your unused LV's at a discount and sell them to the state (with the owners authorization, of course!)--I could make a fortune.
Haha, no. LVs will not be paper money. They will be data in a computer - like the money in your bank account. And they can't be transferred from my account to yours. So how exactly are you going to "buy" them from me? How could I give them to you?

Only I can use my LVs to buy things. Now, presumably you could ask me to use my LVs to buy stuff for you, and give me something for my trouble - but that's such a hassle that I really don't see it going very far. And it would still have to depend on barter, because you can't give me money. I'd have to go buy stuff with my LVs, you'd have to go buy stuff with yours, and we would then exchange our purchases.

But then why would I agree to such an exchange unless the stuff you give me and the stuff I give you are worth the same amount of LVs? And if they are worth the same, then why am I going through all this trouble with you instead of just buying what I want for myself?


(Don't mean to be a pest Edric--just planning for my retirement after the revolution!)
Silly capitalist - don't you know that the state will provide all people with the People's Retirement? The State of Florida, I mean. That's where we'll ship all the old people after the revolution. It's like Siberia, only warm. :lol:


When it returns to the collective is it redeemed, as in cancelled or taken out of circulation? (a comparison was made to an electronic version of food stamps)
Yes, it's certainly possible to do that. But it depends on whether the collective wants to use LVs for internal accounting or not. If they are to be used for internal accounting, then they will circulate in a closed loop like money. If internal accounting will be done using something else, then LVs don't have to circulate in a closed loop, and they can be "created" when you get your wage and "destroyed" or cancelled when you use them to buy stuff.

[Bud Struggle]

Haha, no. LVs will not be paper money. They will be data in a computer - like the money in your bank account. And they can't be transferred from my account to yours. So how exactly are you going to "buy" them from me? How could I give them to you?

Only I can use my LVs to buy things. Now, presumably you could ask me to use my LVs to buy stuff for you, and give me something for my trouble - but that's such a hassle that I really don't see it going very far. And it would still have to depend on barter, because you can't give me money. I'd have to go buy stuff with my LVs, you'd have to go buy stuff with yours, and we would then exchange our purchases.

But then why would I agree to such an exchange unless the stuff you give me and the stuff I give you are worth the same amount of LVs? And if they are worth the same, then why am I going through all this trouble with you instead of just buying what I want for myself?

But if I could just find a way to make it worth your while......I'd have a business. And believe me, I'd find a way. ;)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

But if I could just find a way to make it worth your while......I'd have a business. And believe me, I'd find a way. ;)
Actually, no, you wouldn't have a business, since you wouldn't have any actual employees, or means of production, or anything.

You'd be one guy buying stuff for other people in exchange for the stuff they buy for you. I don't see anything un-socialist about that, so go ahead and have fun with it. :)

[Bud Struggle]

Actually, no, you wouldn't have a business, since you wouldn't have any actual employees, or means of production, or anything.

You'd be one guy buying stuff for other people in exchange for the stuff they buy for you. I don't see anything un-socialist about that, so go ahead and have fun with it. :)

Edric--I don't want to get you restricted--but your're my kind of Commie! :lol:

[534634634265]

how is this idea of labor vouchers greatly differing from spetznaz21's idea of a sort of dual currency system?

[danyboy27]

how is this idea of labor vouchers greatly differing from spetznaz21's idea of a sort of dual currency system?

perhaps for them its just a phase, and for me, well, its the main idea.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

how is this idea of labor vouchers greatly differing from spetznaz21's idea of a sort of dual currency system?
Well, for one thing, it's not "dual" in any way. Labour vouchers would be the only kind of currency around.

Second, as mentioned before, they would be non-transferable between private individuals.

Third, and this is really the main point, the value of an LV is tied to the value of a certain time unit of labour. Say, for example, that we take one hour as our unit. In that case you get paid 1 LV for every hour of work. And the cost of anything you want to buy is equal to the number of man-hours it took to produce. So, for instance, if it takes 3 people working 5 hours each to make a widget, then a widget costs 15 LV.

Meanwhile, spetznaz21 is just talking about the same kind of money that we use today, but he wants two kinds of it for buying two kinds of goods (survival goods vs. luxury goods). That idea has some merit, but it makes things unnecessarily complicated. Why not just provide survival goods for free, thus making the luxury currency the only currency? And then that currency can be expressed in terms of LVs, not regular money.

[bobroberts]

Now, let's imagine that me, my imaginary sister Mary Lou and my imaginary best friend Frankie are willing to put up a shop. Little grocery store in our imaginary, rather small village area. We three are keeping the wheels in the move and handling the business all alone.

Is this kind of activity permitted in your Wonder World? We don't really exploit anyone - seeing there is no one to exploit. In other words: do you think people should be free to earn their living through private enterprise in smaller scale; business of only one, two or three people were there really is no workers to exploit expect the owners themselves. Cleaning company, catering service, baking service.. you'll catch the drift.

If you are all co-owners, with no hired underlings to help you, you would probably be considered a more of a worker co-operative which doesn't really go against socialist theory in any special way (depending on which school of socialist thought you ascribe to, I suppose). I don't see any reason why your store would be repressed in any way, unless you were operating it in a way that harmed the community you were operating in (demanding special favors for products, selling expired products, etc), were especially incompetent in operating a storefront (letting things go to waste/expiring), or if there is simply no demand in the community for your store.

[Die Neue Zeit]

True, very true, but there will still be potential for the formation of some physical petty "capital", if you can even call it that. For example, if you really want to bake cookies in your kitchen oven and barter* them with other people, you'll still be able to do that. The same goes for anything that you can normally produce inside your house.

* I said "barter", not "sell", because non-transferrable, expirable labour credit is, of course, non-transferrable. You won't be able to use your paycheck to buy stuff from private individuals. So if you really want those home-baked cookies, you'll have to barter for them.

Notwithstanding this pre-feudal barter technicality (methinks it could still apply between "cookie" kids doing chores and the parents :D ), comrade, but we're in agreement. ;)


Yes, people may well use some small and relatively valuable objects as private currency on a black market, but the absence of easily transferable, government-backed money would still greatly hinder any such black market. When you can use official money on the black market, you can then take your black market profits and use them to buy goods from legal shops. But if you are forced to use your own private currency on the black market, that currency is worthless in the legal shops, so there are much fewer things you can buy with your black market profits - making the black market far less attractive.

One added benefit: no more need for law enforcement folks to worry about counterfeit currencies :D


Sorry, it was my fault for not explaining properly. The currency would be non-transferable between private individuals. However, it would be transferable between each individual and the state, or the collective, or whatever you want to call the entity that administers the means of production.

So this currency would circulate from the collective to individuals (wages) and from individuals to the collective (purchases), but not between individuals.

Also, upon exchange between the individual and the state (for the purchase of consumer goods), the labour credit would expire anyways, much like a ticket or gift card. That tendered labour credit could not be used by somebody in the state to circulate elsewhere in the economy.



TomK: Good on you to finally use your head in criticizing Marx's "socialism" using physical labour tokens (as opposed to going at State Socialisms). There would indeed be "black market" circulation of those after a while, hence the orthodox-Marxist (erroneous) acceptance of typical money.

Lynx: Good on you to bring up what I brought up regarding the "food stamps" stuff, comrade. I'm sure that Comrade Kwisatz read that same remark of mine.


Yes, it's certainly possible to do that. But it depends on whether the collective wants to use LVs for internal accounting or not. If they are to be used for internal accounting, then they will circulate in a closed loop like money. If internal accounting will be done using something else, then LVs don't have to circulate in a closed loop, and they can be "created" when you get your wage and "destroyed" or cancelled when you use them to buy stuff.

I think this is too much detail for even me to consider in terms of "edits" :p ;) :D


Third, and this is really the main point, the value of an LV is tied to the value of a certain time unit of labour. Say, for example, that we take one hour as our unit. In that case you get paid 1 LV for every hour of work. And the cost of anything you want to buy is equal to the number of man-hours it took to produce. So, for instance, if it takes 3 people working 5 hours each to make a widget, then a widget costs 15 LV.

Not necessarily, comrade. Consider income and sales taxes (even a "Fair Tax" equivalent, for those like TomK who are worried about excessive, "French-socialist" egalitarianism). Your example would only apply to tax regimes employing other tax schemes, such as census taxes (the "Bethlehem tax" and "Temple tax" :D ), and neither income nor sales taxes:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/lassalle-and-fair-t85453/index.html

[Green Dragon]

[quote=Kwisatz Haderach;1212338]Well, for one thing, it's not "dual" in any way. Labour vouchers would be the only kind of currency around.

Second, as mentioned before, they would be non-transferable between private individuals.

Third, and this is really the main point, the value of an LV is tied to the value of a certain time unit of labour. Say, for example, that we take one hour as our unit. In that case you get paid 1 LV for every hour of work. And the cost of anything you want to buy is equal to the number of man-hours it took to produce. So, for instance, if it takes 3 people working 5 hours each to make a widget, then a widget costs 15 LV.




Widgets are made of things, like say, aluminum. How is the value of the alumuninum to the widget makers measured versus the value of the aluminum to the aluminum workers and all other workers who need/want aluminum in their products? Hours worked as a measurement does not reflect a value of the work, for the hour worked.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Widgets are made of things, like say, aluminum. How is the value of the alumuninum to the widget makers measured versus the value of the aluminum to the aluminum workers and all other workers who need/want aluminum in their products?
It isn't. The value of the aluminum is the same for all, and that value is essentially equal to its production cost.

What you're really asking is how is aluminum allocated - that is to say, given that aluminum is sold at production cost, what happens if demand exceeds supply at that cost. And the answer is: A democratically elected institution decides how to allocate the aluminum between the various industries that demand it. Also, as long as demand exceeds supply, that is taken as a signal indicating that supply needs to be increased - so there will be investment in aluminum extraction.

[534634634265]

^^ so what happens when supply suddenly exceeds demand? where do the extra aluminum miners go to work? do we just stockpile aluminum until the demand grows again?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Oh, that's much easier, because there are no potentially disgruntled consumers to worry about. We just stockpile the excess aluminum in the short run while we look for ways to close off some of the aluminum plants and move some of the aluminum workers to other jobs in the long run.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Landlords, like all lords, are authoritarian. You didn't crap the land out of your backside. It predated your existence by billions of years. It belongs to everyone. Your claim of ownership of land must be met - at a bare minimum - with compensation to those with lesser-valued property and those with no land at all.

Which is why we have property taxes.


I might add the land you use was won through theft over the years, so claiming you justly own it is hilarious.


Of course I'd own it justly, since the government in power would respect my ownership. Until this force (created to ensure property rights) is done away with, it's mine. After that, it's up to me and my militia :thumbup:

[534634634265]

@Abe, you remind me of this dude i know named thayer.
anyway, even if you have physical might, that doesn't mean you "own" the land, it just means you possess enough force to keep others from claiming you don't. how do you prove ownership of the land, other than citing the states acknowledgment of your claim or using force to prevent a dissenting opinion?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

@Abe, you remind me of this dude i know named thayer.
anyway, even if you have physical might, that doesn't mean you "own" the land, it just means you possess enough force to keep others from claiming you don't. how do you prove ownership of the land, other than citing the states acknowledgment of your claim or using force to prevent a dissenting opinion?

The force I have to defend it is the only thing that matters. If Mexico somehow invades and takes over it, obviously, I wouldn't own it anymore since they would take over my property rights.

No philosophical argument on whether or not property should exist is ridiculous since none of these theses will remove either the forces which provide property rights or the property owners themselves.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Which is why we have property taxes.

Property taxes hurt the regular person, especially the elderly. LVT targets property speculators. Taxes for small business owners and home owners go down; taxes for unused land goes up. Without having to worry about more taxes, and with more spending money, people are inclined to improve their buildings. The citizen's dividend also prevents involuntary poverty and gives 95% of the country a fighting chance. Currently 10% of all businesses own 50% of all land.

Also, it would be unfair to tax workers' councils since they - unlike private firms - operate on public wants.

[534634634265]

The force I have to defend it is the only thing that matters. If Mexico somehow invades and takes over it, obviously, I wouldn't own it anymore since they would take over my property rights.

No philosophical argument on whether or not property should exist is ridiculous since none of these theses will remove either the forces which provide property rights or the property owners themselves.
so might makes right? if i put a gun to your head and say " everything in your pockets is mine" am i right? you can't justify your actions through aggression, then your just a bully.

[Baconator]

Property taxes hurt the regular person, especially the elderly. LVT targets property speculators. Taxes for small business owners and home owners go down; taxes for unused land goes up. Without having to worry about more taxes, and with more spending money, people are inclined to improve their buildings. The citizen's dividend also prevents involuntary poverty and gives 95% of the country a fighting chance. Currently 10% of all businesses own 50% of all land.

Also, it would be unfair to tax workers' councils since they - unlike private firms - operate on public wants.





Which businesses? If the concern is business entities owning too much land then it would be wise to look at some facts first. There are a total of 48,190,653 total business firms and establishments in the U.S. Roughly 50% of all land owned in the United States is government and over half of that is Federal Land , especially in the West. If then only 50% of land available is then owned by over 48,000,000 business entities then on average each entity would own only a fraction of a percentage of total available land. Yet the state ( federal and state) owns nearly 50% of all land. If the problem is business entities owning too much land then one needs not look further than the U.S. govt. You must show that the government isn't a greed based monopoly ( many facts speak to the contrary) and that somehow different moral rules apply to individuals in government as opposed to individuals outside of government. With property tax the government essentially owns almost 100% of all land and the business and private occupants that 'own' land are practically renting it. If you do not pay your property taxes the state may evict you and prosecute you. The state does not pay 'rent' to anyone. In other words , rationally examined , the state is a large mafia compared to businesses which are like shopkeepers in a neighborhood and some lobby the mafia simply because the state makes that option available.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

so might makes right? if i put a gun to your head and say " everything in your pockets is mine" am i right? you can't justify your actions through aggression, then your just a bully.

You'd get the money in my pocket, so yes, you're actions would be effective. Being right has nothing to do with anything, really. Being "right" didn't save the Native Americans, didn't save the Jews, didn't save the Palestinians, and it wouldn't save the money in my pocket.

The major difference being that the govt (ie lots of people with guns) is on my side, both in owning property and chasing down thieves.

[Baconator]

You'd get the money in my pocket, so yes, you're actions would be effective.

The major difference being that the govt (ie lots of people with guns) is on my side, both in owning property and chasing down thieves.

Of course any action with a gun is effective or else institutions of violence ( of the gun) such as the state wouldn't be so large and powerful. It doesn't make it moral and any claim that the use of force is 'right' falls flat on its face.

With armed robbery you are doing a few things automatically. First off , the assailant and victim are both human beings and do not fundamentally differ from each other in their biological existence. Thus, they are subject to the same universalities as all human beings. By holding a gun to the victims head and taking his money you are denying his right to his possessions while at the same time affirming your right to possession. With the action you are saying both that stealing is right , and rights over possessions are also right since you seek to posses. It is a contradictory propositions and can never be considered moral or right when put up to rational analysis.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Of course any action with a gun is effective or else institutions of violence (of the gun) such as the state wouldn't be so large and powerful. It doesn't make it moral and any claim that the use of force is 'right' falls flat on its face.
You're missing the point.

And the point is, if someone has the power and the desire to take your money, they will take your money, and all your moral arguments are worth jack shit because they won't change anything.

[Baconator]

Actually I'm right on target. I'm simply talking about whats right and whats wrong. This is very relevant to the world today. Institution that are corrupt through power and stolen wealth claim the right to bully people to their selfish whims. The problem is that institutions such as the state are viewed upon as virtuous.

If we saw a company executive cut back pay to his employees in order to channel that money into another project of the company and then takes a vacation a lot of us would look with disdain upon that executive, perhaps even consider him bad or even evil but certainly corrupt.

If government officials tax people which is forceful extraction of wealth claiming to want to redistribute the money into some government welfare program and then politicians take a vacation after 'hard work' then many people consider that ok because they believe that the state is virtuous.

Many people believe power = virtue and thats the only reason many people willingly or quietly allow people to steal from them.

The solution isn't resistance with violence. Violence breeds more violence. The solution is showing people rational thought.

[Baconator]

Haderech , moral arguments are very important because its what those in power use to justify their power.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Actually I'm right on target. I'm simply talking about whats right and whats wrong. This is very relevant to the world today. Institution that are corrupt through power and stolen wealth claim the right to bully people to their selfish whims. The problem is that institutions such as the state are viewed upon as virtuous.
The problem (or rather, one problem) is that institutions such as private property are viewed upon as virtuous, when they are in fact the source of most evil in the world.

But the bigger problem is that the ruling class is going to enforce these institutions whether you like them or not.


If we saw a company executive cut back pay to his employees in order to channel that money into another project of the company and then takes a vacation a lot of us would look with disdain upon that executive, perhaps even consider him bad or even evil but certainly corrupt.

If government officials tax people which is forceful extraction of wealth claiming to want to redistribute the money into some government welfare program and then politicians take a vacation after 'hard work' then many people consider that ok because they believe that the state is virtuous.
1. Taxation is not forceful extraction of wealth, at least not by the libertarian definition of "force". It is a part of the social contract, which you have a right to reject (by leaving the country). The fact that leaving the country may be difficult is no excuse - leaving a job may be difficult too, but I bet you're not going to say that employment is involuntary.

2. Property rights are illegitimate in the first place, so you don't have any kind of "right" to your wealth any more than the government does.


Many people believe power = virtue and thats the only reason many people willingly or quietly allow people to steal from them.
No you moron, most people don't care about abstract notions of the morality of social institutions, and they just try to live their lives as best they can. Most people care about being happy, and about those around them being happy.


The solution isn't resistance with violence. Violence breeds more violence. The solution is showing people rational thought.
You really are an idiot, aren't you? Political power comes from the barrel of a gun, and no one ever won freedom without bloodshed.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Haderech, moral arguments are very important because its what those in power use to justify their power.
Moral arguments are interesting and instructive, even important to me on a personal level. They are important to many people on a personal level. They are important in discussions about how to live your life.

But in the grand scheme of things, when it comes to the behaviour of whole societies, they are worthless. In the grand scheme of things people follow their material interests, moral or not, and no arguments are going to change that.

[Green Dragon]

It isn't. The value of the aluminum is the same for all, and that value is essentially equal to its production cost.


But this can't be so. In a situation where demand for aluminum outstrips supply, consumers of aluminum are going to have to make a determination based upon their own circumstances, how much they really need aluminum versus another metal, for their purposes. Value of the aluminum is not the same.



What you're really asking is how is aluminum allocated - that is to say, given that aluminum is sold at production cost, what happens if demand exceeds supply at that cost. And the answer is: A democratically elected institution decides how to allocate the aluminum between the various industries that demand it. Also, as long as demand exceeds supply, that is taken as a signal indicating that supply needs to be increased - so there will be investment in aluminum extraction.


But the democratic community still needs a rationale to make its decision. If it says that the value of aluminum is equal for all, what is its rationale to ship aluminum here rather than there?

And aluminum production is not the only economic activity (we hope) which the community engages in. What is, and what are the sources, of its "investments" which it is sending into the aluminum industry? How does the community know that it ought to be investing in aluminum production- even with an increase in demand for aluminum?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The solution isn't resistance with violence. Violence breeds more violence. The solution is showing people rational thought.

Nobody looks forward to Jesus" return more than I.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

But the democratic community still needs a rationale to make its decision. If it says that the value of aluminum is equal for all, what is its rationale to ship aluminum here rather than there?
The relative importance (to the community) of the various things that can be made with aluminum. Suppose you can use aluminum to make widgets or sprockets. The community will then have to decide what ratio of widgets to sprockets to produce. The reasons why a specific member of the community might choose widgets over sprockets (or vice versa) are many, but it is not necessary to know them.


And aluminum production is not the only economic activity (we hope) which the community engages in. What is, and what are the sources, of its "investments" which it is sending into the aluminum industry?
Investments come from savings and taxes. Same as in any economy, really.


How does the community know that it ought to be investing in aluminum production- even with an increase in demand for aluminum?
The ideal economic state is one where demand and supply are perfectly balanced for every product. Whenever they are not balanced, the community knows that it must do something to balance them. And that "something" will usually mean raising or lowering supply, since supply is decided collectively, while demand is decided individually (and is therefore much more difficult to change by policy).

So, if demand exceeds supply, the best course of action is to increase supply. This is done by investment.

[pusher robot]

The ideal economic state is one where demand and supply are perfectly balanced for every product. Whenever they are not balanced, the community knows that it must do something to balance them. And that "something" will usually mean raising or lowering supply, since supply is decided collectively, while demand is decided individually (and is therefore much more difficult to change by policy).

That doesn't even make any sense, since supply and demand curves cannot exist without prices. At price=0, supply=0 and demand=∞.



So, if demand exceeds supply, the best course of action is to increase supply. This is done by investment.
No, this is stupid. Demand will always exist so long as long as there is any marginal value to the good to consumers at all, no matter how tiny. If it is costing more in resources and labor to produce the next unit of goods than the actual benefit they receive - as it inevitably must at some point - then you are wasting resources. Some demands should not be satisfied! Your policy would have a community spend a dollar to produce a dime's worth of benefit!

What you need is a way to know where that cutoff point is. With prices, this happens automatically, because the producer will not set the price lower than the cost of production, and the consumer will not buy the goods if the price is higher than the benefit the consumer would receive.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That doesn't even make any sense, since supply and demand curves cannot exist without prices. At price=0, supply=0 and demand=∞.

If people are psychopathic enough to want to junk their houses, then maybe (infinite demand, but there is finite space for all the goods :p ). However, that is unlikely.

[pusher robot]

If people are psychopathic enough to want to junk their houses, then maybe (infinite demand, but there is finite space for all the goods :p ). However, that is unlikely.

No, silly, you just "demand" a bigger house. Duh!

[Die Neue Zeit]

Even if one had the whole planet, there is still finite space. Marginalism is BS.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

That doesn't even make any sense, since supply and demand curves cannot exist without prices. At price=0, supply=0 and demand=∞.
Right, but who said anything about price=0? This is socialism we're talking about, not communism. I said price=cost (as expressed in labour vouchers). Pay attention to the topic of discussion.


No, this is stupid. Demand will always exist so long as long as there is any marginal value to the good to consumers at all, no matter how tiny.
Demand will always exist, but it will not always exceed supply at a given price. Again, pay attention to the topic of discussion. You're talking as if I suggested giving away everything for free, which I didn't.


If it is costing more in resources and labor to produce the next unit of goods than the actual benefit they receive - as it inevitably must at some point - then you are wasting resources. Some demands should not be satisfied! Your policy would have a community spend a dollar to produce a dime's worth of benefit!
Are you even reading anything I wrote? I said that the community or some form of democratic institution should decide how to allocate resources between competing demands - if people want more sprockets and more widgets, and we don't have the resources to produce as many as people want, then we must decide by democratic means what we are going to produce with our limited resources, and we must also take steps to ensure that we will have more resources in the future.

Now, obviously, the above statement implies that yes, some demands will not be satisfied. Which part of "we must decide by democratic means what we are going to produce with our limited resources" do you not understand?

[Demogorgon]

That doesn't even make any sense, since supply and demand curves cannot exist without prices. At price=0, supply=0 and demand=∞.

No, this is stupid. Demand will always exist so long as long as there is any marginal value to the good to consumers at all, no matter how tiny. If it is costing more in resources and labor to produce the next unit of goods than the actual benefit they receive - as it inevitably must at some point - then you are wasting resources. Some demands should not be satisfied! Your policy would have a community spend a dollar to produce a dime's worth of benefit!

What you need is a way to know where that cutoff point is. With prices, this happens automatically, because the producer will not set the price lower than the cost of production, and the consumer will not buy the goods if the price is higher than the benefit the consumer would receive.
I always have a problem with this claim that demand is infinite, for the simple reason that we don't live long enough. Suppose you were told that for one day you could consume as much as you would like of anything and there were no limits on what you could have other than it is all gone come the morrow.

You might start out watching films. You could watch films all day and it would increase the total utility each time you watched one, but you would not wish to do it all day, because there is greater utility to be had elsewhere. So you might play video games for a bit, stopping when marginal utility falls enough that you would be getting greater utility elsewhere, mindful of your time limit and so on.

Change the time limit of a day to that of a lifetime and we get the same thing on a larger scale. We will stop consuming something before marginal utility falls to nothing, even if we have resources, so long as our time can be better spent obtaining greater marginal utility elsewhere and with other products.

Now, you may grant this and say that even so, it doesn't change the fact that people will still want more than there are the resources to satisfy and that is true, we need a mechanism to allocate resources fairly and efficiently. Is a free market a good option? It is so long as there is no market failure and everybody has roughly equal spending power. Know you of such a market?

[pusher robot]

Well, it is more mathematically accurate to say that at price=0 demand is undefined. It simply implies that goods will be consumed until there is absolutely no benefit to further consumption and until the market value of the good=0 (otherwise you could realize a profit by taking the good at price=0 and selling it at p=market value). This situation, one of post-scarcity, is beyond the scope of marginal economics.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, it is more mathematically accurate to say that at price=0 demand is undefined. It simply implies that goods will be consumed until there is absolutely no benefit to further consumption and until the market value of the good=0 (otherwise you could realize a profit by taking the good at price=0 and selling it at p=market value). This situation, one of post-scarcity, is beyond the scope of marginal economics.
Actually, as Demogorgon pointed out, time is as much a limiting factor to your consumption as price. Even if price=0, goods and services still come with a "time cost" - you must expend your time (a finite resource) in order to consume something. Therefore, you will not consume a good until marginal utility = 0, but rather until marginal utility is low enough that your time would be better spend on something else.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Haha! We'll never get rid of "scarcity," then! :D

P.S. - I obviously know the difference between absolute scarcity, practical scarcity, and artificial scarcity.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

We'll never get rid of the scarcity of time and space - people will never have infinite time or infinite space (this latter fact means that land will always have to be rationed).

And that's a good thing - the scarcity of time - because it means that time will always constrain people's ability to consume, so we don't have to worry about needing to satisfy infinite desires. A communist society doesn't have to produce everything people want; it just has to produce everything that people have time for.

[Green Dragon]

We'll never get rid of the scarcity of time and space - people will never have infinite time or infinite space (this latter fact means that land will always have to be rationed).

And that's a good thing - the scarcity of time - because it means that time will always constrain people's ability to consume, so we don't have to worry about needing to satisfy infinite desires. A communist society doesn't have to produce everything people want; it just has to produce everything that people have time for.



Time also constrains people's ability to produce, which is a far greater problem with which to deal. People in a communist community will have time for exactly those things which people have in a capitalist- those things which they value more than over other things. The problem the communist community faces is no different than the capitalist one- figuring out what things people value over other things.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=Kwisatz Haderach;1214329]The relative importance (to the community) of the various things that can be made with aluminum. Suppose you can use aluminum to make widgets or sprockets. The community will then have to decide what ratio of widgets to sprockets to produce. The reasons why a specific member of the community might choose widgets over sprockets (or vice versa) are many, but it is not necessary to know them.


What is needed to know is that the differing reasons for wanting sprockets or widgets is the value those consumers place upon such objects.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=Kwisatz Haderach;1214480]Right, but who said anything about price=0? This is socialism we're talking about, not communism. I said price=cost (as expressed in labour vouchers).

But since it is agreed that people have differing reasons for wanting widgets or sprockets, it must be so because people individually value widgets and sprockets differently. But since "price=cost" you need to explain how the aluminum workers, using their scarce time, choose between producing widgets and sprockets.



I said that the community or some form of democratic institution should decide how to allocate resources between competing demands - if people want more sprockets and more widgets, and we don't have the resources to produce as many as people want, then we must decide by democratic means what we are going to produce with our limited resources,

In order for the democratic process to work, people must have an argument as to why a particular course of action is the best route. It is simply not sufficient to say, we should build more sprockets, because that says nothing as to whether the costs to the community outstip the benefits of the sprockets. it doesn't even say whether the community should even be in the sprocket making business, and should simply get their sprockets from some other community. In short, the democratic process requires a source of knowledge to bas eits actins upon. Otherwise, the "democratic means" becomes totaly arbitrary, possibly capricious, and in any event does not seem a better way of determining production and allocating resources.