Can the value of labor be calculated?

[JimmyJazz]

Alright, first of all, I'm embarrassed that I've been a socialist for a year and I'm just asking this question. But how can the value of a person's labor be calculated with any precision?

If the objection to a wage-labor system is that it fails to compensate the wage-laborer for the full value of the wealth s/he creates, and a socialist society can be defined as one in which people do receive the full value of what they create by their labor, then this seems like a (perhaps "the most") crucial question to answer.

There are different kinds of labor: mental and physical, skilled and unskilled, dangerous and safe, pleasant and unpleasant (think of the odor a trash collector has to put up with, even though he is doing no more work than someone who collects cans full of rose petals), etc. You would have to take every one of these into account, I think, to be fair.

It's rather self-evident that under capitalism people are not always compensated according to the value of their labor. If they were, hardworking people would never be poor, and no one would be extraordinarily rich (Bill Gates, for instance, did not work 80,000 times as hard to build up his $40B fortune as someone whose net worth is $500,000--nor could he ever, because doing that much work is impossible). In perhaps the most obvious case of all (and this is why socialists love it), the idle factory owner is compensated purely for ownership while the factory workers are paid the value of what they produce minus {factory owner's profit/number of workers}.

But these are extreme cases. In many, perhaps the majority of employer-employee relationships, calculating the value of the employed person's labor, and hence the amount of surplus value taken by the employer, is much more difficult.

In the case of the idle profit-making factory owner, you simply cut out the capitalist and form a workers' co-op. Easy. Now everyone is compensated for the full value of their labor.

But there are at least two things that make this example different from your typical employer-employee situation. One, the capitalist is idle and does absolutely no work on his own capital. Two, the wage-earners themselves all do roughly the same kind of work and bring the same thing to the table.

Now consider a case that is different in both respects. Person X is a doctor starting up a small private practice; Person Y is a receptionist whom Person X hires to run the front desk.

Person X is the employer, and the capitalist: Person X owns the office space, the medical equipment, the office equipment, etc. But Person X also does, obviously, a ton of work as a doctor. So this is no idle capitalist. That's not to say Person Y isn't exploited; s/he probably is. Or at least the example doesn't rule it out. But is s/he necessarily exploited just because s/he is employed? Well, no. We can't say this unless we have some way of calculating what her labor is actually worth in order to make a comparison.

Secondly, let's say that the private practice is socialized because we decide that it can't be left up to the doctor to determine what the receptionist's labor is worth (a fair conclusion: the doctor's interests are directly opposed to paying the receptionist for the full value of her labor, since the doctor pockets the difference). How then do we expect to determine what the labor of Person X and Person Y, respectively, is worth? Clearly, Person X's labor is worth much more. Person X had to get nearly a decade of education; Person Y merely graduated high school or might have an AA. But beyond this, the labor of Person X and Person Y differs in almost every way imaginable: Does Person X have the more unpleasant job, because Person X has to perform colonoscopies on total strangers? Or perhaps Person Y does because the receptionist's chair gives Person Y a bad back and the doctor's clients are all very annoying? And so on.

Basically, while it's plainly obvious that a capitalist labor market fails to compensate people according to their labor in extreme cases (very rich people who simply manipulated money, very poor people who work hard every day), it's not so obvious in the vast number of middle cases. So you need a way to precisely calculate the value of labor, and I can't see a way that isn't arbitrary: arbitrarily deciding how much value a decade's worth of medical school education is worth, arbitrarily deciding how much value putting up with garbage odor is worth, etc.

I'm also curious how this was done under actual "socialist" governments (mainly the USSR, Cuba, China). Was the solution simply to get rid of all small private practice-type businesses and put all doctors to work in large hospitals? Because this is a pretty radical solution, and it's not going to win much favor among people in capitalist countries who, although they may not like that their benefits were cut, or wish they could get a little higher salary, are still overall rather happy with their receptionist jobs at small doctors' offices. And I remember reading a speech by Che Guevara where he made reference to the "new wage system" that was being introduced across Cuba and admitted that there had been "problems" with the previous wage schema. So it kind of sounds like arbitrary wage-setting is exactly what was done. That's not to say that there wasn't probably a formula, but the constants by which any variable were multiplied had to be more or less arbitrary as far as I can imagine.

I'm sure this has been discussed in previous threads as well, if anyone wants to point me to a good one I'd appreciate it. At the same time I'd like to have the discussion again.

[JimmyJazz]

Shit, I slipped up and called the receptionist a "her" one time. I tried so hard, too. :lol:

[bruce]

I'm also interested in the OP. My basic (mis)understanding of various leftist ideas has been units of measurement, in so many words.

[johny]

The vale of labor cannot be calculated objectively.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You may be interested in these:

The Scientific Status of the Labour Theory of Value (http://www.wfu.edu/~cottrell/wpc_ac/wpc_ac.html)
The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics (http://books.google.com/books?id=MvidbYEqt8gC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPR5,M1) (in particular Chapter 12, "Calculating Labour Values Empirically")

[trivas7]

You may be interested in these:

The Scientific Status of the Labour Theory of Value (http://www.wfu.edu/%7Ecottrell/wpc_ac/wpc_ac.html)
The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics (http://books.google.com/books?id=MvidbYEqt8gC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPR5,M1) (in particular Chapter 12, "Calculating Labour Values Empirically")
Is that a "yea" or "nay" re the OP?

[mikelepore]

The value of any commodity, including labor power, can never be calculated, because it's a sum of an infinite number of terms.

Also, the value of a commodity cannot be determined from the price of the commodity, because the price includes random fluctuations added to the value.

In some cases, but very few, the value can be estimated from the moving average of the price.

[trivas7]

The value of any commodity, including labor power, can never be calculated, because it's a sum of an infinite number of terms.

Also, the value of a commodity cannot be determined from the price of the commodity, because the price includes random fluctuations added to the value.

In some cases, but very few, the value can be estimated from the moving average of the price.
So much for the Labor Theory of Value.

[mikelepore]

So much for the Labor Theory of Value.

But the value of a commodity must exist, even though it can't be calculated. It must exist because when the price of a commodity fluctuates due to supply and demand, it remains a positive number at all times. If you have some function of time y(t) = f1(t) + f2(t), and one of the terms oscillates both positive and negative, say, for simplicity, if f2(t) = sin(t), and yet y never goes negative, then f1 must be some positive offset. So the relationship becomes: (price, always positive) = (value, always positive) + (oscillating wave with both positive and negative contributions). Supply and demand make prices fluctuate. The law of value determines the base line from which the price fluctuates. Marx's model solves an important problem that college economics courses fail to even mention.

[KC]

In order to exactly calculate the value of any commodity intimate knowledge of the entire economy is required, which isn't humanly possible. However, it is possible to estimate the general value given price fluctuations and the knowledge we do have.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The value of any commodity, including labor power, can never be calculated, because it's a sum of an infinite number of terms.

Also, the value of a commodity cannot be determined from the price of the commodity, because the price includes random fluctuations added to the value.

In some cases, but very few, the value can be estimated from the moving average of the price.


But the value of a commodity must exist, even though it can't be calculated. It must exist because when the price of a commodity fluctuates due to supply and demand, it remains a positive number at all times. If you have some function of time y(t) = f1(t) + f2(t), and one of the terms oscillates both positive and negative, say, for simplicity, if f2(t) = sin(t), and yet y never goes negative, then f1 must be some positive offset. So the relationship becomes: (price, always positive) = (value, always positive) + (oscillating wave with both positive and negative contributions). Supply and demand make prices fluctuate. The law of value determines the base line from which the price fluctuates. Marx's model solves an important problem that college economics courses fail to even mention.

For you and KC: The two links above show how the value of labour power *can* be calculated. Nevertheless, your starting point is valid (prices are always positive because intrinsic value is always positive).

[trivas7]

For you and KC: The two links above show how the value of labour power *can* be calculated. Nevertheless, your starting point is valid (prices are always positive because intrinsic value is always positive).
Where does the Cockshott/Cotrell essay purport to demonstrate *how* the value of labor power can be calculated? Chap.12 of the "New Value" book trots out the formula straight out of Marx: "The value of labour-power is determined by the value of the necessities of life habitually required by the average labourer." Perhaps you might need to bone up on the TSSI ("temporal single system interpretation") defense (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhvEzIsurA4&feature=channel) to the transformation problem attacked by Bortkiewicz to defend the LTV.

[mikelepore]

The two links above show how the value of labour power *can* be calculated.

The first link doesn't work for me, being redirected to a home page.

The second link, I must admit that I don't understand a lot of their mathematics, even though I have a master's degree in engineering and a 4.00, so I guess that excludes most of the working class.

[mikelepore]

Consider one little pencil. How much socially necessary labor time is embodied in making one pencil? Well, to take just one component of it, the wood was cut with a saw blade. How much labor is embodied in making a saw blade, divided by how much resulting wood? But the saw blade contains iron, which was mined. How much labor was embodied in mining that that iron, divided by how many saw blades it went into? But the mining operation required energy. How many kilowatt-hours of energy was used, divided by how many kilograms of iron ore? But producing that energy required a power plant, which has millions of parts, so repeat the above process for each of those parts. The recursion goes on forever.

But here's another approach. Roughly how much socially necessary labor time is embodied in a pencil, versus, say, an automobile? It's safe to say that the automobile contains thousands of times as much labor time as the pencil. Now, do we also find that the moving average price of the automobile is almost always found to be thousands of times the moving average of the price of the pencil? That is a fact. This correlation appears for numerous pairs of commodies that we might compare. The model doesn't get falsified until we begin selecting merchandise that isn't a fungible commodity, say, rare collectibles, or merchandise that isnt steadily reproduced, say, in startup or shutdown phases.

A problem with other economic theories is that they postulate the rules of coincidences. For example, marginal utility according to Jevons, the automobile is presumed to have thousands of times as much marginal utility as the pencil, even while this utility and its marginal derivative are largely psychological states, and states that are idiosyncratic to individual actors, which wouldn't be suitable for quantification even if a big brain did have infinite data and infinite processing power. Then, by sheer coincidence, supposedly, the manufacture of the automobile also requires thousands of times as much necessary labor time as the manufacture of the pencil. Every nanosecond there's goes another coincidence. But how many coincidences does one need before saying: jeez, I think there must be an underlying pattern here?

[trivas7]

A proper understanding of the LTV must employ Marx's idea of abstract labour, which, being an abstraction, is not quantifiable at all.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The first link doesn't work for me, being redirected to a home page.

As that site says, there's a maintenance issue occurring (this always happens with university websites). It should be back up in a short while. :)

[KC]

A proper understanding of the LTV must employ Marx's idea of abstract labour, which, being an abstraction, is not quantifiable at all.

Of course it is. This is akin to saying that Work upon two different objects by two different forces is not measurable because of that fact. Basically, this is an incredibly pitiful attempt at what you're trying to do.

[trivas7]

Of course it is. This is akin to saying that Work upon two different objects by two different forces is not measurable because of that fact.
Work activities upon two different concrete objects w/ unique material qualities embody use-value. Work activities treated as if they had no distinguishing qualities embody value -- entirely an abstraction.

[Lynx]

I'm sorry but I don't understand where the valuation of labor supposedly takes place. In the proposed socialist economy I studied, labor-time is calculated to determine price, which is then adjusted by a market clearing mechanism. Opportunity cost is used to determine where energy, resources and labor are allocated. Labor is measured in time (eg. 4 hours of labor is 'worth' twice as much as 2 hours) and is not differentiated by type of work performed.
This is the basic mechanism. If there is a shortage of specialized workers, incentives and retraining might be needed until the shortage is resolved. In case of particularly strenuous or stressful work, an adjustment may also be made, but only if deemed necessary to ease a shortage.

[trivas7]

I'm sorry but I don't understand where the valuation of labor supposedly takes place. In the proposed socialist economy I studied, labor-time is calculated to determine price, which is then adjusted by a market clearing mechanism. Opportunity cost is used to determine where energy, resources and labor are allocated. Labor is measured in time (eg. 4 hours of labor is 'worth' twice as much as 2 hours) and is not differentiated by type of work performed.

Labour-power, the concrete work activity that is sold to the capitalist can be measured in time and intensity. Materially unequal different forms of useful labour -- say, watchmaking and bedmaking -- can be treated as if they were equal to facilitate exchange. Activities involving different skills, different tools, different materials, can be treated as the same -- so that the products of different activities can be regarded as equal. People simply decide to exchange unequal things. Value appears and exists only in exchange.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aVmKaK1_gQ&feature=PlayList&p=C13B830DE8AAC344&playnext=1&index=2

[Die Neue Zeit]

You're confusing value with price, Austrian. Try looking up "notional fair market value," for instance.

[trivas7]

You're confusing value with price, Austrian.
How so, imposter?

[mikelepore]

I think abstract labor IS differentiated by the type of labor performed. The more educated labor power is a more expensive capital investment because of the higher cost of production of that labor power, that is, the cost of production of education.

What is abstract and undifferentiated is that one worker works faster or has better luck, another workers works slower or has worse luck, and these differences average out for any group.

I believe that John Keracher, in his Marxian text 'Economics for Beginners' (1935) explained it incorrectly. Keracher proposed that all *types* of labor are combined into the abstract.

"In every industry, each individual labourer, be he Peter or Paul, differs from the average labourer. These individual differences, or 'errors' as they are called in mathematics, compensate one another, and vanish, whenever a certain minimum number of workmen are employed together." -- Marx, 'Capital', Chapter 13

[trivas7]

I think abstract labor IS differentiated by the type of labor performed.
You're confusing the concrete w/ the abstract -- vide Capital Chapter 1: "Tailoring and weaving, though qualitatively different productive activities, are each a productive expenditure of human brains, nerves and muscles, and in this sense are human labour. They are but two different modes of expending human labour-power...But the value of a commodity represents human labour in the abstract, the expenditure of human labour-power in general."

[JimmyJazz]

The value of any commodity, including labor power, can never be calculated, because it's a sum of an infinite number of terms.

How does this not undercut the very idea of socialism?

[mikelepore]

How does this not undercut the very idea of socialism?

That's not even a properly formed question. What exactly is your question?

In my view, the "very idea" of socialism is that the division of people into the two owning non-working and the working non-owning classes is the single greatest cause of virtually all of society's momentous problems, and that cause, and all those undesirable effects, are preventable by establishing socialism. No economic theory at all is needed to get that far.

[ckaihatsu]

Consider one little pencil. How much socially necessary labor time is embodied in making one pencil? Well, to take just one component of it, the wood was cut with a saw blade. How much labor is embodied in making a saw blade, divided by how much resulting wood? But the saw blade contains iron, which was mined. How much labor was embodied in mining that that iron, divided by how many saw blades it went into? But the mining operation required energy. How many kilowatt-hours of energy was used, divided by how many kilograms of iron ore? But producing that energy required a power plant, which has millions of parts, so repeat the above process for each of those parts. The recursion goes on forever.


We have to differentiate between calculating value within the existing, capitalist economic framework and doing the same within a post-capitalist, labor-value-based economy.

Several posters here have wrestled with the task of taking capitalism's pricing schemes into account, through the markets, in addition to commodities' intrinsic labor value (as I outlined), or their use value or exchange value. These are all separate, distinct chains of valuing which could each be comprehensively traced back given access to correct information, and the will and effort to do so.

For any given supply chain that brings a specific pencil, for example, into being, we could certainly trace back all of the prices paid for in order to procure the saw blade, wood, iron for the saw blade, labor to mine the iron, energy to mine the iron, and the energy, materials, and labor required to construct the power plant to mine the iron, respectively. The fractional portion of money paid at each material stage that contributes to the manufacture of *one* individual pencil could also be calculated, based on prevailing prices at the moment of manufacture, including amortization and depreciation, if desired.

I'm sure this explanation will not feel satisfactory, and it shouldn't. I've only suggested taking a *snapshot* of prevailing prices for each material input, at the moment of manufacture of the pencil. But does this method of accounting reflect a sound basis of valuation, in the context of the capitalist economic framework? If it did then perhaps the valuation of *anything else* would be just as simple, and there would be no crisis of valuation / solvency, as we're seeing right now in the news. But as Marxists we know that other economic factors like the declining rate of profit, speculation, and deflation play roles in pricing, and in the real world we usually have to deal with scenarios that are more complicated than just valuing a single pencil.

If we decided to go ahead and calculate a value for the pencil we could also consider any of the other measures of value for it, besides pricing -- exchange value, use value, or labor value -- and the same process would apply. The one that would be of most relevance to us in a socialist economy would be the labor value one. The most crucial question in that context would be whether the labor value used in the supply chain would be considered * socially necessary labor time * -- contributing strictly to the reproduction of the labor force -- or not. (Incidentally, I would *not* want to have to take on any part in the responsibility of determining that variable -- it seems like it would be tricky to do, but ultimately it would be a politically determined definition.)

Mike is revealing a fatalistic streak in confusing complexity with impossibility. No one can deny that human labor is the source of *all* assets and resulting products, so as long as we have the information with which to trace back all of the material inputs that go into the production of a material item, the rest is just doing the math, as complex as it may be.

There is *no* "recursion" because the material determinism goes in straight, linear paths, converging at the production of our final item, the pencil, and the precession of causes *must* end at some point because human industrial production has a historical beginning.

[JimmyJazz]

What exactly is your question?

How can you compensate someone based on something which you cannot calculate the value of (their labor)? If you don't know what their labor is worth, how can you give them the "full value" of it?

I still consider myself a market socialist at this point, because in the absence of any better way to do it, I think you can only determine the approximate value of a person's labor by the price that the commodity they produce gets on a market. I haven't heard any way of estimating value that is simpler or more straightforward than price. Note that the existence of a consumer goods market does not necessary imply production for profit, the market could simply be used as a tool to inform central planners about demand.

It's possible that the only better way to do it is through some mathematical formulas that are beyond me, but I'd really appreciate if someone could at least try to explain these to me somewhat simply. Because I'm really doubtful that anything could be more efficient. I'm not suggesting that central planners should be slaves to the market, btw, just that it should be a tool at their disposal to aid in their planning; otherwise they are stabbing in the dark with random production quotas.

[ckaihatsu]

This following diagram is a depiction of Jack London's description of where material value comes from, and where it goes. *All* goods and services come from human effort, and that *has* to be from either (1.) labor or (2.) capital.

So, simply put, the total amount of capital investment, divided by the number of items produced will give you capital's contribution, per item, for each item. The rest of the input necessarily comes from labor, so the total labor value can be computed from the total production cost per item, minus capital's contribution.

(The dollar value of the selling price per item, above the production cost, is *all* markup, and should really be distributed back to labor and capital in the same proportion as their inputs into creating the products.)


Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

http://tinyurl.com/6bs6va


Chris





--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[mikelepore]

How can you compensate someone based on something which you cannot calculate the value of (their labor)?

It's possible for a future society to calculate the labor time embodied in all phases of making a product, but a capitalist society never does.

I was talking about the Law of Value, a law of economics that describes only how capitalism works. It refers to the value of the product. Capitalism does not compensate anyone, or even try to compensate anyone, based on the value of their product. Capitalism compensates workers based on the approximate cost of keeping those workers alive and continuously showing up at work, and without any reference at all to the values of those workers' products.


If you don't know what their labor is worth, how can you give them the "full value" of it?

IN a classless society, I believe that workers should be compensated in direct proportion to their work hours, multiplied by a coefficent that the workers' elected representatives feel represents the degree of difficulty, stress, discomfort, etc. associated with each type of work. It shouldn't be based on any concept of their products having value. It's the other way around: their products should have set prices that are estimates of the time expended in producing them.

Not all socialists agree with me about this, and, in fact, most disagree with me about it. So whether I'm right or wrong is no reflection on "the very idea of socialism."

When socialists say that workers will receive the "full value" in a socialist system, we mean that the many deductions that capitalist businesses today make, to pay for stockholder dividends, bond interest, advertising, brokerage fees, rent, sales commissions, corporate lawsuits, fighting wars over foreign markets and trade routes, cleaning up profit seekers' messes such as toxic waste dumps, the inefficiency of planned obsolescence, the inefficiency of involuntary unemployment, imprisoning people who were kept poor and therefore got arrested for stealing grocery money, etc., etc., will no longer be necessary. By eliminating all of those unnecessary deductions from society's total wealth, each worker's income will be much larger, even while the length of the workweek will be much shorter.

[mikelepore]

It's possible that the only better way to do it is through some mathematical formulas that are beyond me, but I'd really appreciate if someone could at least try to explain these to me somewhat simply.

This is my own suggestion for a better way, while other writers suggest their own: http://deleonism.org/v1.htm



Because I'm really doubtful that anything could be more efficient. I'm not suggesting that central planners should be slaves to the market, btw, just that it should be a tool at their disposal to aid in their planning; otherwise they are stabbing in the dark with random production quotas.

We were talking incomes and prices, and you suddenly jumped to the subject of production quotas. There's nothing to be gained by allowing prices to fluctuate with a market environment, because prices give a production facility no information whatsoever about how many or how much of each thing that the facility needs to make. This quota information has to be based on adding up all of the incoming orders from stores that want to replenish their stock as fast as they find the goods being sold, and in this last respect all forms of capitalism and all forms of socialism will always be the same.

[mikelepore]

Chris, you misread me in the same way that JimmyJazz did. As soon as I said "the value of a commodity" and other phrases about the Law of Value, that showed that that I was making a point about how capitalism of the past and present operates. Therefore, insofar as that particular post of mine didn't say anything useful about how a socialist society of the future could operate, of course, since I was talking about something else.

[ckaihatsu]

Chris, you misread me in the same way that JimmyJazz did. As soon as I said "the value of a commodity" and other phrases about the Law of Value, that showed that that I was making a point about how capitalism of the past and present operates. Therefore, insofar as that particular post of mine didn't say anything useful about how a socialist society of the future could operate, of course, since I was talking about something else.


Okay, Mike, thanks for the clarification.



This is my own suggestion for a better way, while other writers suggest their own: http://deleonism.org/v1.htm


So we went through * all that discussion * for nothing, while you had the solution all along -- from 2004 -- !! -- ?? -- !!


= )


Really, though, it looks fine -- basically a way to sum work-hours together, using a difficulty coefficient.... Everything else would be political.... (Got a dark urge to overthrow those CPAs yourself, there, Mike...?) : )



We were talking incomes and prices, and you suddenly jumped to the subject of production quotas. There's nothing to be gained by allowing prices to fluctuate with a market environment, because prices give a production facility no information whatsoever about how many or how much of each thing that the facility needs to make. This quota information has to be based on adding up all of the incoming orders from stores that want to replenish their stock as fast as they find the goods being sold, and in this last respect all forms of capitalism and all forms of socialism will always be the same.


Well said, Mike! It's important to disentangle need-based production orders from stores, as opposed to market-based pricing schemes, which only cater to those who have money to spend. We need to be firm on the point that "market socialism" is more market than socialism. Why keep getting, uh, jerked off by the invisible hand when we can bypass that and, um, have * real sex *, uh, * together * -- ! 8 / = )

Really, though, the abstraction of value into capitalist pricing schemes is arguably the greatest crime there is. Labor hours (times difficulty) is real, honest materialism and we shouldn't settle for anything less.

[trivas7]

Really, though, it looks fine -- basically a way to sum work-hours together, using a difficulty coefficient.... Everything else would be political....
The calculus of happiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism) is just around the corner.

[ckaihatsu]

The calculus of happiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism) is just around the corner.


Okay, everyone, then we're done here! Make sure to wear those RevLeft t-shirts openly in public (and no *****ing about the weather : ) and get as many donations of ad space as possible...! Oh, and don't forget to keep those appointments!

[synthesis]

...and a socialist society can be defined as one in which people do receive the full value of what they create by their labor...That's the crucial question, right there. That society you're describing sounds more like the anarcho-capitalist fantasyland than anything Marx described. In fact, that seems to directly contradict the fundamental socialist ideal - from each and to each and all that.

Once contribution and distribution are based on abilities and needs, respectively, then it seems ridiculous to assert that resources in a socialist society should actually be partitioned based on the labor theory of value. Right? Then the question of determining the value of labor is rendered irrelevant.

I think the point of the labor theory of value was to show that goods and services are not engendered solely by the omnipotent willpower of the bourgeois class, but in fact require a massive proletarian class so as to transform the available resources into goods worth consuming.

[ckaihatsu]

That's the crucial question, right there. That society you're describing sounds more like the anarcho-capitalist fantasyland than anything Marx described. In fact, that seems to directly contradict the fundamental socialist ideal - from each and to each and all that.


Holy shit, did the Cato Institute close down (because of the bankruptcy -- literally -- of the free market line) and all you guys are from over there?

Or, no, wait -- this is just some friendly "devil's advocate" posturing by otherwise cordial comrades, right?

Look, it takes more to formulate an argument than to just say "nay", but if you're gonna insist, I * do * still have my scalpel here to deal with this bloated corpse of an argument you've put forth....

So -- please keep the safety bar firmly in the "down" position, and *do not* stick your arms or legs outside of the ride. Here we go....

- Once *all* private claims to (inherently disproportionate) shares of ownership in the means of mass production are eliminated, labor as a whole can keep the machinery and proceeds of its labor for itself. What I'm saying is true to the extent that it's a sound formulation -- I won't go so far as to say that it exists in the actual world, because of course it doesn't, but then no one got anywhere by just leaving things as they are, right?

Okay, okay, so maybe not *every* worker would cash out the full value of what they put in, but that's because the workers' collectives would generalize some of that labor value to provide broad-based social services for everyone, like education and so on. So collectively the labor value would still be there -- it wouldn't be skimmed off by bureaucrats or expropriated by capitalists....

Oh, wait, look, here's more:



Once contribution and distribution are based on abilities and needs, respectively, then it seems ridiculous to assert that resources in a socialist society should actually be partitioned based on the labor theory of value. Right? Then the question of determining the value of labor is rendered irrelevant.


Yeah, but this is elementary. This stuff was from well before our current period of developing massive, stupefying surpluses, thanks to technology. In other words, many more people's [basic] needs are being taken care of, in the current period, * under capitalism * -- if you can believe this shit -- *despite* the massive wastefulness of the system, just because there is such a massive surplus. It's like all the crumbs from the table grew in size to the point of being life-sustaining....

Or, more ideologically, we should ask what "need" is, given society's ability to produce mind-bendingly-stratospherically large surpluses. Shouldn't *everyone* have *two* laptops now, just for the fuck of it?

And, in a socialist society, shouldn't workers take a tally and figure out how many gratuitous car chases we could have through now-abandoned shopping malls? (Etc.)



I think the point of the labor theory of value was to show that goods and services are not engendered solely by the omnipotent willpower of the bourgeois class, but in fact require a massive proletarian class so as to transform the available resources into goods worth consuming.


Right. So now you've gone one-eighty and you're back to agreeing with what I said....

[synthesis]

I was responding to the original post, not you. Methinks you might be shadowboxing - attacking something that isn't really there.


So -- please keep the safety bar firmly in the "down" position, and *do not* stick your arms or legs outside of the ride.



And, in a socialist society, shouldn't workers take a tally and figure out how many gratuitous car chases we could have through now-abandoned shopping malls? (Etc.)

What the fuck are you talking about?



Right. So now you've gone one-eighty and you're back to agreeing with what I said....

Maybe. What I'm saying is that the distribution of goods according to the labor theory of value is not an inherent tenet of socialism, which is what the original post seemed to suggest, and it is questionable whether any notable socialist actually promoted such a system - not to say that such a system should be rejected on that basis.

[ckaihatsu]

The labor theory of value is just a * measuring stick *, it's NOT a political policy.

That, right there, should clarify everything -- whatever is based on labor value remains a question mark until there's a worker-based political decision to >>> do something with it <<<.

It's *always* the political policy that counts -- that's why so much attention revolves around these %*#&! bourgeois politicians, because they control so much of society's surplus value and set the overall political direction.

Replacing bourgeois rule means that workers could finally decide what "need" is, and, given human society's now-prodigious abilities at producing surplus, we would go much further than just filling bellies. How about laser tag in low-earth orbit?

[synthesis]

I would say that it's a political point more than a political policy, if that makes any sense. I don't think the theory was ever intended to be either a measuring stick or a political policy - it's simply advancing the argument that the bourgeoisie is nothing without the proletariat.

[ckaihatsu]

I would say that it's a political point more than a political policy, if that makes any sense.


The labor theory of value has intrinsic political content, since it's revolutionary just to *talk* about it, given the current economic system we're in.



I don't think the theory was ever intended to be either a measuring stick or a political policy - it's simply advancing the argument that the bourgeoisie is nothing without the proletariat.


Yeah, we can draw several conclusions from it, as an economic axiom. You're obviously focusing more on its direct political implications. I tend to look at it in bookkeeping terms, so that the liberation of labor value would allow for a humane civilization that could collectively, willfully decide its own bountiful fate -- (political policy) -- for once, with privation for no one.

[Self-Owner]

How can you compensate someone based on something which you cannot calculate the value of (their labor)? If you don't know what their labor is worth, how can you give them the "full value" of it?

I still consider myself a market socialist at this point, because in the absence of any better way to do it, I think you can only determine the approximate value of a person's labor by the price that the commodity they produce gets on a market. I haven't heard any way of estimating value that is simpler or more straightforward than price. Note that the existence of a consumer goods market does not necessary imply production for profit, the market could simply be used as a tool to inform central planners about demand.

It's possible that the only better way to do it is through some mathematical formulas that are beyond me, but I'd really appreciate if someone could at least try to explain these to me somewhat simply. Because I'm really doubtful that anything could be more efficient. I'm not suggesting that central planners should be slaves to the market, btw, just that it should be a tool at their disposal to aid in their planning; otherwise they are stabbing in the dark with random production quotas.

Welcome to the dark side.

The questions that you ask (and the problems that they uncover for traditional Marxist theory) go even deeper than what you consider. You say "How can you compensate someone based on something which you cannot calculate the value of (their labor)? If you don't know what their labor is worth, how can you give them the "full value" of it?" but this is only part of the difficulty. The problem is not solely the epistemic one of how we can come to know/calculate the value of someone's labour, but the more profound (and I guess metaphysical) one of whether or not such a thing as that value exists in the first place. It sounds as though you're still of the impression that there is such a thing as 'the value' of a certain piece of labour, although you realize that it is hard to work out what it is. Not so - there is no such thing in the first place. That labour is worth only as much as somebody values it. And yes, once you arrive at this realization, it's hard to see how anything other than a price could do the job of quantifying and comparing the different values that people attach to things.

[Self-Owner]

Yeah, we can draw several conclusions from it, as an economic axiom. You're obviously focusing more on its direct political implications. I tend to look at it in bookkeeping terms, so that the liberation of labor value would allow for a humane civilization that could collectively, willfully decide its own bountiful fate -- (political policy) -- for once, with privation for no one.

Just out of interest, I have a question: if, as you say you are working towards, it was the case that labour value was 'liberated' (i.e. returned to its proper owner, right?) would you be happy with the inequalities that result? For a start, even under your theoretical framework (which I reject, but for the sake of argument accept), the different labours that different people perform have different socially necessary labour values. Do you embrace the inequalities that result? For example, if carpenter A makes twice as many sculptures as carpenter B in the same period of time, should he earn twice as much? Secondly and relatedly, what about those who can't work or productively contribute at all. Should they be fed? And if so, isn't this committing precisely the expropriation of labour that you have a problem with?

[ckaihatsu]

How can you compensate someone based on something which you cannot calculate the value of (their labor)? If you don't know what their labor is worth, how can you give them the "full value" of it?


We've covered this already -- in a socialist economy we could just go by labor hours (since an hour of time in your life is roughly equivalent to an hour of time in my life), with a difficulty coefficient applied (survey-derived -- we can poll to determine which jobs are considered easier, and which are harder, or maybe index it to actual participation rates).



I still consider myself a market socialist at this point, because in the absence of any better way to do it, I think you can only determine the approximate value of a person's labor by the price that the commodity they produce gets on a market. I haven't heard any way of estimating value that is simpler or more straightforward than price.


There's * nothing * straightforward about price -- with those words you may as well go intern at a right-wing think tank and become a political prop for their higher-ups on the finance food chain. As soon as you let price in the door we have to deal with liquidity, or the price of the commodity of cash -- and who sets *that* value? The Fed does, in response to the health / sickness of the capitalist economy as a whole. Now, you've slipped to the point where, if you have any shred of concern left, you're a libertarian and you're not only exploited but deluded as well while on the hamster wheel....

Why can't we avoid the slippery slope and just stick to labor >>> being the basis of all value in society <<<? This way we can link arms and tell the bean counters to go fuck themselves. See?



Note that the existence of a consumer goods market does not necessary imply production for profit, the market could simply be used as a tool to inform central planners about demand.

It's possible that the only better way to do it is through some mathematical formulas that are beyond me, but I'd really appreciate if someone could at least try to explain these to me somewhat simply. Because I'm really doubtful that anything could be more efficient. I'm not suggesting that central planners should be slaves to the market, btw, just that it should be a tool at their disposal to aid in their planning; otherwise they are stabbing in the dark with random production quotas.


Why do you imagine that demand would be so shrouded and mysterious in a socialist (planned) economy? Jesus, if we can make fucking "wishlists" on Amazon.com we can certainly figure out a system for prioritizing demand, on an individual basis, *and* keep track of what's on the shelves.

So you're ready to throw away * direct control * over the economy and let it go back to the impersonal, ineffectual mechanism of the markets?



The problem is not solely the epistemic one of how we can come to know/calculate the value of someone's labour, but the more profound (and I guess metaphysical) one of whether or not such a thing as that value exists in the first place. It sounds as though you're still of the impression that there is such a thing as 'the value' of a certain piece of labour, although you realize that it is hard to work out what it is. Not so - there is no such thing in the first place. That labour is worth only as much as somebody values it. And yes, once you arrive at this realization, it's hard to see how anything other than a price could do the job of quantifying and comparing the different values that people attach to things.


I * really * hope you're advancing your career with this bullshit, because if you're doing it for free you're wasting your life away.

Labor has value in that it's the basis for the production of goods and services, no matter what kind of economy it's being done in. Under capitalism the market value of the goods and services produced will fluctuate in price, due to the vagaries of the market system. As you've noted price can also be used as an indicator for future demand, but it's "demand" based on a select population of people who have money with which to participate, *not* human demand in general.

And, we're seeing these days that the whole thing can go blooey if the market system itself freezes up due to the inherent dynamics of declining rates of profit and deflation -- no fun for anyone.

I'm still wondering if you all are * trying * to be assholes, or if you just haven't thought this through, or what...? -- !!!



Just out of interest, I have a question: if, as you say you are working towards, it was the case that labour value was 'liberated' (i.e. returned to its proper owner, right?) would you be happy with the inequalities that result?


I, for one, would have no trouble sleeping at night. The "inequalities" you mention would simply be individual lifestyle choices, based on putting in labor for * socially needed * demand (*not* elite-money-, or market-driven), and free from duress for the basic necessities of living (food, shelter, literacy, etc.).



For a start, even under your theoretical framework (which I reject, but for the sake of argument accept), the different labours that different people perform have different socially necessary labour values. Do you embrace the inequalities that result? For example, if carpenter A makes twice as many sculptures as carpenter B in the same period of time, should he earn twice as much?


Yeah, why not -- but only given that there were pre-existing, paid orders (demand) for that supply of sculptures.

Given the equivalency of difficulty, labor hours would be equivalent. So, to use a simple example, suppose carpenter A liked the sculptures that carpenter B made, and carpenter B liked the sculptures that carpenter A made -- if they determined that their rates of work-effort were pretty much equivalent, then their respective labor hours would be equivalent as well, and they could simply keep track (possibly with some kind of official oversight -- videotaping, maybe?) of the labor hours they each put in at their craft.

You see where this is going -- they could swap sculptures that were equivalent in labor hours, or else incur credits or debits of labor hours -- which may or may not find broader demand in the larger economy.



Secondly and relatedly, what about those who can't work or productively contribute at all. Should they be fed? And if so, isn't this committing precisely the expropriation of labour that you have a problem with?


Technically speaking this wouldn't be * expropriation *, since the working class would continue to control this surplus of labor hours collectively -- we're / I'm assuming that a socialist society which just pulled off a socialist revolution against the gangsters of capitalism would be enlightened enough to construct an infrastructure of social services, pooled together from a "taxation", or -- perhaps more appropriately -- a period of mandatory time of service, not unlike the military service currently required by many major nation-states -- for the provision of these social services to society as a whole.

[trivas7]

We've covered this already -- in a socialist economy we could just go by labor hours (since an hour of time in your life is roughly equivalent to an hour of time in my life), with a difficulty coefficient applied (survey-derived -- we can poll to determine which jobs are considered easier, and which are harder, or maybe index it to actual participation rates).

You make it sound as if economic calculation w/o a price mechanism is trivial. But as Von Mises (http://mises.org/books/socialism/part2_ch11.aspx) demonstrated (in 1922), this is not possible.

[ckaihatsu]

You make it sound as if economic calculation w/o a price mechanism is trivial. But as Von Mises (http://mises.org/books/socialism/part2_ch11.aspx) demonstrated (in 1922), this is not possible.


I'm partisan to revolutionary Marxism, so I categorically disagree with the arbitrary and baseless assertions -- meaning all of them -- that come from anti-communist sources. Society can indeed be run by the working class, on a much more rational basis than is possible under capitalism -- either it happens or it doesn't.

[mikelepore]

On the subject of economic calculation, and the myths about it that were perpetuated by Professor Von Mises.

I once worked for a large company that made electronic devices. The company monitored how many seconds every type of part spent at every process step that it went through. This data was fed into a computer. Also input into the computer was the labor, materials and overhead cost of operating each separate process step in the plant for one second. I was one of the people who wrote the software. The computer used the standard methods of matrices and linear algebra to perform a simultaneous solution of equations, to solve "n equations in n unknowns". The computer printed out the exact cost of production of every part number, to a precision of one-tenth of a penny. Of course the company didn't sell the parts at their cost of production, they added an enormous profit to the price tag, but they began by computing the exact cost of production of every part number. So it would be *possible* for an economic system to set the prices of goods at their exact cost of production.

Now suppose we take that capability and add to it something else -- a policy of paying labor compensation in a much flatter way, perhaps paying the highest paid person in society about three times the hourly income of the lowest paid person in the society, something that corresponds reasonably to the fact that some jobs are leisurely and other jobs are strenuous.

If we did those things in every industry, we would now have the very thing that Mises claimed would be impossible. We would have sufficient information to produce goods without prices being allowed to float "freely" due to a competitive environment.

Now suppose we take that and add a few more easily implemented features, such as having the managers and supervisors being the elected delegates of the workers.

We would have achieved the revolutionary transformation to a classless society, which some people think is so mysterious.

Michael A. Lepore

[trivas7]

Now suppose we take that capability and add to it something else -- a policy of paying labor compensation in a much flatter way, perhaps paying the highest paid person in society about three times the hourly income of the lowest paid person in the society, something that corresponds reasonably to the fact that some jobs are leisurely and other jobs are strenuous.

If we did those things in every industry, we would now have the very thing that Mises claimed would be impossible. We would have sufficient information to produce goods without prices being allowed to float "freely" due to a competitive environment.

Now suppose we take that and add a few more easily implemented features, such as having the managers and supervisors being the elected delegates of the workers.

We would have achieved the revolutionary transformation to a classless society, which some people think is so mysterious.

Who is we and who decides? You assume a static society where industries and the political process are stagnant, an unvarying population and skill set consuming a static number of commodities. You assume that society can work like a factory and take for granted price mechanisms. But not even a Walmart can scale to an entire society. No amount of information would suffice. You've assumed all the working benefits of a capitalist system and none of its chaos, social dislocation and inherent instability. In short your 'economic socialism' is Utopia unless and until history demonstrates otherwise.

[mikelepore]

You will know what I assume when I write something like "For the following discussion, I shall assume...." Until then you can ask me, not tell me what I'm thinking.

[mikelepore]

Who is we and who decides?

Good question. I'll give you a hint in the form of a multiple choice question. Which of the following could I mean when I use the pronoun "we"?

(a) The human population
(b) The crocodiles
(c) The walruses
(d) The giraffes

[ckaihatsu]

Of course the company didn't sell the parts at their cost of production, they added an enormous profit to the price tag, but they began by computing the exact cost of every part number. So it would be *possible* for an economic system to set the prices of goods at their exact cost of production.


This *is* key, and I'd like to remind everyone that in a post-capitalist economy all assets would be collectivized -- this means that there would be *zero* debts or payments to private capital (banking), because there would be no capitalists or bankers. So the only material costs incurred would be for the maintenance of the assets, with resources, and the labor hours to do so.

Likewise, the material cost of providing resources would be only the cost of physically obtaining them -- basically labor hours and the cost of gas for vehicles for transporting the stuff.



Now suppose we take that capability and add to it something else -- a policy of paying labor compensation in a much flatter way, perhaps paying the highest paid person in society about three times the hourly income of the lowest paid person in the society, something that corresponds reasonably to the fact that some jobs are leisurely and other jobs are strenuous.


While I support the spirit of this, I have to warn that the different rates of compensation should not be imposed bureaucratically, in any arbitrary or top-down manner -- the danger with this is that it could invite the formation of black markets for certain kinds of labor which would then bring back small-group, regional claims to certain assets or areas of natural resources, thereby destabilizing the entire collectivist (socialist) arrangement altogether.



If we did those things in every industry, we would now have the very thing that Mises claimed would be impossible. We would have sufficient information to produce goods without prices being allowed to float "freely" due to a competitive environment.


There's nothing wrong with having "prices" (relative rates of compensation for various types of labor) float freely, as long as society's assets and resources were already collectivized (no private property).

While a political decision would be needed to make any labor-rates policy official, the actual rates of compensation for various types of labor would be both "market", or voluntary-based (free from duress for the basics of living), and would also implicitly (or explicitly) be political demands against the communist state.

If we accept that different types of labor have different degrees of difficulty, then we would use a coefficient, or multiplier, of some sort to better-compensate the labor hours of a more-difficult job while less-compensating the labor hours of a less-diffiicult job.

I would urge "automating" this labor hours policy as much as possible, perhaps indexing it to the rates of actual (voluntary) participation at those respective tasks. So, for example, if the job of mining was still needed for awhile before we developed better energy sources (than uranium), the public could read up on the risks of mining and make their decisions to do mining (or not), with a political demand for a certain coefficient multiplier on their labor hours, given the risk to their lives, the damage to their health, the harsh conditions in the mine, and so on.

Allowing labor hour rates to fluctuate according to the political demands of the liberated labor itself would enable the planned economy to be as tight and fluid as possible, like a well-oiled machine, so that there would be no room for anything extraneous and no opportunities for leaks or loopholes to spring up.

I'd imagine that everything to be produced should already be pre-ordered and prepaid (with existing labor hours) so as to minimize the chances for a credit / cash economy to rear its ugly head. We would want to *avoid* the possibility of labor hours becoming commodified, which could only happen if there were great disparities in the value of labor hours in one place as opposed to another place, with no central-planning mechanism to mediate this glaring fact.

Another factor that would tend to commodify labor hours would be the existence of an extraneous surplus of *anything* lying around, because it would be outside of the planned economy. There's nothing wrong with ordering and consuming what one likes, or with developing an overall surplus in society, but it should be wholly intentional, and not unintentional.



Now suppose we take that and add a few more easily implemented features, such as having the managers and supervisors being the elected delegates of the workers.


This would be a must, of course, so that any oversight roles would be perfunctory, and not allowed to solidify into bases of fixed, top-down power -- as long as managers and supervisors can be immediately recalled by the workers they administrate, at any time, then they cannot fulfill the urge to power-monger, which is an ever-present temptation given the generalized access they have to information about a number of workers' job positions and plant productivity.



Who is we and who decides? You assume a static society where industries and the political process are stagnant, an unvarying population and skill set consuming a static number of commodities. You assume that society can work like a factory and take for granted price mechanisms. But not even a Walmart can scale to an entire society. No amount of information would suffice. You've assumed all the working benefits of a capitalist system and none of its chaos, social dislocation and inherent instability. In short your 'economic socialism' is Utopia unless and until history demonstrates otherwise.


This is just being glass-half-empty. We currently are witnessing the informational infrastructure of a *world* economy at work, through the financial markets -- the only problem is that it's the * wrong * kind of economy. We, the collectively intelligent human beings on the planet, deserve much better, and we can transition to a non-commodity, planned global economy with a minimum of fuss, if we have our shit together and make it happen.

[mikelepore]

ckaihatsu, what do you mean when you say "bureaucratically" or "top-down"?

[mikelepore]

The criticism "Utopia unless and until history demonstrates otherwise" is content-free because it could be said about any social change being enacted for the first time. The first time a colony won its independence from an empire... the first time any dispute was settled by allowing the community to vote on it... the first time a written constitution forbade theocracy... the first time public schools were built.... Therefore this is no basis for criticism unless one wishes to say that nothing should ever be done for the first time.

[ckaihatsu]

ckaihatsu, what do you mean when you say "bureaucratically" or "top-down"?


The danger of *any* generalized management or administration is that it uses its privileged position to engage in puppeteering practices (for lack of a better term), "pulling the strings" behind the scenes to cause political puppets below them to play out roles the way they want them to.

An easy way to picture this is by recalling what the kings and queens (monarchs) of a past age would do at court. Society had no better way of organizing itself than to reward the victors of battle with positions of supreme power, so the ruling clan would retain its privileged, governing position by mastering the politics of intrigue, casting favor or disfavor on this or that other family's maneuvering to power within the castle.

The politics of power has changed little since then, so our job as revolutionaries is to educate, agitate, and organize the mass base to be as *self-organized* as possible, thereby precluding any parties from being able to declare themselves leaders and take advantage of divisions in the working class to consolidate its own power above it.

[trivas7]

The criticism "Utopia unless and until history demonstrates otherwise" is content-free because it could be said about any social change being enacted for the first time..... Therefore this is no basis for criticism unless one wishes to say that nothing should ever be done for the first time.
This isn't a criticism, merely a fact.

[benhur]

Just a quick question on using labor time as a measure of value. How do we apply this in cases where it's subjective? Like, a surgeon spending a few minutes to do an operation (or even saving a human life), and on the other hand, a carpenter spending weeks to produce lots of tables.

In this case, we have the carpenter providing more labor and surgeon less (in terms of time). But considering the level of difficulty, knowledge/skills required etc., surgeon has provided more value and the carpenter less.

How do we calculate value in such cases, where labor time alone wouldn't be a sufficient measure?

[ckaihatsu]

Just a quick question on using labor time as a measure of value. How do we apply this in cases where it's subjective? Like, a surgeon spending a few minutes to do an operation (or even saving a human life), and on the other hand, a carpenter spending weeks to produce lots of tables.

In this case, we have the carpenter providing more labor and surgeon less (in terms of time). But considering the level of difficulty, knowledge/skills required etc., surgeon has provided more value and the carpenter less.

How do we calculate value in such cases, where labor time alone wouldn't be a sufficient measure?


Um, there's *nothing* subjective about surgery or carpentry -- I'm just glad you didn't throw a toughie at us by asking about the labor value of philosophical pondering, or some such shit like that...!

(And please don't -- trying to dodge a bullet here...!) (Heh!) (Heh.)

Really, I think the grayest of gray areas would be in the direction of cutting-edge art and/or science -- given a certain surplus that's produced by society, how much of those resources should be thrown at research and development into, say, biogenetic engineering? Or mapping the visible universe? Or providing a landscape artist with the means to transform some bluffs into a work of art (or is that "a work of art" -- ?) -- ?

But we will conveniently ignore these questions because ultimately it would be a political decision -- there, * whew *...!

To deal with *your* scenario, I think it would be very concrete, actually -- given the years of schooling and preparation needed to produce a qualified surgeon, those labor hours -- or labor minutes -- would have a *much* higher multiplier on them than for that of a carpenter (no offense).

So maybe our table would look something like this:


OCCUPATION_______%_OF_POPULATION_______MULTIPLIER_ _____LABOR_HOURS______LABOR_CREDITS

surgeon________________2%_(guessing)__________300X ________0.25_per_minor_surgery____75_credit-hours
carpenter_______________5%_(guessing)__________1X_ (sorry)____75_per_month,_part-time____75_credit-hours


I'd like to emphasize, as I noted before, that in a planned economy, this labor could *not* be done on a strictly self-motivated basis, because if there's no actual *demand* for it in the economy then it's a hobby.

[KC]

This *is* key, and I'd like to remind everyone that in a post-capitalist economy all assets would be collectivized -- this means that there would be *zero* debts or payments to private capital (banking), because there would be no capitalists or bankers. So the only material costs incurred would be for the maintenance of the assets, with resources, and the labor hours to do so.

This is tautological. A post-capitalist society by definition requires all of these things, so it is unnecessary and tautological to repeat yourself in such a manner.



There's nothing wrong with having "prices" (relative rates of compensation for various types of labor) float freely, as long as society's assets and resources were already collectivized (no private property).

If there is no private property then there would be no prices.

[mikelepore]

The danger of *any* generalized management or administration is that it uses its privileged position to engage in puppeteering practices (for lack of a better term), "pulling the strings" behind the scenes to cause political puppets below them to play out roles the way they want them to.

Then the potential problem is undemocratic structure, right? The point I'm getting at is the problem isn't centralization of planning. There are some industrial projects that are naturally suitable to decentralized administration, such as growing grain turning it into bread. There are other industrial projects that have to be centralized, such as making the plans for telecommunications satellites and then launching them into space. Either mode, decentralized or centralized, could be democratic, or either mode could be undemocratic. So I'm disputing the popular cliche that central planning is something that gets imposed undemocratically on the people. I consider these two issues, democratic versus undemocratic, and centralized versus decentralized, to be orthogonal subjects.

In my opinion, there remains one aspect that has to be done in a way that we would likely call "top down." I don't advocate a system in which industries have to buy their tools, materials, energy, etc. and pay for them out of sales revenue, which I would consider to be a form of capitalist competition even if assemblies of workers managed it. I advocate a system in which the outputs of one industry become the inputs of another industry by direct inter-department transfer. This can only happen if all industries are departments of a single network of social planning. Much of the decision making can be local or semi-local, workshop decisions, neighborhood decisions, but all of the material allocations have to be centralized.

So shall the firefighter be paid an hourly income that's 2.4 times the income of a leisurely desk job, due to the stresses of that type of work? Whatever the answer, it has to be the same in every city. Shall the labor time price of a particular pair of shoes be twenty-five minutes? Whatever it is, it has to be the same in every city. In order to be feasible at all, these kinds of accounting terms have to centralized at least up to the national level, and I would prefer a worldwide level when that becomes possible.

I used to shudder about this or that sounding like a "top down" kind of administration, but then I realized that we have to consider what the actual question is.

[trivas7]

I used to shudder about this or that sounding like a "top down" kind of administration, but then I realized that we have to consider what the actual question is.
What do you mean by this, exactly? I assume you have been influenced by the De Leonist model of industrial organization. But we have entered an information economy and have left the Industrial Age behind us. However post-capitalist society is organized, IMO De Leonism is thinking in terms too static and industry-based. Ben Seattle, on his website (http://leninism.org/some/index.htm?ben-ad), e.g., presents an economic vision far different from the top-down centralized industrial-based economy that De Leonism envisages.

[ckaihatsu]

Then the potential problem is undemocratic structure, right? The point I'm getting at is the problem isn't centralization of planning. There are some industrial projects that are naturally suitable to decentralized administration, such as growing grain turning it into bread. There are other industrial projects that have to be centralized, such as making the plans for telecommunications satellites and then launching them into space. Either mode, decentralized or centralized, could be democratic, or either mode could be undemocratic. So I'm disputing the popular cliche that central planning is something that gets imposed undemocratically on the people. I consider these two issues, democratic versus undemocratic, and centralized versus decentralized, to be orthogonal subjects.



Q. What are the elements required for proletarian (workers') democracy?

A. Socialism is democratic or it is nothing. From the very first day of the socialist revolution, there must be the most democratic regime, a regime that will mean that, for the first time, all the tasks of running industry, society and the state will be in the hands of the majority of society, the working class. Through their democratically-elected committees (the soviets), directly elected at the workplace and subject to recall at any moment, the workers will be the masters of society not just in name but in fact. This was the position in Russia after the October revolution. Let us recall that Lenin laid down four basic conditions for a workers’ state—that is, for the transitional period between capitalism and socialism:

1. Free and democratic elections with right of recall of all officials.
2. No official must receive a higher wage than a skilled worker.
3. No standing army but the armed people.
4. Gradually, all the tasks of running the state should be carried out by the masses on a rotating basis. When everybody is a bureaucrat in turn, nobody is a bureaucrat. Or, as Lenin put it, "Any cook should be able to be prime minister."

http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/faq/elements_for_workers_democracy.asp



In my opinion, there remains one aspect that has to be done in a way that we would likely call "top down." I don't advocate a system in which industries have to buy their tools, materials, energy, etc. and pay for them out of sales revenue, which I would consider to be a form of capitalist competition even if assemblies of workers managed it. I advocate a system in which the outputs of one industry become the inputs of another industry by direct inter-department transfer. This can only happen if all industries are departments of a single network of social planning. Much of the decision making can be local or semi-local, workshop decisions, neighborhood decisions, but all of the material allocations have to be centralized.


Dig it!



So shall the firefighter be paid an hourly income that's 2.4 times the income of a leisurely desk job, due to the stresses of that type of work? Whatever the answer, it has to be the same in every city. Shall the labor time price of a particular pair of shoes be twenty-five minutes? Whatever it is, it has to be the same in every city. In order to be feasible at all, these kinds of accounting terms have to centralized at least up to the national level, and I would prefer a worldwide level when that becomes possible.

I used to shudder about this or that sounding like a "top down" kind of administration, but then I realized that we have to consider what the actual question is.


Another way of saying "top-down" is to say "by fiat".

My concern with your insistence on a leveling of labor rates across the board is that it might very well be too top-down, or bureaucratic, and miss out on the particulars of this-or-that local economy. Perhaps being a firefighter in a city is a much more demanding position than being one in the suburbs. Production of shoes at one plant may be much more efficient than the same shoes at a smaller, less advanced factory with resources spread further out.

I agree with the rest of what you're saying, but I do think that we might want to have a floating system of labor rates, *after* the world's assets have been collectivized and put under workers' control (no private property). Keep in mind that in this kind of economy all of labor's claims to certain labor rates would implicitly be political demands against the communist state, so it would play out politically anyway.

If one particular city seemed to have extraordinarily high labor rates, due to successful political demands, that might play at the local level, but when it came to larger projects that city might get passed over by central planning in favor of a group with relatively lower labor rates. (This *is* still materialism, after all...!)

The overall administration (central planning) would be bottom-up, in terms of pooling workers' political initiatives together into an overarching, societal policy.

The overall *execution* of that administration would be top-down, in terms of coordinating among the industries into a single network of social planning, by project, tapping local assets in a rational manner to effect policy.

[mikelepore]

What do you mean by this, exactly?

I mean I don't see much usefulness in such designations as top down, bottom up, centralized, and decentralized. There are some things that should be universal. When you plug any lamp into any electrical outlet, you want the prongs to fit. You can't have different sizes for every neighborhood. Some policies are better when they are universally standard. There are other issues that are best planned locally. In the community where I grew up, everyone goes to the riverfront park on a particular saturday every July and free strawberry shortcake is distributed. This local tradition might seem meaningless to other communities. I can't say in general whether I prefer global decision making or localized decision making. It depends on what the particular issue is.

[ckaihatsu]

I mean I don't see much usefulness in such designations as top down, bottom up, centralized, and decentralized. There are some things that should be universal. When you plug any lamp into any electrical outlet, you want the prongs to fit. You can't have different sizes for every neighborhood. Some policies are better when they are universally standard. There are other issues that are best planned locally. In the community where I grew up, everyone goes to the riverfront park on a particular saturday every July and free strawberry shortcake is distributed. This local tradition might seem meaningless to other communities. I can't say in general whether I prefer global decision making or localized decision making. It depends on what the particular issue is.


I appreciate this, Mike -- this is like grappling with the federalism / anti-federalism issue that the early U.S. politicians went through, and it remains a source of tension through today. Perhaps this local-vs.-generalized dichotomy will *always* be present and controversial, yet necessary.

Those things that *should* be universal in application, like standards for common materials, *can* be decided on and administrated at higher levels, while allowing local cultures and economies to remain distinct. I'd imagine that, in the absence of profit-driven competition, a socialist / communist arrangement would be *better* at facilitating this than capitalism.

Perhaps this would even be the free-marketer's unconscious wet dream, because once we've provided a blanket regulation to ensure human health and welfare without duress labor would be liberated to find its own way in an even freer, self-determined way than has yet been possible. (Just no *&$#!*%# investments and private property!!!)

The hated "global government" of the capitalist elite would be usurped, replaced with a bottom-to-top fertility of political inclusion, based on labor participation instead of on the petty dynasties that carve out permanent turf in today's politics.

[mikelepore]

Another thing that bugs me about using the phrase "top-down" as a pejorative is that top-down decisions in such crafts as architecture, electronic circuits and city planning are very helpful. For example, the best time to make the streets of Manhattan into a neat coordinate grid is before any buildings are constructed, and later place the buildings in adherence to the straight right-angle grid. In constructing a house, you always bring in the excavator, then the mason, then the framer, then the plumber, and then the electrician, in that order. Computer chips have horizontal metal rails for the power supply voltage perpendicular to the vertical rails for the ground, then everything else has to be placed around that. These are "top down" styles of planning as necessary for maximum efficiency. There are probably analogous forms of efficiency in all social planning, but we probably wouldn't recognize them if we are too fearful of top-down and centralized decisions. So I suggest that we should just say we want more democracy when we mean just that. The various other kinds of terminology, such as a supposed discrepancy between bottom-up and top-down, can causes us to veer off into a wrong direction.

[ckaihatsu]

Another thing that bugs me about using the phrase "top-down" as a pejorative


Hey, don't get your panties in a bunch -- please recall:



The overall *execution* of that administration would be top-down, in terms of coordinating among the industries into a single network of social planning, by project, tapping local assets in a rational manner to effect policy.

[TheCagedLion]

Can the value of labor be calculated?

Simple answer is, as far as i'm aware, no.

[mikelepore]

Hey, don't get your panties in a bunch -- please recall:

No mention of you appeared in my post. I expressed a point about something that has been a topic of socialist conversations for 150 years.

[ckaihatsu]

No mention of you appeared in my post. I expressed a point about something that has been a topic of socialist conversations for 150 years.


Well, I'd like to gingerly impress upon you that this isn't some superficial conversation about who's going to win American Idol -- if you have reservations about top-down and bottom-up, it's worth addressing.

At best, we might actually be resolving some factional divisions within the left -- note that anarchists are much more locale-oriented than communists are, and we should be able to realistically assure more-indigenous types that central planning is *not* synonymous with Stalinism.

At the same time we *should* continue to be concerned with overall efficiency and the use of assets and resources over broad areas, ultimately globally.

If I had delusions of grandeur I'd play Risk on acid or something, but this forum *isn't* entertainment....

[mikelepore]

The common terminology in leftist forums, which includes such buzzwords as "authority" or "authoritarian", "anti-authoritarian", "top down", "bottom up", "command economy", "centralization", etc., does not seem to me like a helpful way to characterize systems or outcomes. The axis that I find to be most illuminating goes from from minority rule, which is called oligarchy, to majority rule, which is called democracy. I take no position on such things as "authoritarian", "top down", etc., until I'm looking at particular question with a particular example.

The word "bureaucratic" illustrates my point. When most people call something bureaucratic, say, the Motor Vehicle Bureau in a U.S. state, most of the time they are talking about the appointment instead of the election of middle management, or the effects that it has. So the problem is the lack of democracy. The appointment of middle management is undemocratic. The concept "bureaucracy" only clouds the cause of the effects.

[ckaihatsu]

The common terminology in leftist forums, which includes such buzzwords as "authority" or "authoritarian", "anti-authoritarian", "top down", "bottom up", "command economy", "centralization", etc., does not seem to me like a helpful way to characterize systems or outcomes.


You realize, of course, Mike, that you've used these very terms in our prior exchanges. But I understand and appreciate that they need to be used in a context of some sort.



The axis that I find to be most illuminating goes from from minority rule, which is called oligarchy, to majority rule, which is called democracy. I take no position on such things as "authoritarian", "top down", etc., until I'm looking at particular question with a particular example.


Fair enough. And, as I recall, you have no problem basing that democracy in the workers' collective, democratic control of the means of mass production, correct?



The word "bureaucratic" illustrates my point. When most people call something bureaucratic, say, the Motor Vehicle Bureau in a U.S. state, most of the time they are talking about the appointment instead of the election of middle management, or the effects that it has. So the problem is the lack of democracy. The appointment of middle management is undemocratic. The concept "bureaucracy" only clouds the cause of the effects.


Got it. (As a side note I have no problem with the overall *structure* of the administration in question -- it could be bureaucratic -- but what counts, as you're saying, is how it is accountable to the labor force that provides the labor for its functioning, and to the larger, societal workers' democracy as a whole.)

[mikelepore]

And, as I recall, you have no problem basing that democracy in the workers' collective, democratic control of the means of mass production, correct?

Most likely, I expect, some democracy would have workers as the constituency and some democracy would have the public as a constituency. On one question, only the transportation workers of one city will vote. On another question, all people in the city will vote. On another, all medical workers in the country. On another, all people in the country. So to speak of control by "workers" needs some qualification. Jurisdictions will eventually have to be defined.

[trivas7]

Re the caculation of labour Cockshott & Cottrell's (http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/%7Ecottrell/socialism_book/) arguments might interest some of you (I will only make headway slowly through the bulk of this material due to well -- a small head :lol:).

[ckaihatsu]

Most likely, I expect, some democracy would have workers as the constituency and some democracy would have the public as a constituency. On one question, only the transportation workers of one city will vote. On another question, all people in the city will vote. On another, all medical workers in the country. On another, all people in the country. So to speak of control by "workers" needs some qualification. Jurisdictions will eventually have to be defined.


I appreciate the nested workers' democracies here, Mike, and the overall spirit of democracy you're expressing.

I'd like to express a reservation by saying that I think the *only* role the public (at large / in general) should be able to have is that of * consumers *. (The term 'consumer' in a socialist / communist economy would be anyone who consumes, of course, either from the basic general health and welfare baseline that the communist state would provide, or from their own, compensated labor hours.)

I say this because we would want to avoid arbitrary, non-material-based groups from forming and gaining political legitimacy -- really this would be the breeding ground for the formation of back-to-the-bourgeoisie cults of private property. As long as small groups remain private and dispossessed of claims to private property there would be no problem, but if they managed to gain a veneer of respectability for their independent, non-material-based political program, it would leave the door open for any mob-type / petty groupings with arbitrary, populist platforms. In a socialist / communist context these would be absolutely reactionary.

Of course those who are laboring would have their respective proportional political agency in their own factories / workplaces, and from there to broader levels through generalized representation.

All of the regular bourgeois social services we're used to, like political representation or criminal / civil justice, would take place in / through the "jurisdictions" of the worker-controlled workplaces, and *not* in any amorphous "public sphere". (Although I'll consider that there might be an overarching administration for these through the communist state, but that would be supported by the workers' collectives anyway, so it's a fine line.)

[Lynx]

Re the caculation of labour Cockshott & Cottrell's (http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/%7Ecottrell/socialism_book/) arguments might interest some of you (I will only make headway slowly through the bulk of this material due to well -- a small head :lol:).
This book has answered, for me, the question of whether the 'value' of labor can be calculated. But I don't have the technical expertise to say whether the mechanisms proposed in this book would be sufficient to function as described.

[trivas7]

This book has answered, for me, the question of whether the 'value' of labor can be calculated. But I don't have the technical expertise to say whether the mechanisms proposed in this book would be sufficient to function as described.
Indeed, there is big difference bt theory and practice as the history of socialist governments has shown. The flaw in any planned economy is the fact that you can only plan what you can control. A planned society has to be a strictly controlled society.

[JimmyJazz]

So, I just wanted to pop in and say that I haven't abandoned this thread. I lost my job, and I am trying to finish a thesis proposal within the next three weeks. I haven't been able to stay away from Revleft altogether but I also haven't had near the time it would take me to digest this whole thread.

[Eddie]

Not only is it calculable but it is calculated on a daily basis.

[ckaihatsu]

Indeed, there is big difference bt theory and practice as the history of socialist governments has shown.


There is an *enormous* difference between the historical examples of bureaucratically controlled states and our own politics that advocate the worker-controlled means of mass production. Having monstrous Stalinist regimes on the history books doesn't mean that we *have* to *copy* them -- it means that we know what to avoid.



The flaw in any planned economy is the fact that you can only plan what you can control.


This is absolutely correct. Instead of leaving our most important issues -- economic, and therefore political, ones -- to the infamous "invisible hand" of hands-off, chaos capitalism, we have the choice, as conscious human beings, to take control of the mechanisms of the economy to put them under the conscious control of labor.

If you consider this to be a "flaw" then so be it -- that's your own value judgement. I would much rather risk having flaws in one's conscious plans than to not have any plans at all.



A planned society has to be a strictly controlled society.


You've just gone from discussing economics to discussing all of society. There's a large difference between the two. I advocate a planned, worker-controlled *economy* -- that deals with the administration of material goods and services. This is *not* the same thing as a sinister bureaucracy controlled by an unelected elite, or Stalinism.

[trivas7]

You've just gone from discussing economics to discussing all of society. There's a large difference between the two. I advocate a planned, worker-controlled *economy* -- that deals with the administration of material goods and services. This is *not* the same thing as a sinister bureaucracy controlled by an unelected elite, or Stalinism.
OTC, you can't separate the two in practice. The liberation of the proletariat necessarily means the subjugation of the individual, as history has shown.

[ckaihatsu]

OTC, you can't separate the two in practice. The liberation of the proletariat necessarily means the subjugation of the individual, as history has shown.


- History has *not* given us the liberation of the proletariat so far.

- The liberation of the proletariat, as has been discussed in this thread, would also *liberate* individuals, not subjugate them.

[trivas7]

- History has *not* given us the liberation of the proletariat so far.

- The liberation of the proletariat, as has been discussed in this thread, would also *liberate* individuals, not subjugate them.
On the grounds of your first statement your second statement has no historical basis.

[ckaihatsu]

On the grounds of your first statement your second statement has no historical basis.


There's no contradiction between my first statement and the second one. The first one deals with the past, or history, and the second one deals with the future, as revolutionaries fight for (and have fought for).

History does *not* automatically determine the future -- it can certainly influence it, but it's up to us, as conscious, informed people, to make decisions as to where our political support goes in what we say and do.

[Luís Henrique]

Alright, first of all, I'm embarrassed that I've been a socialist for a year and I'm just asking this question. But how can the value of a person's labor be calculated with any precision?

It can't. Only commodities have value, and labour is not a commodity.

Labour is what makes things have value, so the question "what's the value of labour" is similar to "how long is space" or "how long does time last".

The value of a person's labour force is given by the amount of labour necessary to produce and reproduce that labour force. In that it is no different from any other commodity: the value of any commodity is given by the amount of labour necessary to produce it.

(And, as you may see, there is no sence in talking about "the amount of labour required to produce... labour". This is why labour is not a commodity.)

Also, be careful of talking about "one person's" labour. In a capitalist society, such phrase makes less and less sence, since labour is increasingly socialised (in a car built on an assembly line, how much of it was made by an individual worker?)

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

Hmmm, but how would you counter this wiki???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_(Marxism)


Some other priced goods are also treated as commodities, e.g. human labor-power, works of art and natural resources, even although they may not be produced specifically for the market, or be non-reproducible goods.




The liberation of the proletariat necessarily means the subjugation of the individual, as history has shown.

Austrian, I fully support the class-based collectivist subjugation of bourgeois, petit-proprietor, managerial, "legal systemic," lumpen, and other non-worker "individuals" (class minorities) - the collective dictatorship of the proletariat. :)

[Plagueround]

OTC, you can't separate the two in practice. The liberation of the proletariat necessarily means the subjugation of the individual, as history has shown.

I find it funny that the Austrian school and other "Troo Free market" theories use the term individual so often, when they're really meaning to say business-owner. As history has shown thus far, billions of individuals were and are subjugated under capitalism, far more than the distorted attempts at communism ever did. If the argument is that true capitalism hasn't been given a chance, perhaps you could extend the same courtesy to concepts that have also never been tried and not conflate them with anything that happened in the past.

Are you capable of talking about anything relevant to the present or future, or shall we continue to dwell on history endlessly?

[Robert]

Hey, Plague, can we turn that around a bit?

I'll admit that true capitalism has been given a chance and failed if you'll extend the same courtesy and admit that true communism has been given a chance and failed.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Primitive communism (indeed genuine) on a social scale failed after thousands of years. :p

With the advent of agriculture, the chattel-slave mode of production was just far too superior for the hunter-gatherer economic basis of primitive communism to continue. I mean, look at those monuments to slave-built ancient civilization which primitive communism and subsequent attempts to revive it on a moralistic basis couldn't come up with!

[ckaihatsu]

I'll admit that true capitalism has been given a chance and failed if you'll extend the same courtesy and admit that true communism has been given a chance and failed.


Capitalism is about the expropriation of surplus labor value and market-based transactions for exchanging the goods and services based on that stolen labor value. That's capitalism, and any petty disagreements on top of that are intramural and do *not* include the best interests of the workers -- it's *their* labor value that's on the auction block.



^^^ Primitive communism (indeed genuine) on a social scale failed after thousands of years. :p

With the advent of agriculture, the chattel-slave mode of production was just far too superior for the hunter-gatherer economic basis of primitive communism to continue. I mean, look at those monuments to slave-built ancient civilization which primitive communism and subsequent attempts to revive it on a moralistic basis couldn't come up with!


Hey, Jacob, I'd like to inquire about something here -- I've heard, from some sources, that the labor that built the Giza Pyramids (as one ancient momument) was actually fairly well treated -- that they were fed well and treated with the respect afforded to artisans. I've even heard that the entire project may have been the work of just a *segment* of the overall society, like that of a particular sect / cult. Any knowledge / comment?

[Self-Owner]

I find it funny that the Austrian school and other "Troo Free market" theories use the term individual so often, when they're really meaning to say business-owner. As history has shown thus far, billions of individuals were and are subjugated under capitalism, far more than the distorted attempts at communism ever did. If the argument is that true capitalism hasn't been given a chance, perhaps you could extend the same courtesy to concepts that have also never been tried and not conflate them with anything that happened in the past.

If the choice is really between failed communism (i.e. East Germany) and failed capitalism (i.e. West Germany), I think I'll take my chances with capitalism! And, funnily enough, so would many others - there's a reason the flow of traffic over the Berlin Wall was one way...

[Robert]

Capitalism is about the expropriation of surplus labor value and market-based transactions for exchanging the goods and services based on that stolen labor value.


Even when you're self-employed? Or you have a small business, work longer hours than your two employees, and still make only marginally more (or sometimes less) than they do? Fascinating.

In any event, compare E. Germany to W. Germany as Self-Owner did above and choose your favorite.

[Lynx]

Even when you're self-employed? Or you have a small business, work longer hours than your two employees, and still make only marginally more (or sometimes less) than they do? Fascinating.
Being self-employed does not mean you are necessarily exploiting yourself.

[Robert]

Yes, but it's still capitalism, isn't it? I realize you guys focus your ire principally on the Carnegies, Rockefellers, Rothchilds, Trumps, and Gateses, with their control of the means of production blah blah, but you still want to shut down my little doughnut shop as well as my little nut shop, or that at least will be collateral damage of the Revolution.

"Hey, commie, leave my nuts alone!"

[ckaihatsu]

Even when you're self-employed? Or you have a small business, work longer hours than your two employees, and still make only marginally more (or sometimes less) than they do? Fascinating.



Being self-employed does not mean you are necessarily exploiting yourself.


While working for a boss is no guarantee of job security, working / managing a business on behalf of capital is no guarantee of success, either -- you're in the world market, so the competition is widespread.

I would have to say that -- especially these days with low growth rates and an ultra-fluid world economy -- *all* forms of employment and small-business management are exploitative. There's a wide gap now from the bottom to the next tier up.

[Lynx]

Yes, but it's still capitalism, isn't it? I realize you guys focus your ire principally on the Carnegies, Rockefellers, Rothchilds, Trumps, and Gateses, with their control of the means of production blah blah, but you still want to shut down my little doughnut shop as well as my little nut shop, or that at least will be collateral damage of the Revolution.

"Hey, commie, leave my nuts alone!"
We wouldn't want you to profit from the fruits and nuts of other people's labour, but we would want to give you the opportunity to profit from the fruits of your own labour.

[Demogorgon]

If the choice is really between failed communism (i.e. East Germany) and failed capitalism (i.e. West Germany), I think I'll take my chances with capitalism! And, funnily enough, so would many others - there's a reason the flow of traffic over the Berlin Wall was one way...
Sure, of course taxes, welfare and Government intervention in West Germany where amongst the highest in the world and organised labour amongst the strongest and West Germany didn't just outdo East Germany, it outdid most capitalist countries too. You certainly can't say that West German success is an argument for ultra-free market politics.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Hey, Jacob, I'd like to inquire about something here -- I've heard, from some sources, that the labor that built the Giza Pyramids (as one ancient momument) was actually fairly well treated -- that they were fed well and treated with the respect afforded to artisans. I've even heard that the entire project may have been the work of just a *segment* of the overall society, like that of a particular sect / cult. Any knowledge / comment?

Yeah, I know about the pyramidal projects *NOT* being built by slaves (utilized elsewhere, like the home economy), contrary to Hollywood shit (gotta love the Discovery Channel :D ). The idea here was that your contribution to the pyramid construction was a barter form of TAXATION (waits for Austrian chirping :lol:). If I recall correctly, the Egyptians didn't have any currency at all, and gold was just treated as something special for their temples, jewellery, etc.

[In fact, the bureaucracy tasked with overseeing the project actually outnumbered the actual builders!]

The Great Wall of China and other monuments, on the other hand... was living testament to the flaws of primitive communism (namely its inability to advance the productive forces, PERHAPS subject to the possible exception that you mentioned, but the Egyptians still cracked against Greece and Rome :p ).

[ckaihatsu]

Yup, and yup. Thanks, Jacob!

[Robert]

You certainly can't say that West German success is an argument for ultra-free market politics.

That's what you understand our argument to be?

[Plagueround]

Hey, Plague, can we turn that around a bit?

I'll admit that true capitalism has been given a chance and failed if you'll extend the same courtesy and admit that true communism has been given a chance and failed.

How does one reconcile that idea with the truth of the matter, since all previous attempts failed to follow some of the most basic principles of the theory (Or were stopped by fascists with bigger guns)? That's like attempting to get to the moon in a paper rocket and then deciding "Well, I guess space travel will never work, the rockets keep lighting all our astronauts (or cosmonauts) on fire".

[Plagueround]

If the choice is really between failed communism (i.e. East Germany) and failed capitalism (i.e. West Germany), I think I'll take my chances with capitalism! And, funnily enough, so would many others - there's a reason the flow of traffic over the Berlin Wall was one way...

I do not know how you would read what I said and immediately start ranting about historical comparisons of two countries, as if it is relevant to anything I am talking about. I've taken care to reply to OIers according to the ideology they are promoting and not lump all of you together, perhaps you could do the same.

On a side note, last I heard many East Germans were missing the hell out of their deformed worker's state.

[Demogorgon]

That's what you understand our argument to be?
It is certainly what I understand Self-Owner's argument to be. His political philosophy holds that the actual social market policies of West Germany are no better than East German economic policies.

[Robert]

His political philosophy holds that the actual social market policies of West Germany are no better than East German economic policies.

I didn't read it that way at all, but he can clarify.

In any event, if you believe the reverse, in what sense are you a communist? (Since you are neither Libertarian, Anarchist, or Capitalist.)

[Demogorgon]

I didn't read it that way at all, but he can clarify.

In any event, if you believe the reverse, in what sense are you a communist? (Since you are neither Libertarian, Anarchist, or Capitalist.)
I'm a Communist, of the non-anarchist variety. I'm not sure I want to get too bogged down into what sect I belong to, but I am very much in the traditional Marxist vein.

[Robert]

I'm not sure I want to get too bogged down into what sect I belong to

Very well, then, get a little bogged down. How does the revolution start? Will it take a violent coup, or are you going to oh-so-gradually infiltrate organs of government?

If the latter, will you be candid with the voters and tell them where you really want to end up?

And do the Windsors meet the same fate as the Romanovs?

[Demogorgon]

Very well, then, get a little bogged down. How does the revolution start? Will it take a violent coup, or are you going to oh-so-gradually infiltrate organs of government?

If the latter, will you be candid with the voters and tell them where you really want to end up?

And do the Windsors meet the same fate as the Romanovs?
Nobody knows how future change will come about. The only accurate prediction I can make is that those who try and make predictions will be made fools of by events. All we can do is push for change and hope things go as peacefully as possible.

[Robert]

All we can do is push for change and hope things go as peacefully as possible.

Come on, Demo, you can do a lot better than that. Shall we take up arms, or shall we run for office and push for reform, and shall we tell the voters that we (you) are a Communist in the traditional Marxist vein? If not you, then who?

Hey, come to think of it, what's the diff between you and LSD and other reformists here?

[Demogorgon]

Come on, Demo, you can do a lot better than that. Shall we take up arms, or shall we run for office and push for reform, and shall we tell the voters that we (you) are a Communist in the traditional Marxist vein? If not you, then who?

Hey, come to think of it, what's the diff between you and LSD and other reformists here?
I simply don't know how change will come about. But seeing as you feel that is a cop out, I will indulge in some speculation, though don't misconstrue any of this as a confident prediction or indeed something that would work the world over.

I do not think change can come through the ballot box as there are too many institutions of power that are not elected. Indeed a goal for a future society should be perhaps that no position of power should be more than one degree removed from the electorate. That is, anyone with authority should either be directly elected and recallable, or in lesser cases chosen by somebody who is directly elected. I mean this broadly incidentally. Not just for institutions of Government, a big problem with capitalism of course is that you normally can't elect your boss, and the biggest bosses wield a lot of power indeed.

That brings us back to the question of change at the ballot box, something I just am not confident in. First of all it is very difficult to achieve due to the status quo dominating the media, party funding, and crucially drawing up the electoral system. It is fairly easy in elections held under proportional representation to get radicals elected, but in places like America and Britain where less fair systems are used, there is a huge institutional impediment to new voices getting elected.

Suppose though we do get Communists or whatever elected. What would happen next is interesting. There would be an enormous clash between the new occupiers of the democratic power and the holders on unelected power and the latter will be the favourite to win, either through simple coup d'etat (Salvador Allande) or simply frustrate attempts to bring about change and lead to very little actually changing. This can happen even to soft left Governments. There is a very famous politician in Britain called Tony Benn who became a radical only after several years in the Cabinet (he was previously pretty much a centrist by the standards of the day) when he realised that elected officials have very little power and that corporate interests can basically get what they want from the Government given sufficient bullying.

At any rate, does this mean that we shouldn't compete in elections? Hardly. In particular where elections are held by Proportional Representation it is downright criminal not to compete owing to how effective a platform Parliament can be. Radicals make very little impact in parliament and there is the very real danger it will tame them, but it does grant media coverage and that is vital.

Anyway to go back to the prospect of actually winning an election, that could actually bring about change if the conditions were right. Were the clash between the elected and unelected institutions to galvanise the people, it could lead to sufficient pressure to bring about the downfall of the unelected institutions of power.

That won't work everywhere (or maybe even anywhere) of course. In the United States for instance, elections are simply too unfair to allow for this and there are dictatorships where out and out rebellion is likely needed.

At any rate though, I very much doubt that there will be any "glorious charges against machine guns" or anything of the like. I don't see "the masses" storming the White House or anything like that. I see Revolution as likely being a drawn out affair with certain points where things move faster of course. Even if there were to be a sudden change in government, brought about through violence, the process of actually bringing about the meaningful change of dismantling capitalism will likely take years.

As for what differentiates me from the reformists. I don't think that capitalism can simply be tamed, I don't think that a simple electoral victory can bring about necessary change and I think a complete change in society (a complete turnover indeed, a revolution) is necessary.

I have answered as best as I possibly can, so if you feel I still haven't answered your question, you will have to ask me very specific questions to get me to elaborate further, I just don't think I can make myself any more clear speaking in general terms.

[Robert]

Okay, a few more specific questions, and thank you for your candor so far:


I think a complete change in society (a complete turnover indeed, a revolution) is necessary.


but


Nobody knows how future change will come about.

I can't tell if you only mean only that "Nobody knows how future change will come about" or if you mean "nobody knows what the changed world will look like." If the latter, don't you think you should leave well enough alone until you do? You sound like you want to break up an imperfect machine in hopes that a better one will probably take its place.


In particular where elections are held by Proportional Representation it is downright criminal not to compete owing to how effective a platform Parliament can be.I don't understand elections to ever be "held by proportional representation," unless you mean something like the American electoral college. Don't you have one man, one vote in the UK?


I think a complete change in society (a complete turnover indeed, a revolution) is necessary.

As is your right. Problem is, I don't think so. More people think my way than your way. Now what? Do you respect the majority's opinion?

Finally, would you ever run for elective office? (I wouldn't.) If so, why should I vote for you? Assume I am your average voter making right at the median income in your district. What do you say to me to get my vote?

[Plagueround]

As is your right. Problem is, I don't think so. More people think my way than your way. Now what? Do you respect the majority's opinion?


Very few people are happy with the status quo and most want society to transform into something different. The difference is what they want and how they get there. To simply say "more people agree with you" (especially when the ideas I've seen you put forth seems to be waning) is somewhat dishonest.

[Robert]

To simply say "more people agree with you" (especially when the ideas I've seen you put forth seems to be waning) is somewhat dishonest.In the first place, I'm aware that people want change. What they don't want (as I don't want it) is the "fundamental change in society" the description of which Demo, at least, seems reluctant to spell out. That's what I mean by "most agree with me."

Plague, be honest, does the continual election and re-election of social democrats, and the increasing marginalization of socialists in the USA, tell you nothing about what people really want?

Not even the Dennis Kuciniches and Ralph Naders can make any headway among the voters, never mind the Socialist Labor Party and the Communist Party USA. What am I supposed to think the electorate "really wants"?

Please don't tell me the left's failure to get traction results from a conspiracy by the corporate media to suppress their voices. Ralph Nader (I know, I know, he's just a reformist) has been all over the media, even (especially?) Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/politics/ralph-nader.htm. Ditto CBS and NBC.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/search/videos_2006.php?num=10&searchString=nader&sort=1&source=cbsvideos&type=all&x=1&y=1

PBS? Please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64UsHZXr71M

Nader is by far the most informed, articulate, and intelligent spokesman for reform in the country. "The people" think he's a dangerous clown. You think Brian Moore would do any better if the media gave him unlimited air time? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Moore_(politician)

As for my ideas waning, I plead guilty. You and Demo wear me out.

[IcarusAngel]

Where is your evidence that a majority of people believe Ralph Nader is a "dangerous clown"? Especially considering the fact that most of his movements and reforms - the ones that have been enacted - have been supported by the American public, such as in auto safety.

A majority of Americans are also pro-environment, pro-Universal Health Care, and over 70% think corporations have "too much power."

[Plagueround]

In the first place, I'm aware that people want change. What they don't want (as I don't want it) is the "fundamental change in society" the description of which Demo, at least, seems reluctant to spell out. That's what I mean by "most agree with me."

Plague, be honest, does the continual election and re-election of social democrats, and the increasing marginalization of socialists in the USA, tell you nothing about what people really want?

Considering how many people vote for these people because they consider them the "lesser of two evils" and not because it's what they want, I'd say yes. "What people want" cannot be simplified into a political party or a vote. Look at how many people vote solely on one social issue with no interest in economics (and vice versa).


Not even the Dennis Kuciniches and Ralph Naders can make any headway among the voters, never mind the Socialist Labor Party and the Communist Party USA. What am I supposed to think the electorate "really wants"?What they want and what they actually get are quite different things. I suppose in that regard, since right now what they want is stability and a break from corporations and lenders strangling the shit out of them, we will have to wait and see.


Please don't tell me the left's failure to get traction results from a conspiracy by the corporate media to suppress their voices. Ralph Nader (I know, I know, he's just a reformist) has been all over the media, even (especially?) Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/politics/ralph-nader.htm. Ditto CBS and NBC.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/search/videos_2006.php?num=10&searchString=nader&sort=1&source=cbsvideos&type=all&x=1&y=1

PBS? Please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64UsHZXr71M

Nader is by far the most informed, articulate, and intelligent spokesman for reform in the country.First, I'd thank you for not putting words in my mouth since I didn't suggest such a thing. I do think that media tends to favor candidates and marginalize others, but it isn't a conspiracy, it's simply reporting what sells. Nader and others don't have the backing to run big time campaigns, most people I spoke to didn't even know what he was up to this time around, and it isn't what they're interested in. This does not mean that the big time parties are right and what people truly want, it means they've done the best job of obtaining the leverage (capital and such) necessary to be the big time candidates.


"The people" think he's a dangerous clown. You think Brian Moore would do any better if the media gave him unlimited air time? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Moore_(politician (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Moore_%28politician))You don't want to know what I think of Brian Moore. It contains a lot of harsh expletives and might offend people with mental handicaps. As for Nader, well, he picked a bad time to run. He drew enough interest to where he could have broken the 2 party system a bit, but it backfired when people accused him of blocking Gore's win. I've certainly never heard him described as a dangerous clown.


As for my ideas waning, I plead guilty. You and Demo wear me out.Yeah, I'll likely make good on my pledge to not post in the OI anymore. I get tired of repeating myself to people that truly have no interest in our politics.

[Demogorgon]

I can't tell if you only mean only that "Nobody knows how future change will come about" or if you mean "nobody knows what the changed world will look like." If the latter, don't you think you should leave well enough alone until you do? You sound like you want to break up an imperfect machine in hopes that a better one will probably take its place. Well nobody has a crystal ball, but in the case where change is coming, there are pretty good clues as to what will happen from the policies of those driving for change. If the drive for change is being driven by theocrats or fascists or whatever, then there is pretty good reason to oppose them. If it is being done by progressives however, there is reason to be supportive and to try to be part of the change in order to bring it in the right direction.

I accept of course that nobody is going to go along with our demands for revolutionary change if we don't offer some solid and realistic policies as to what we are going to do. The onus is on us to come up with them.


I don't understand elections to ever be "held by proportional representation," unless you mean something like the American electoral college. Don't you have one man, one vote in the UK?Proportional Representation is the system where parties are awarded seats in Parliament or Congress (or whatever body they are running for) on the basis of the number of votes they receive. It is used in every Western Country besides America, Canada, Britain and France (with Britain and France still holding some elections by Proportional Representation and Canada likely to change).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation


As is your right. Problem is, I don't think so. More people think my way than your way. Now what? Do you respect the majority's opinion?Well it hardly matters whether I do or not, does it? If the majority doesn't agree with me, change won;t come about. My job is to try and convince others.


Finally, would you ever run for elective office? (I wouldn't.) If so, why should I vote for you? Assume I am your average voter making right at the median income in your district. What do you say to me to get my vote?People as a rule aren't overjoyed with the current system. The average person has large amounts of debt, often lacks the income to have proper financial security, is taxed in a manner that favours the wealthy and sees their taxes mostly squandered on the wealthy (don't believe the crap about it going on welfare incidentally, so called "corporate welfare" makes up a far larger proportion of any Government's budget). They see problems with crime and gradually come to realise that macho "law and order" policies are doing nothing to solve this. They understand that the environment is straining under capitalism's abuses and that if something is not done then the outcome will be disastrous and so on.

We, as leftists, need to address this. We need to explain that these problems are not caused by immigrants/gays/terrorists/the poor (pick your scapegoat), target the real culprits and offer solid policies for dealing with the problems.

[Zurdito]

I can't tell if you only mean only that "Nobody knows how future change will come about" or if you mean "nobody knows what the changed world will look like." If the latter, don't you think you should leave well enough alone until you do? You sound like you want to break up an imperfect machine in hopes that a better one will probably take its place.



This argument would invalidate any significant forward step taken in history, surely?

In any case, my answer is that the current system is a dictatorship of private proeprty, and I fight for society to be able to manage the world's economy in a manner they see fit for their own benefit: which can only be acheived via commonly owned property, created by a conscious revolution byt he masses tobring about this situation, a revolution which in itself - i.e. via the very process of a revolution - prepares society for what comes afterwards.

This is a very simple fight for genuine democracy and a society controlled by the many. No fighter for democracy in history was able to set out perfectly which policies the new society must impose. The point is that by taking control of the means of production with the conscious aim of liberating themselves, the working class will be able to run society for its own needs - however it chooses to do so - and as a result, me, you, and our grandchildren, will be free in a way we are not today.

Therefore I argue for this revolution today amongst the working class. I do not think it is necessarry at this stage to perfectly set out a plan for a future which we cannot even know the circumstances of. All I knwo is that the future must be decided by the majority and not the ruling classes, and this means revolution.

[Robert]

Proportional Representation is the system where parties are awarded seats in Parliament or Congress (or whatever body they are running for) on the basis of the number of votes they receive.

Oh, right. I always wondered how those obscure little parties managed to win seats in the German Bundestag. That does seem fairer than making their supporters choose between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum, as we do here, in a run off election.

If this is what folks mean when they talk about the unfairness of the American system, I see their point, though I never heard it spelled out here. I suppose that as many Libertarians as Greens might be seated in Congress if we had proportional representation, which would make for a wash. No communists or socialists would ever get more than 1 or 2%, I bet, and so if we had that minimum 5% rule like the Germans, they'd never get seated and we'd be back to the same "Republicrat" system we've also had over here.

Demo, thanks to you and Zurdito for elaborating. Your respect for the majority was less obvious than you realize, as so many communists here seem to advocate revolution for society's own good.

[Feslin]

Value is subjective, and as such all prices (including labor prices) should be agreed upon by the parties involved.

[Feslin]

Oh, right. I always wondered how those obscure little parties managed to win seats in the German Bundestag. That does seem fairer than making their supporters choose between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum, as we do here, in a run off election.

Think about what it means. Votes are done by party, never by individual.

[KC]

Value is subjective, and as such all prices (including labor prices) should be agreed upon by the parties involved.

Oh, ok. Thanks for clarifying.

[trivas7]

Oh, ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Time is valuable. Who say that labour is not payed its full value? Let us imagine a steam engine that requires five years of labor to produce, and has final price of $5,500. Suppose that one worker labors for five consecutive years to produce one suce engine. How much is that worker due? The obvious answer is $5,500, i.e., the full value of his product. But notice that the worker can only be paid his *full* amount if he is willing to wait the full five years.

B/c present goods are more valuable than future goods, it follows that one-fifth of a machine to be delivered in four years is worth less than one-fifth of a present steam engine. Therefore, the worker cannot be paid $1,100 for his first year of labor, if he insists on payment up front rather than waiting until the engine is completed and sold. If we assume a rate of interest of 5 percent, the worker will be paid roughly $1,000 for his first year of labor.

Bohm-Bawerk: "The complete just proposition that the worker is to receive the entire value of his product can be reasonably interpreted to mean either that he is to receive the full present value of his product now or that he is to get the entire future value in the future. But Rodbertus and the socialists interpret it to mean that the worker is to receive the entire future value of his product now."

[KC]

Why should I respond to you? You're a troll. Whenever I address your pathetic criticisms you don't respond. I've already responded to Böhm-Bawerk's crap; Hilferding demolished his weak attempts at criticism.

[RGacky3]

Time is valuable. Who say that labour is not payed its full value? Let us imagine a steam engine that requires five years of labor to produce, and has final price of $5,500. Suppose that one worker labors for five consecutive years to produce one suce engine. How much is that worker due? The obvious answer is $5,500, i.e., the full value of his product. But notice that the worker can only be paid his *full* amount if he is willing to wait the full five years.

B/c present goods are more valuable than future goods, it follows that one-fifth of a machine to be delivered in four years is worth less than one-fifth of a present steam engine. Therefore, the worker cannot be paid $1,100 for his first year of labor, if he insists on payment up front rather than waiting until the engine is completed and sold. If we assume a rate of interest of 5 percent, the worker will be paid roughly $1,000 for his first year of labor.

Bohm-Bawerk: "The complete just proposition that the worker is to receive the entire value of his product can be reasonably interpreted to mean either that he is to receive the full present value of his product now or that he is to get the entire future value in the future. But Rodbertus and the socialists interpret it to mean that the worker is to receive the entire future value of his product now."

First of all dollar amounts are not how communists value labor, in a communist society dollar amounts arn't what will value labor, what will value it is the usege of it, how the labor benefits the concerned parties, and really you don't need to put a number value or a percentage value.

Take a group camping, some have to help put up a tent, some have to help build the fire, others might have to prepare the food, and so on. Are some of their's labor more valuble than others? Its really impossible to say, because they are all needed, now maybe the group might agree that the guy who put up the tent had to work harder or whatever so they might give him first dibs at dinner, but thats niether here nore there really.

Trying to justify Capitalisms "reinbursement" (a very flawed term) in the terms of value is laughable, really value is irrelivent because the people who set this value are the ones with the money, they are the judge and jury when if comes to peoples value, labors value and everything elses value, and that value, today, is based on dollar amounts.

So really niether system is based on "value," they are based on Economic tyrranny (Capitalism) vrs Free Cooperation (Communism).

[trivas7]

First of all dollar amounts are not how communists value labor, in a communist society dollar amounts arn't what will value labor, what will value it is the usege of it, how the labor benefits the concerned parties, and really you don't need to put a number value or a percentage value.

Are you arguing that time doesn't valorize a commodity under capitalism? I'm not concerned re the socialist dream-time.

[RGacky3]

Are you arguing that time doesn't valorize a commodity under capitalism?

I'ma arguing what I wrote, value has nothing to do with time or whatever under Capitalism, value infact is'nt an issue, especially when it comes to labor, what is an issue is what the Capitalists think they can get out of something for hte least amount of money. Value does'nt even come into it.

Trivas, why not actaully respond to mine and others points?

[trivas7]

I'ma arguing what I wrote, value has nothing to do with time or whatever under Capitalism
No, you're wrong re this, Marx was right. Capitalism is all about the regimentation of time.

[RGacky3]

Trivias, instead of just saying I'm wrong, respond to my post, I'll repeat.


Trying to justify Capitalisms "reinbursement" (a very flawed term) in the terms of value is laughable, really value is irrelivent because the people who set this value are the ones with the money, they are the judge and jury when if comes to peoples value, labors value and everything elses value, and that value, today, is based on dollar amounts.

[trivas7]

Trying to justify Capitalisms "reinbursement" (a very flawed term) in the terms of value is laughable, really value is irrelivent because the people who set this value are the ones with the money, they are the judge and jury when if comes to peoples value, labors value and everything elses value, and that value, today, is based on dollar amounts.



Trivias, instead of just saying I'm wrong, respond to my post, I'll repeat.
Well, if you insist: OTC, each individual values for him/herself.

[RGacky3]

Well, if you insist: OTC, each individual values for him/herself.

??? How does that answer my question, it does'nt.

[JimmyJazz]

OK, I've digested this whole thread and I'm not going to reply to every little bit of it. No silver bullets like I suppose I was hoping for, but a lot of interesting stuff.


Then the potential problem is undemocratic structure, right? The point I'm getting at is the problem isn't centralization of planning. There are some industrial projects that are naturally suitable to decentralized administration, such as growing grain turning it into bread. There are other industrial projects that have to be centralized, such as making the plans for telecommunications satellites and then launching them into space. Either mode, decentralized or centralized, could be democratic, or either mode could be undemocratic. So I'm disputing the popular cliche that central planning is something that gets imposed undemocratically on the people. I consider these two issues, democratic versus undemocratic, and centralized versus decentralized, to be orthogonal subjects.

I wouldn't say orthogonal, but I agree that a fetish can be made of decentralization. There's nothing "undemocratic" about coordinating society's resources at a high level when this is necessary to achieve a common goal (launch a satellite or whatever).


Just a quick question on using labor time as a measure of value. How do we apply this in cases where it's subjective? Like, a surgeon spending a few minutes to do an operation (or even saving a human life), and on the other hand, a carpenter spending weeks to produce lots of tables.

In this case, we have the carpenter providing more labor and surgeon less (in terms of time). But considering the level of difficulty, knowledge/skills required etc., surgeon has provided more value and the carpenter less.

How do we calculate value in such cases, where labor time alone wouldn't be a sufficient measure?

As others have said, it's pretty straightforward to factor in education time as labor time. Of course, it would be tricky to know how much education time to factor in to each hour of labor time unless you knew how long the person was going to work as a surgeon. But that's hardly insurmountable.

The problem for me comes in something related but different: what about on-the-job education? Carpenters get a lot better at their trade over time just by virtue of doing it. The value of their labor thus increases over the span of their career--but by how much? This isn't easy to calculate.


It can't. Only commodities have value, and labour is not a commodity.

Labour is what makes things have value, so the question "what's the value of labour" is similar to "how long is space" or "how long does time last".

Thanks.

[ckaihatsu]

As others have said, it's pretty straightforward to factor in education time as labor time. Of course, it would be tricky to know how much education time to factor in to each hour of labor time unless you knew how long the person was going to work as a surgeon. But that's hardly insurmountable.

The problem for me comes in something related but different: what about on-the-job education? Carpenters get a lot better at their trade over time just by virtue of doing it. The value of their labor thus increases over the span of their career--but by how much? This isn't easy to calculate.


In many public sector and/or unionized vocations there is a tiered system of compensation set up that steps-up, or rewards, higher education achieved and career seniority.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=RGacky3;1337764]First of all dollar amounts are not how communists value labor, in a communist society dollar amounts arn't what will value labor, what will value it is the usege of it, how the labor benefits the concerned parties, and really you don't need to put a number value or a percentage value.


The communist society will have to figure out a way to measue the value of labor to the community at large.



Take a group camping, some have to help put up a tent, some have to help build the fire, others might have to prepare the food, and so on. Are some of their's labor more valuble than others? Its really impossible to say, because they are all needed, now maybe the group might agree that the guy who put up the tent had to work harder or whatever so they might give him first dibs at dinner, but thats niether here nore there really.


Right. Because there exists a system which the campers use to determine the work needed to be done and measure value of the work. Will everyone set the tent, then everyone gather wood for the fire, and everyone light the fire, ect?



Trying to justify Capitalisms "reinbursement" (a very flawed term) in the terms of value is laughable, really value is irrelivent because the people who set this value are the ones with the money, they are the judge and jury when if comes to peoples value, labors value and everything elses value, and that value, today, is based on dollar amounts.


No, "dollar amounts" merely measure value. They are not value in and of itself.

The people who set the value of a product are of course the consumers of that product, since there is no particular reason to produce anything which is not valued by them.

[ckaihatsu]

The communist society will have to figure out a way to measue the value of labor to the community at large.


The abstraction of value into numerical form is only one way of defining value -- in smaller, informal groups people who hang out over longer periods of time may just keep track of favors (labor, money) from a gut-level feeling, without the need for formality. Future favors can be negotiated based on current status and past performance.

Even on a society-wide basis I would argue for a more descriptive approach to material accounting in a communist economy -- more like invoices rather than ledger columns. And, overall, the matching up of supply, to human needs, can be made as basic as a shopping list -- the task of shopping itself requires labor but the value of the shopping labor *isn't* pro-rated onto each item on the shopping list. The value of the shopping labor is accounted for in more informal ways, in a household context.

Likewise, we could have a communist economy that simply provides goods and services for people's individual and household shopping lists -- this process can be stepped back in the same way, all the way back up the supply chain, always noting the inputs of labor time along the way.

As long as we can keep track of and compensate for labor time and effort -- and dispatch political decision-making -- then the rest will take care of itself because all assets and resources will be under collectivized (communist) ownership.

I recently made a one-page diagram to illustrate the most basic, fundamental components in a communist economy:


communist economy diagram

http://tinyurl.com/bom9ca





No, "dollar amounts" merely measure value. They are not value in and of itself.


To be technically accurate, dollar amounts *are* value in and of itself, because of the labor performed in the past (combined with capital-based assets and resources) to create those dollar amounts, but, again, to be technical, the amounts are subject to the fluctuations in value of the dollar medium (commodity) itself, detaching it from reflecting *only* the labor + capital inputs.





The people who set the value of a product are of course the consumers of that product, since there is no particular reason to produce anything which is not valued by them.


This is too simplistic -- the capitalist economy is much more complex than this, including the well-known inflated prices for hot investments that rise in price due to massive bubbles of speculative capital.

[Green Dragon]

The abstraction of value into numerical form is only one way of defining value -- in smaller, informal groups people who hang out over longer periods of time may just keep track of favors (labor, money) from a gut-level feeling, without the need for formality. Future favors can be negotiated based on current status and past performance.


As long as everyone has more or less the same "gut-level feeling." If they don't, then there is a problem. In any event, we are not talking about "smaller, informal groups" but a community or society at large. Such similiar "gut-level feeling" would seem to require an incredible about of uniformity to acheive.



Even on a society-wide basis I would argue for a more descriptive approach to material accounting in a communist economy -- more like invoices rather than ledger columns. And, overall, the matching up of supply, to human needs, can be made as basic as a shopping list -- the task of shopping itself requires labor but the value of the shopping labor *isn't* pro-rated onto each item on the shopping list. The value of the shopping labor is accounted for in more informal ways, in a household context.


Well, no, because those items on on the supermarket shelves would have been on somebody else's "shopping list" (the store), which in turn require items that need to be on somebody else's list ect ect. Systems will still need to be in place to justify why and how the "shopping list" is filled.



Likewise, we could have a communist economy that simply provides goods and services for people's individual and household shopping lists -- this process can be stepped back in the same way, all the way back up the supply chain, always noting the inputs of labor time along the way.


Except what is being forgotten is the choices on the list.


As long as we can keep track of and compensate for labor time and effort

Its not just keeping track, its also demonstrating that its methods are better. But I have found that socialists seem to think critiquing capitalism is all that they need to do make their case for socialism...


-- and dispatch political decision-making

Good luck with that. Since socialism demands "democratic" accountability in production and distribution, it naturally means politicking will be the norm in production and distribution in the socialist community.










This is too simplistic -- the capitalist economy is much more complex than this, including the well-known inflated prices for hot investments that rise in price due to massive bubbles of speculative capital.


Yes, consumer demand...

[RGacky3]

No, "dollar amounts" merely measure value. They are not value in and of itself.

The people who set the value of a product are of course the consumers of that product, since there is no particular reason to produce anything which is not valued by them.

Power, first of all, the "consumers" are much more than just "consumers" they are grossly unequal, some consumers have a lot more money than others, and those consumers use their money as a source of power, generally also being part of the Capitalist class, remember, everyone is a consumer, so its flawed to look at producers and consumers as 2 different groups. So ultimately what gives something value, is not overall demand, its the dollar demand, what gets the most profit. The dollar demand is based on getting money out of people, either out of a few rich people, or a lot of poor people, but ultimately yhe rich have the last word, because they have all the "votes" in the democracy we call Capitalism.


Right. Because there exists a system which the campers use to determine the work needed to be done and measure value of the work. Will everyone set the tent, then everyone gather wood for the fire, and everyone light the fire, ect?

Yeah, the system is general consensus, i.e. Anarchism, whats your point? Did you get mine?


Well, if you insist: OTC, each individual values for him/herself. ??? How does that answer my question, it does'nt.

I'm still waiting Trivias ...

[Green Dragon]

[quote=RGacky3;1373977]Power, first of all, the "consumers" are much more than just "consumers" they are grossly unequal, some consumers have a lot more money than others,

It doesn't matter. Not all people are consumers of the same products, at the same time, in the same amounts ect.


everyone is a consumer, so its flawed to look at producers and consumers as 2 different groups.

Not really. The consumer wants his needs or wants satisfied. The producer needs to figure the best way to do so. There is no guarantee that either will find success.


So ultimately what gives something value, is not overall demand, its the dollar demand, what gets the most profit.

Can't make a profit without demand. Profit is a mean for determining whether the production of that good makes any sense.



The dollar demand is based on getting money out of people, either out of a few rich people, or a lot of poor people, but ultimately yhe rich have the last word, because they have all the "votes" in the democracy we call Capitalism.


For the producer, its about getting as much in return as possible for its product. For the consumer, its about getting that product by giving UP as little as possible. And both parties are both.
What has yet to be explained is why it is better for the consumer to give up more than what is needed to get that product.



Yeah, the system is general consensus, i.e. Anarchism, whats your point? Did you get mine?


Yes. You organising principle is to "wing it." Unfortunately, such childishness belongs in a high school or college classroom.

[RGacky3]

Not really. The consumer wants his needs or wants satisfied. The producer needs to figure the best way to do so. There is no guarantee that either will find success.


The producer is ALSO the consumer, he consumes for himself and for his industry.


For the producer, its about getting as much in return as possible for its product. For the consumer, its about getting that product by giving UP as little as possible. And both parties are both.
What has yet to be explained is why it is better for the consumer to give up more than what is needed to get that product.

You ignored my point, my point is


The dollar demand is based on getting money out of people, either out of a few rich people, or a lot of poor people, but ultimately yhe rich have the last word, because they have all the "votes" in the democracy we call Capitalism.

Not all consumers are made equal. Which means taht some people will get almost nothing giving up a lot, whereas others will give up relatively little and gain a lot, because Capitalism, is grosslly one sided, on the side of the rich.

Please address my actual points.


Yes. You organising principle is to "wing it."

No, my organizing principle is mutual aid and rational informed rational democratic decision making, your organizing principle is essencailly authoritarian based, I say authoritarian because its organized based on profit, dollar amounts, so the people with the most cash are always in control.

[Dejavu]

Can love be quantified?

Can you say you love this person 89.7 'love points' more than this other person?

When you say you love something it is a statement of value. When you say you like or prefer something, it is a statement of value. Value only comes into play when these things are compared to something else.

I don't see how its not nonsensical to think that there is any 'objective value' like the LTV implies.

[ckaihatsu]

Its not just keeping track, its also demonstrating that its methods are better. But I have found that socialists seem to think critiquing capitalism is all that they need to do make their case for socialism...


The methods of a socialist / communist economy, run by workers' collectives over entirely collectivized property (assets and resources), would be much more equitable than capitalism's profit-extracting system of economics. Profit expropriates (labor) value into the hands of those who already own capital, away from those who don't own capital.





Good luck with that. Since socialism demands "democratic" accountability in production and distribution, it naturally means politicking will be the norm in production and distribution in the socialist community.


Politicking is a function of people making careers out of representing the moneyed interests of those with capital investments. In a socialist / communist economy there would be no moneyed interests, so there would be no careers based on representing the interests of a private-property-based ruling class.

With workers owning *all* the means of mass production there would be no middleman to interfere in the production process. Just as an artist, on a small scale, controls the machinery and products of their artistic effort, our entire society can be shaped the same way, without letting in outside private ownership -- collectivized property means that all politics are undertaken by the producers themselves, with other producers, over machinery that would otherwise just be lying there unused. (And if things go unused it's not a big deal, either -- after all, things are meant to serve people, not the other way around.)

Consumer demand -- now detached from ownership of private property (cash) -- would become entirely political. Instead of one dollar = one vote it would be one voice = one vote. Not enough production of wheat for a given city or town? That could make the headlines, with a general call for more resources, and possibly labor, to shift to farm production of wheat.

In this way, value under collectivized production would be almost entirely *qualitative*, not quantitative. Why bother with numerical conversions when they wouldn't even help the situation? What would matter is if there was outstanding political demand for certain goods and services, or not.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=RGacky3;1374185]The producer is ALSO the consumer, he consumes for himself and for his industry.


An automobile producer produces autos. It also consumes metal, labor, energy ect.

But as a producer, he is trying to get as much as possible for the car from consumers of automobiles.
As a consumer, he is trying to get the metal, labor, energy, for as little as posible, from producers of metal, energy ect.






Not all consumers are made equal.

It doesn't matter. The consumer of bandages is still trying to consume bandages in the same manner as the consumer of yachts. And the producers of bandages and yachts are also producing bandages and yachts the same way.





No, my organizing principle is mutual aid and rational informed rational democratic decision making,

It is not enough to say that "my organising principle" is "mutual aid" and "rational democratic..." You have to demonstrate it.

[Green Dragon]

Politicking is a function of people making careers out of representing the moneyed interests of those with capital investments. In a socialist / communist economy there would be no moneyed interests, so there would be no careers based on representing the interests of a private-property-based ruling class.

With workers owning *all* the means of mass production there would be no middleman to interfere in the production process. Just as an artist, on a small scale, controls the machinery and products of their artistic effort, our entire society can be shaped the same way, without letting in outside private ownership -- collectivized property means that all politics are undertaken by the producers themselves, with other producers, over machinery that would otherwise just be lying there unused. (And if things go unused it's not a big deal, either -- after all, things are meant to serve people, not the other way around.)


Well. Unless your democratic principles of your socialist community require unanimity in action, that community is going to deal with the existence of minorities who do not agree with the course of action. But such unanimity is a fantasy (or to be found in a Stalinist community, which revleftrs hereabout would abhor and thus can be dismissed).
So the reality is that there is no such thing as "worker owned" factory in a socialist community. Rather the functioning reality is "majority worker owned" factory.
At this point we are to believe that that majority will not take steps to ensure that it remains in the majority (since it believes its course of actions is correct). I think we can safely dissmiss tat notion.
In other words, your "moneyed" interests, are the majority who will politick to keep their view on the best course of action in the driver seat.


Consumer demand -- now detached from ownership of private property (cash) -- would become entirely political. Instead of one dollar = one vote it would be one voice = one vote. Not enough production of wheat for a given city or town? That could make the headlines, with a general call for more resources, and possibly labor, to shift to farm production of wheat.

Yep. But it would be an incomplete headline. It would also have to conclude what production line needs to have its resources cut in order to shift to increase wheat production. It would need a sound basis to explain why the course of action would be best.

[ZeroNowhere]

The value of a person's labour? What relevance does the 'value of a person's labour' have to the LTV (or VTL, as some like to call it)?

[RGacky3]

But as a producer, he is trying to get as much as possible for the car from consumers of automobiles.
As a consumer, he is trying to get the metal, labor, energy, for as little as posible, from producers of metal, energy ect.


Yeah, but like I said, everyone is a consumer when in comes down to it, when he's done with work, he still consumes, him and his family.


It doesn't matter. The consumer of bandages is still trying to consume bandages in the same manner as the consumer of yachts. And the producers of bandages and yachts are also producing bandages and yachts the same way.


Oh yes it does matter, because if you cannot afford something, under Capitalism you get very little consideration, if you can afford a lot, you get a lot of consideration. No ones arguing the nature of consumption and production under Capitalism, what we are saying is that the unequal distribution of wealth turns Capitalism into what ultimately is an economic tyranny, and Capitalism always widens the distribution of wealth.


It is not enough to say that "my organising principle" is "mutual aid" and "rational democratic..." You have to demonstrate it.

Yeah, why don't you read a little bit about what "mutual aid" and "democracy" means and then come back. How would you answer someone who believed in monarchy who asked you to demonstrate how democracy works.


Well. Unless your democratic principles of your socialist community require unanimity in action, that community is going to deal with the existence of minorities who do not agree with the course of action. But such unanimity is a fantasy

Why does it require unamity? All it requires is those who are involved to choose a coarse of action, its called democracy and it works, infact its easier than democracy because it only involves those who are involved and directly effected.


So the reality is that there is no such thing as "worker owned" factory in a socialist community. Rather the functioning reality is "majority worker owned" factory.
At this point we are to believe that that majority will not take steps to ensure that it remains in the majority (since it believes its course of actions is correct). I think we can safely dissmiss tat notion.


These are the SAME arguments people like Plato and the such had against democracy, were they correct? Nope, see Anarchist Spain. Your also assuming that some how a non democratic economy i.e. a tyrannical one, would somehow be preferable to a democratic one where there MIGHT be a chance of majority rule (although theres no evidence this would happen).


In other words, your "moneyed" interests, are the majority who will politick to keep their view on the best course of action in the driver seat.


If there is no private property, there is no money, if there is no State there is no politics.

Ultimately the argument comes down to this, democracy vrs dictatorship, and the Capitalists believe that somehow dictatorships work better for everyone.

[Dejavu]

If there is no private property, there is no money, if there is no State there is no politics.

:confused:

Do you mind explaining this with syllogism or somehow in more detail?

[Dejavu]

Ultimately the argument comes down to this, democracy vrs dictatorship, and the Capitalists believe that somehow dictatorships work better for everyone.

Modern Capitalists prefer democracy to dictatorship. Most of the countries that have had dictators were socialist-communist . The countries where capitalists are entrenched are typical democracies.

I probably agree with you in principle though. 'Capitalism' ( in its free enterprise meaning) is incompatible , in the long run, with political democracy.

[RGacky3]

Modern Capitalists prefer democracy to dictatorship. Most of the countries that have had dictators were socialist-communist . The countries where capitalists are entrenched are typical democracies.

I probably agree with you in principle though. 'Capitalism' ( in its free enterprise meaning) is incompatible , in the long run, with political democracy.

That may be the case (although it changes based on the circumstances), however my point was that Capitalism is the economic equivalent of a dictatorhsip, and the arguments against Socialism are really arguments against democracy, if you look at your apst arguments I can apply them to political democracy just as easily.


Do you mind explaining this with syllogism or somehow in more detail?

If there is no Private property, there is no reason to have an abstract value system, like money, because things will not be bought and sold in the traditional capitalist sense, production and consumption would be naturally more toward a what is needed, what is useful/productive and what is available type.

Without the State, meaning without innate authority, (or unconsentual authority), there are no politics, because no one is fighting over authority.

[Dejavu]

That may be the case (although it changes based on the circumstances), however my point was that Capitalism is the economic equivalent of a dictatorhsip, and the arguments against Socialism are really arguments against democracy, if you look at your apst arguments I can apply them to political democracy just as easily.

I don't understand 'economic equivalent to dictatorship.' Compared to what?


If there is no Private property, there is no reason to have an abstract value system, like money, because things will not be bought and sold in the traditional capitalist sense, production and consumption would be naturally more toward a what is needed, what is useful/productive and what is available type.

Without the State, meaning without innate authority, (or unconsentual authority), there are no politics, because no one is fighting over authority.I would think without property rights that nothing can be legitimately traded between individuals or any group smaller than the whole of society. If the alternative was communal ownership, then everything would have to be voted on by everyone alive since technically no person can legitimately claim proprietary rights of trade.

If no one owns anything then its even more confusing. I don't see how they can even legitimately consume any resources , even for survival.

I agree with your state definition.

[RGacky3]

I don't understand 'economic equivalent to dictatorship.' Compared to what?


Capitalism is a system of essencially a few unaccountable desicion makers who make desicions effecting many many others who have no say but the vast majority of whome are accountable to the few desicion makers, essencially economic form of dictatorship. Compared to SOcialism (Libertarian Socialism) where its democratic.


If the alternative was communal ownership, then everything would have to be voted on by everyone alive since technically no person can legitimately claim proprietary rights of trade.


No, because that would'nt be practical, what would be practical as a consensus with those who are directly involved and who might directly be effected enough to care. See Anarchist Spain as to how this actually would work, its not so hard.


If no one owns anything then its even more confusing. I don't see how they can even legitimately consume any resources , even for survival.

I'm sorry but life does'nt follow philosophy, it follows practical common sense, like I said, if you look at it from a practical common sense point of view, its obvious that only the people who would be directly effected by the consumption of resources would care, and if they are, essencailly some consensus would have to happen.

But if your claiming that some people would object to resources being consumed because technically no one owns anything, then I don't know what to tell you.

Again, See Anarchist Spain, its not that hard.

[ckaihatsu]

Well. Unless your democratic principles of your socialist community require unanimity in action, that community is going to deal with the existence of minorities who do not agree with the course of action. But such unanimity is a fantasy (or to be found in a Stalinist community, which revleftrs hereabout would abhor and thus can be dismissed).


If I can take "community" to mean *production facility* then we have a solid, material basis with which to work -- many leftists are situated in non-industrial / workplace environments for their day-to-day activities, and this becomes their point of reference for discussing revolutionary politics, unfortunately. The point of a socialist revolution is for the world's working class to collectively control the means of *mass* production -- meaning major industries and factories.

With major factories as our basis for discussion we can talk about *how* these people-made assets and resources are utilized by those who have the greatest interest in them -- workers and consumers.

Like a personal computer's processor cycles or the bandwidth of an Internet connection we have the resource of already-built factories and a ticking clock. While I certainly appreciate the significance of majority and minority splits over certain decisions I'd like to re-focus the context to being one of * resource allocation *. I can't predict what kind of factional disagreements there might be over collectivized resources but we might find that they could be resolved through *scheduling*, or sharing, over calendar time -- or they might *not* be resolved this way, in some instances.

I recently touched upon this issue in a recent post on a thread about centralization -- here's a pertinent excerpt, with a recommendation to see the fuller discussion at the thread:





- central planning (party-led) -- An anti-capitalist revolutionary sentiment blooms all over the world within a short period of time. Declaring that the emperor has no clothes the people find themselves with the task of societal self-management on their hands. Existing revolutionary parties publish their platforms and economic policies and vie for mass popular acceptance against other, similar revolutionary parties. A groundswell is gradually perceived to be behind a particular revolutionary party that seems more responsive and astute than the others. The party takes the reins of the existing economic and political infrastructure as a whole and formulates new policy for the administration thereof. Society's politics re-orient to backing one policy faction or another within the party, with other parties floating around nearby in hopes of opportunities to take power with their own platforms.

Many people are stunned by the transformation in society, as it seems more able-bodied and rosy-cheeked than just the other day, while many localities are disgruntled that everything now revolves around the party, while they can't seem to get a hearing for their particular local demands.

[...]

So, in short, you're saying that * unanimity * is impossible, right? But would it be possible to re-construct an economic network of production and distribution from the bottom up based on workers' ownership of the means of mass production? This *isn't* to say that *existing*, capitalism-based patterns of productivity must be carried over





So the reality is that there is no such thing as "worker owned" factory in a socialist community. Rather the functioning reality is "majority worker owned" factory.
At this point we are to believe that that majority will not take steps to ensure that it remains in the majority (since it believes its course of actions is correct). I think we can safely dissmiss tat notion.
In other words, your "moneyed" interests, are the majority who will politick to keep their view on the best course of action in the driver seat.


I guess this would depend mostly on how comprehensive the policy packages are -- another way of putting it is to ask what *scale* of decision-making is taking place, from local to global. As you can see in the excerpt above I can imagine a political structuring based on overall party platforms, with sponsored policy packages that might very well extend to *all* of the steel production, for example, for an entire region, or continent.

Given a post-capitalist economy I tend to think that more of the politics of that time would not revolve around *existing* assets and resources, but more around proposed, *future* construction projects, because more planning and mobilization would have to be involved. Also given that politics would be an inclusive part of everyone's everyday life I think there would be widespread discussions over the public usage of all assets and resources, with policy factions clustering around all issues, at all facilities, on all levels, concerning all current and proposed future projects. If you insist on calling it "politicking" then it would be "politicking" by everyone, accessible to everyone, and ratified by the actual workers who would be working on the actual production involved (in most cases).





Yep. But it would be an incomplete headline. It would also have to conclude what production line needs to have its resources cut in order to shift to increase wheat production. It would need a sound basis to explain why the course of action would be best.


Well, this particular scenario you're invoking is rather pessimistic -- realistically a post-capitalist economy would be *much* more automated and bountiful -- thereby requiring *much less* human labor and resources -- than as things stand today. Please also note that I was using "headlines" as an illustrative aid -- in practice the news reports and common political discussions would most likely look more like the format here at RevLeft.

[Green Dragon]

Oh yes it does matter, because if you cannot afford something, under Capitalism you get very little consideration, if you can afford a lot, you get a lot of consideration.

And why would this be different in a socialist system? Because everyone can get whatever they want, whenever they want it?
No? Then you have to explain how goods are allocated. Democratically? That says nothing, democracy simply describes the process of action. Hopefully there is information backing the decision.
What kind of information is being used?









Why does it require unamity? All it requires is those who are involved to choose a coarse of action, its called democracy and it works, infact its easier than democracy because it only involves those who are involved and directly effected.


It doesn't obviously. But since it does not, its a farce to say all those "involved choose a course of action..." A course of action in a democracy is not set by all those involved, it is set by the MAJORITY of those involved.
So in your socialist firm, its not the workers deciding a course of action, its the majority of workers deciding the course of action.







If there is no private property, there is no money, if there is no State there is no politics.


The socialist firms are to be controled by the majority of the workers. They are the majority because they have been able to convince the majority of their fellow workers that the course of action they propose is best for the firm and all the workers laboring there.
By definition, the minority of the workers dissagree with the proposals of the majority. At that point they can of course leave their job, put up with what they see as the nonsense. Or they can agitate to either change the proposals, blunt its (as what they see) negative proposals.
And now we get into issues of individuality and specialisation, and understand that there are people who are better speakers, better writers, better organisers ect ect ect, who will be deployed by that minority to affect change.
It is simply without any foundation to say politics will end in a socialist community. It will be far greater.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=ckaihatsu;1375396]If I can take "community" to mean *production facility*

One of the problems OIers in dealing with revlefters, is that the revlefters have so many differnent understandings of their own terminologies. By all means, if that is how you understand "community" go right ahead and we will use that. Its your theory, after all.



then we have a solid, material basis with which to work -- many leftists are situated in non-industrial / workplace environments for their day-to-day activities, and this becomes their point of reference for discussing revolutionary politics, unfortunately. The point of a socialist revolution is for the world's working class to collectively control the means of *mass* production -- meaning major industries and factories.


Perhaps. But the problem you are having with other leftists in this regard could also be chalked up as a result of the constant misunderstanding of capitalism by socialists.




Like a personal computer's processor cycles or the bandwidth of an Internet connection we have the resource of already-built factories and a ticking clock. While I certainly appreciate the significance of majority and minority splits over certain decisions I'd like to re-focus the context to being one of * resource allocation *. I can't predict what kind of factional disagreements there might be over collectivized resources but we might find that they could be resolved through *scheduling*, or sharing, over calendar time -- or they might *not* be resolved this way, in some instances.


Unless you wish to argue a "stagnant" community, you cannot simply rest upon the laurels of capitalism.
"Scheduling" or "sharing" still requires explanations as to the nature of sharing and scheduling in overall society.











Given a post-capitalist economy I tend to think that more of the politics of that time would not revolve around *existing* assets and resources,

Doubtful. Since people still need to eat today, wear clothes today ect. and since these decisions are being decided by the majority on a daily basis, that is where the focus will be of discussion- the here and now, not tomorrow.


Well, this particular scenario you're invoking is rather pessimistic -- realistically a post-capitalist economy would be *much* more automated and bountiful -- thereby requiring *much less* human labor and resources -- than as things stand today.


It doesn't matter if the resources diverted are fewer. The problem is still the same.
If you need more wheat, it has to come from somehere. What is the land being used for right now? Can't use it for the same purpose if wheat is planted. What are the farmers doing right now? They can't be doing that if they are working in the wheat fields.
Automation does not solve the problem. True, it can make the problem less severe in respects to wheat production. But it simply shifts the problem to the level of the machine, since it means the machines being deployed for the increased wheat production cannot be used on production elsewhere for other products.

[Green Dragon]

No, because that would'nt be practical, what would be practical as a consensus with those who are directly involved and who might directly be effected enough to care.

I care greatly about the production of energy, food, clothing, pens, paper, gasoline, vacum cleaning bags, ect ect. I would imaging most people have a great deal of concern with all things in a modern community.

But how practical is it for everyone to go running around to every ballpoint pen factory, to every electrical substation, the lecture the workers therein what they need to do? Are not those workers the ones supposed deciding the course of action they take for their respective firms?

[ckaihatsu]

One of the problems OIers in dealing with revlefters, is that the revlefters have so many differnent understandings of their own terminologies. By all means, if that is how you understand "community" go right ahead and we will use that. Its your theory, after all.


[...]


Perhaps. But the problem you are having with other leftists in this regard could also be chalked up as a result of the constant misunderstanding of capitalism by socialists.


In *any* discussion, of *any* type -- but most particularly political ones, because of the magnitude of the issues involved -- it is *crucial* to define the terms being used. Meanings can also shift depending on the perspectives of the people involved and the context of the discussion topics.

I'm glad that you're open to discussing these terms with some common basis of understanding.





Unless you wish to argue a "stagnant" community, you cannot simply rest upon the laurels of capitalism.

"Scheduling" or "sharing" still requires explanations as to the nature of sharing and scheduling in overall society.


Absolutely. You're pointing out the variables, or unknowns -- at this point we can only extrapolate to the *probabilities* and *possibilities*, given the basic economic and political environment of a post-capitalist economy / society that would be worth fighting for.





Doubtful. Since people still need to eat today, wear clothes today ect. and since these decisions are being decided by the majority on a daily basis, that is where the focus will be of discussion- the here and now, not tomorrow.


Well, we can certainly talk about the here-and-now, which seems to be the time-frame that you're more concerned with.

It's a trade-off, of course, because while efforts are needed today, the more effort we put into the here-and-now means less long-term goal-setting and organizing for the once-and-for-all overthrow of capitalism so that there *are no more* crises of the present.

So in what proportions do we bail water and in what proportions do we build a dam (if you will)?





It doesn't matter if the resources diverted are fewer. The problem is still the same.
If you need more wheat, it has to come from somehere. What is the land being used for right now? Can't use it for the same purpose if wheat is planted. What are the farmers doing right now? They can't be doing that if they are working in the wheat fields.
Automation does not solve the problem. True, it can make the problem less severe in respects to wheat production. But it simply shifts the problem to the level of the machine, since it means the machines being deployed for the increased wheat production cannot be used on production elsewhere for other products.


I hope you won't mind my pointing out that you're somewhat contradicting yourself here -- does automation help to alleviate the effort required for farming, or not? If automation was useless then it wouldn't be used, and people would voluntarily turn away from driver-seat harvesters and threshers and the like, in favor of hunching over to cut wheat with a scythe.

And do factories decide that, despite farm demand for gas-powered farming vehicles and machinery, they're going to shutter their factories and cease making those harvesters and threshers and so on?

You seem to make it sound as if all the machinery to be made has already been made, so now we're stuck with what's already been produced, and that's it. In reality, of course, there's * no limit * to what can be manufactured -- what's more to the point is what human need exists and how we can use machinery and automation towards *that* end, instead of toward profits for private concerns.





The socialist firms are to be controled by the majority of the workers. They are the majority because they have been able to convince the majority of their fellow workers that the course of action they propose is best for the firm and all the workers laboring there.
By definition, the minority of the workers dissagree with the proposals of the majority. At that point they can of course leave their job, put up with what they see as the nonsense. Or they can agitate to either change the proposals, blunt its (as what they see) negative proposals.
And now we get into issues of individuality and specialisation, and understand that there are people who are better speakers, better writers, better organisers ect ect ect, who will be deployed by that minority to affect change.
It is simply without any foundation to say politics will end in a socialist community. It will be far greater.


I'd like to do what I can here to relieve your pessimism. You seem to be focusing on a certain process in the abstract, without attempting to posit a likely context for it. Of course you're correct that there will most likely be some majority-minority disputes, as there always have been in political society.

The difference is to what extent will there be instances for just such a fierce disagreement to come up, in a post-capitalist society?

Will it be over some or all of the basic necessities of living -- like over wheat, for example? I will suggest that, with the demise of capitalist profiteering, automation and productivity will skyrocket, aided by a newfound prioritization to provide for human needs.

This sort of political emphasis would be widespread and common and would *not* require any specialization of talent, as in the direction of politicking, which is what you're concerned about.

If a revolutionary society were able to simply re-direct mass labor efforts to realize the full capability of what left-leaning capitalist politicians have *promised* us, like social security, education, health care, housing, and so on, we would be living in a *much more humane* world, in a very short time. And I don't think there would be petty squabbles over delivering customized social services to every person who requests them, given a revolutionary re-orientation of society's economics.

Over the longer term I think politics would re-emerge, but it would be on a non-profiteering basis -- please keep that in mind. A socialist society would be *engineering* its way into the future, with as much helpful input as people would care to provide. Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe politics then as being more *philosophical* in nature, rather than turf-carving and contentious.

[Dejavu]

Capitalism is a system of essencially a few unaccountable desicion makers who make desicions effecting many many others who have no say but the vast majority of whome are accountable to the few desicion makers, essencially economic form of dictatorship. Compared to SOcialism (Libertarian Socialism) where its democratic.

What you described is central planning, not the free market version of capitalism. The question is; accountable to whom? In free market theory producers are accountable to consumers of those products, not some arbitrary central agency. And I believe you are conflating terms. Libertarian Socialism is more of a political philosophy and less of an economic philosophy like capitalism.




No, because that would'nt be practical, what would be practical as a consensus with those who are directly involved and who might directly be effected enough to care. See Anarchist Spain as to how this actually would work, its not so hard.

Can you, in your own words, extrapolate these examples from Maletesta's Spain and explain in more detail?




I'm sorry but life does'nt follow philosophy, it follows practical common sense, like I said, if you look at it from a practical common sense point of view, its obvious that only the people who would be directly effected by the consumption of resources would care, and if they are, essencailly some consensus would have to happen.


It is true not everyone is a philosopher, it does not mean lifestyles do not reflect a particular kind of philosophy. This is what actually makes a handful of intellectuals and philosophers very powerful in any society. They have the potential to cause a sort of hell on earth or better conditions. I happen to agree with you that only people involved in the production/consumption of a particular resource are the relevant parties. This is yet another reason against having everyone make unanimous economic decisions, especially when it does not effect them. I don't know what you mean by consensus? Why is this necessary?


But if your claiming that some people would object to resources being consumed because technically no one owns anything, then I don't know what to tell you.

Again, See Anarchist Spain, its not that hard.


I didn't say anyone would object, maybe they would , maybe they wouldn't but it leaves the door open for potential violence and chaos. All I said is that if you live in a society where no one can legitimately own anything, its very hard to distinguish any objective factors in trades between individual to individual.

I guess we can swing this into a conversation about Anarcho-Statist Spain but I think its a mute point. Again, it would be helpful if you can extrapolate specific examples from that and use them here and hopefully they will have some rational philosophical backing.

[Decolonize The Left]

What you described is central planning, not the free market version of capitalism. The question is; accountable to whom? In free market theory producers are accountable to consumers of those products, not some arbitrary central agency. And I believe you are conflating terms. Libertarian Socialism is more of a political philosophy and less of an economic philosophy like capitalism.

This makes little sense.

In the first place, Libertarian Socialism is an economic theory/philosophy - hence the "socialism" aspect of the phrase.

In the second place, your arguments for free market capitalism fall with a little bit of rational thinking. For if producers are accountable only to consumers, then it is in the primary interest of producers to lie to the consumers about their products in order to sell them and profit.

Don't believe me? Look at history.


This is yet another reason against having everyone make unanimous economic decisions, especially when it does not effect them. I don't know what you mean by consensus? Why is this necessary?

I'm not sure if there can be a "unanimous economic decision."


I didn't say anyone would object, maybe they would , maybe they wouldn't but it leaves the door open for potential violence and chaos. All I said is that if you live in a society where no one can legitimately own anything, its very hard to distinguish any objective factors in trades between individual to individual.

I assume this conversation centers around ownership under socialism. Safe to say that individuals will be able to own plenty of things, only the means of production will be collectivized.

I.e: Your jacket is your jacket. Your house is your house. The factories which produce these things belong to everyone.

- August

[RGacky3]

And why would this be different in a socialist system? Because everyone can get whatever they want, whenever they want it?
No? Then you have to explain how goods are allocated. Democratically? That says nothing, democracy simply describes the process of action. Hopefully there is information backing the decision.
What kind of information is being used?


ummm, the same information we have now .... yes democracy DOES say something, it says that it would be more beneficial to everyone than the tyrranny that is Capitalism is. My point in that post was to refute this Capitalist myth that Capitalism is somehow a "consumers democracy".

Communism is democracy where everyone gets an actual and equal vote.


It doesn't obviously. But since it does not, its a farce to say all those "involved choose a course of action..." A course of action in a democracy is not set by all those involved, it is set by the MAJORITY of those involved.
So in your socialist firm, its not the workers deciding a course of action, its the majority of workers deciding the course of action.


Yup, ultimately, if there is a dispute, thats how it would probably go, but I think thats a lot more just than a dictator (i.e. Boss).


The socialist firms are to be controled by the majority of the workers. They are the majority because they have been able to convince the majority of their fellow workers that the course of action they propose is best for the firm and all the workers laboring there.
By definition, the minority of the workers dissagree with the proposals of the majority. At that point they can of course leave their job, put up with what they see as the nonsense. Or they can agitate to either change the proposals, blunt its (as what they see) negative proposals.
And now we get into issues of individuality and specialisation, and understand that there are people who are better speakers, better writers, better organisers ect ect ect, who will be deployed by that minority to affect change.
It is simply without any foundation to say politics will end in a socialist community. It will be far greater.

First of all, there are different courses of action, meaning different desicions, and the majority on some desicions might not be the majority on others, also no one is under any obligation to follow the majority, its voluntary, and I"m willing to bet that most people are able to be rational in order to get things done. I'm willing to bet that over a benevolent dictator (boss). So maybe there will be politics (in a sense of the word) but mainly that would just be discussion and wanting your coarse of action to be followed, no the race for power that we have now.


What you described is central planning, not the free market version of capitalism. The question is; accountable to whom? In free market theory producers are accountable to consumers of those products, not some arbitrary central agency. And I believe you are conflating terms. Libertarian Socialism is more of a political philosophy and less of an economic philosophy like capitalism.


The free market IS central planning. Its centrally planned by the bosses and the rich, thats the natural progression, as the rich get richer, they gain more economic power.

In free market, the producers are not accountable to the consumers, they are accountable to THEIR consumers (somewhat [This is important because their important consumers are those who can give them the most profit]) but mainly to their shareholders or their bank account. Remember, the consumers are not a group, there are the rich and the poor.

Capitalism is not a philosophy, its a power structure, Libertarian Socialism is a set of principles.


Can you, in your own words, extrapolate these examples from Maletesta's Spain and explain in more detail?

Look it up. I read about it, you can too.


It is true not everyone is a philosopher, it does not mean lifestyles do not reflect a particular kind of philosophy. This is what actually makes a handful of intellectuals and philosophers very powerful in any society. They have the potential to cause a sort of hell on earth or better conditions. I happen to agree with you that only people involved in the production/consumption of a particular resource are the relevant parties. This is yet another reason against having everyone make unanimous economic decisions, especially when it does not effect them. I don't know what you mean by consensus? Why is this necessary?


Intellectuals and Philosophers are not very powerful, in Capitalism the rich are powerful.

The reason consensus is necessary is the same reason democracy is necessary, because the alternative is tyranny. Capitalism = Economic tyranny.


I didn't say anyone would object, maybe they would , maybe they wouldn't but it leaves the door open for potential violence and chaos. All I said is that if you live in a society where no one can legitimately own anything, its very hard to distinguish any objective factors in trades between individual to individual.

The door is open, for potential violence, but look at the alternative, under Capitalism violence is pretty much inevitable. Look around. Under real Socialism the potential is greatly reduced.


I guess we can swing this into a conversation about Anarcho-Statist Spain but I think its a mute point. Again, it would be helpful if you can extrapolate specific examples from that and use them here and hopefully they will have some rational philosophical backing.

A quick google, or wikipedia search will explain somewhat, maybe later I'll go back and write a little thing about it. But right now it wouuld take a bit too long. Look up the CNT-FAI during the Spanish civil war. They organized a large part of Spain under Anarchist principles, worker controlled factories, peasent controlled farms, free association, voluntary collectivisation, mutual aid, and guess what, all these horror stories that Capitalists predict under Anarchist, did'nt happen. What did happen was the facists, communists and republicans way way outgunned them eventually, even militarily, the Anarchists did extreamly well with a volunutary and non hiarchal military. Also Anarchist areas had a higher rate of production than other places in spain.

(Btw, Green Dragon and Dajavu, its a breath of fresh air to have discussions with you guys as oppsed to someone like trivias, I appreciate it.)

[Green Dragon]

[quote=RGacky3;1376829]ummm, the same information we have now .... yes democracy DOES say something,

The information we use now is based upon capitalist notions of economic activity. Presumably, such information would not be available to te democratic socialist community.






First of all, there are different courses of action, meaning different desicions, and the majority on some desicions might not be the majority on others, also no one is under any obligation to follow the majority, its voluntary, and I"m willing to bet that most people are able to be rational in order to get things done. I'm willing to bet that over a benevolent dictator (boss). So maybe there will be politics (in a sense of the word) but mainly that would just be discussion and wanting your coarse of action to be followed, no the race for power that we have now.


The problem then, from your end, has not been resolved. You are left to hoping... that behave rationally (without defibing what a rational course of action under communist principles, might be).





In free market, the producers are not accountable to the consumers, they are accountable to THEIR consumers (somewhat [This is important because their important consumers are those who can give them the most profit]) but mainly to their shareholders or their bank account. Remember, the consumers are not a group, there are the rich and the poor.


It is true that the dog food producers are accountable to those who have dogs, and not to those without a dog. But you need to explain why a socialist dog food producer should be accountable to the consumer with no interest in dog food, and why such concern is actually better.

[Green Dragon]

I hope you won't mind my pointing out that you're somewhat contradicting yourself here -- does automation help to alleviate the effort required for farming, or not? If automation was useless then it wouldn't be used, and people would voluntarily turn away from driver-seat harvesters and threshers and the like, in favor of hunching over to cut wheat with a scythe.


Its a "tradeoff." The machine used for farming cannot be used for building a road. The machine BUILT for farming cannot be built for building a road. Production is not limitless. It is always constrained by the amount of component parts, labor, time, available.









Will it be over some or all of the basic necessities of living -- like over wheat, for example? I will suggest that, with the demise of capitalist profiteering, automation and productivity will skyrocket, aided by a newfound prioritization to provide for human needs.


But again, priorities also mean something as well. Is it a priority to buld machines for harvesting food, or for transporting it? Should that empty parcel of land over there be used to build housing, or a store? They would all satisfy human needs, but priorities need to be made.



This sort of political emphasis would be widespread and common and would *not* require any specialization of talent, as in the direction of politicking, which is what you're concerned about.


Why not? One would think a case could be made for building housing versus a medical clinic.


If a revolutionary society were able to simply re-direct mass labor efforts to realize the full capability

Well yes, and if pigs could fly we would not need JetBlue.

The whole problem is that it is not so simple to "re-direct mass labor" (which by the way means redirecting people).

[ckaihatsu]

Its a "tradeoff." The machine used for farming cannot be used for building a road. The machine BUILT for farming cannot be built for building a road. Production is not limitless. It is always constrained by the amount of component parts, labor, time, available.


Yes, production is not *quite* limitless -- I'll agree that it's finite, but the part that *you're* missing is that production, through industrial methods of mass production, is highly *leveraged* so that much more use-value can be obtained for relatively little use of assets and resources, as compared to doing the same things *manually*, with manual labor.

We do *not* live in an age of artisan crafts and mercantilism -- we live in an age of *industrialism* and even post-industrialism (where First World financial fictions are used to hyper-exploit Third World industrial labor for the world population's needs and desires for consumer goods.)

So a machine used for farming means that scores of people no longer need to do farmwork, and now the percentage of people who need to devote themselves to farming / food production is a tiny percentage of the population, far less than just a century ago. This is an *objective*, qualitative improvement on the whole because now more people have the option to seek out ways of living that are more interesting and varied than a lifetime on the farm. Same thing for machines that lay down asphalt for roads, etc.

And -- these machines can always be increased in number, through industrial manufacturing. The only limitation is the (capitalist) economic system itself, which these days is more of a constraining factor than an enabling one, unfortunately.





But again, priorities also mean something as well. Is it a priority to buld machines for harvesting food, or for transporting it? Should that empty parcel of land over there be used to build housing, or a store? They would all satisfy human needs, but priorities need to be made.





Why not? One would think a case could be made for building housing versus a medical clinic.


I agree -- you're describing the crux of politics. My contribution to this issue is here, in the following 1-page diagram -- it basically posits that human needs, as outlined by Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, should be prioritized by a post-capitalist economic setup.


Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://tinyurl.com/5mjhhh





Well yes, and if pigs could fly we would not need JetBlue.

The whole problem is that it is not so simple to "re-direct mass labor" (which by the way means redirecting people).


You've obviously got some qualms about how level the playing field is, or would be, for the dispatching of political matters. I don't know quite how to address your concern except to say that the full collectivization of all assets and resources, through a revolutionary communist global economy, would be a vast improvement over the elitist system of power in practice today.

I'll remind you, and everyone, that the *point* of being here at RevLeft is to discuss these matters so that we can demonstrate that we do indeed have *plans* for the future. Without some sense of what to move towards we'll just be falling into patterns of politics that fit into the current structure, or way of doing things. This default, or status quo, is obviously *not* what we consider to be adequate.

Also, it doesn't take much effort to be a naysayer, which is basically what you're doing here. Conceptualizing and arguing for a different, revolutionary society is *worth doing* -- if you just want to point out that the glass is half empty all the time then you're really not doing much yourself.





The information we use now is based upon capitalist notions of economic activity. Presumably, such information would not be available to te democratic socialist community.


This is a ludicrous assertion -- perhaps you're actually imagining a *Stalinist*, or bureaucratic-heavy formulation of socialism, which is *not* what Marxists advocate. Given our *current*, vast information technology infrastructure, a future, revolutionary society would be able to make economic information available to the public *very easily*, thereby enabling the widespread discussion of production and consumption issues.





The problem then, from your end, has not been resolved. You are left to hoping... that behave rationally (without defibing what a rational course of action under communist principles, might be).


As far as I'm concerned the supply priorities of a post-capitalist economy would be as defined above.





It is true that the dog food producers are accountable to those who have dogs, and not to those without a dog. But you need to explain why a socialist dog food producer should be accountable to the consumer with no interest in dog food, and why such concern is actually better.


I think a communist society / economy would be a little broader than just the bare economic relationships of supplier-consumer. Just as we have governmental regulations under capitalism over areas such as food and health, a communist economy -- ushered in by a global revolutionary sentiment -- would most likely establish blanket policies over industrial production practices that would be backed up by science and academic research. A communist government would be accountable to workers and consumers, but would also *transcend* the simplistic, black-market-like economic relationships that you're suggesting, through policy.

[Green Dragon]

Yes, production is not *quite* limitless -- I'll agree that it's finite, but the part that *you're* missing is that production, through industrial methods of mass production, is highly *leveraged* so that much more use-value can be obtained for relatively little use of assets and resources, as compared to doing the same things *manually*, with manual labor.


I agree that industrial methods of mass production have much greater value and profit potentials. Indeed, such potential is what guides the capitalist to industrialise.
So if the desire to industrialise for the socilaist community is NOT based upon the profit which can be accrued, what is used and how does the socialist communisy measure whether the effort has been a success?





So a machine used for farming means that scores of people no longer need to do farmwork, and now the percentage of people who need to devote themselves to farming / food production is a tiny percentage of the population, far less than just a century ago. This is an *objective*, qualitative improvement on the whole because now more people have the option to seek out ways of living that are more interesting and varied than a lifetime on the farm. Same thing for machines that lay down asphalt for roads, etc.


Quite true.



And -- these machines can always be increased in number, through industrial manufacturing. The only limitation is the (capitalist) economic system itself, which these days is more of a constraining factor than an enabling one, unfortunately.


No, the limitation is universal- There are only so many workers available to make the machines, only so much time available for the workers to work, only so much energy available at any given time, only so much component parts for the machine available at any given time ect ect.













You've obviously got some qualms about how level the playing field is, or would be, for the dispatching of political matters. I don't know quite how to address your concern except to say that the full collectivization of all assets and resources, through a revolutionary communist global economy, would be a vast improvement over the elitist system of power in practice today.

You need to demonstarte that this is so.



I'll remind you, and everyone, that the *point* of being here at RevLeft is to discuss these matters so that we can demonstrate that we do indeed have *plans* for the future. Without some sense of what to move towards we'll just be falling into patterns of politics that fit into the current structure, or way of doing things. This default, or status quo, is obviously *not* what we consider to be adequate.

Also, it doesn't take much effort to be a naysayer, which is basically what you're doing here. Conceptualizing and arguing for a different,


Certain claims are being made as to what will happen in a post-capilast community. It is being said so because the limitations imposed by capitalism will not be available. I am simply:
1. Challenging whether the limitations of capitalism are more accurately described as limitations of life, challenges that would face the socialist community as well.
2. Asking for proof that the claim is true.







This is a ludicrous assertion -- perhaps you're actually imagining a *Stalinist*, or bureaucratic-heavy formulation of socialism, which is *not* what Marxists advocate. Given our *current*, vast information technology infrastructure, a future, revolutionary society would be able to make economic information available to the public *very easily*, thereby enabling the widespread discussion of production and consumption issues.

I am not asking you to describe how the information gets from Point A to Point B. I am asking what is the nature of the information which goes from Point A to Point B.











I think a communist society / economy would be a little broader than just the bare economic relationships of supplier-consumer. Just as we have governmental regulations under capitalism over areas such as food and health, a communist economy -- ushered in by a global revolutionary sentiment -- would most likely establish blanket policies over industrial production practices that would be backed up by science and academic research. A communist government would be accountable to workers and consumers, but would also *transcend* the simplistic, black-market-like economic relationships that you're suggesting, through policy.


Okay. So what might some of these policies be?

[ckaihatsu]

I agree that industrial methods of mass production have much greater value and profit potentials. Indeed, such potential is what guides the capitalist to industrialise.
So if the desire to industrialise for the socilaist community is NOT based upon the profit which can be accrued, what is used and how does the socialist communisy measure whether the effort has been a success?


A post-capitalist (socialist / communist) economy would be entirely *political*, meaning that all planning and production would be dependent on the agreement of the workers who actually labor to produce the goods and services available to the economy.

Also please keep in mind that a global revolutionary movement would *seize* all *existing* assets and resources -- all government infrastructure and private property -- in order to collectivize it under the control of global revolutionary labor. So a socialist / communist world would not *have* to industrialize because humanity has already done that.





No, the limitation is universal- There are only so many workers available to make the machines, only so much time available for the workers to work, only so much energy available at any given time, only so much component parts for the machine available at any given time ect ect.


Yes, I'll again recognize that the material on planet earth is finite, but that's mostly beside the point. What *matters*, in terms of human usage, is whether human *needs* (and desires) are being fulfilled or not. Just as the twenty-six letters of the English alphabet can be rearranged in an infinite variety to lend an infinity of meanings, through words and sentences, so too can the finite material of planet earth be transformed, through certain processes, to fulfill certain organic needs and people-defined desires.





You've obviously got some qualms about how level the playing field is, or would be, for the dispatching of political matters. I don't know quite how to address your concern except to say that the full collectivization of all assets and resources, through a revolutionary communist global economy, would be a vast improvement over the elitist system of power in practice today.

You need to demonstarte that this is so.


The easiest and most evident improvement that would be realized through the abolition of private property, in favor of a centralized, worker-collective-run communist economy, would be the streamlining of administration.

In the present day we could consider the U.S.'s health care services industry, which is currently *very* top-heavy and wasteful due to the competition inherent in the system of private property. While health care is a critical service its administration is allowed to be split up and the components -- for-profit businesses -- set in competition among each other. Every step that can be made towards the consolidation of health care services would eliminate redundancies of office / paperwork administration, as a start.

Just as we have the centralized administration of municipal services like sewage, water service, policing, civil and criminal justice, waste disposal, roads, parks, and so on, we could continue this trajectory to include *every single other* activity that is done on a mass scale to produce goods and services. As a shorthand just think of it as the elimination of the private sector in favor of expanding the public sector to 100%, and placed under the control of the workers who would do the actual labor needed to create those goods and services.





This is a ludicrous assertion -- perhaps you're actually imagining a *Stalinist*, or bureaucratic-heavy formulation of socialism, which is *not* what Marxists advocate. Given our *current*, vast information technology infrastructure, a future, revolutionary society would be able to make economic information available to the public *very easily*, thereby enabling the widespread discussion of production and consumption issues.


I am not asking you to describe how the information gets from Point A to Point B. I am asking what is the nature of the information which goes from Point A to Point B.


The nature of the information available would be the information needed by a political society to understand and come to agreements on what would need to be done by industry and its workers.





I think a communist society / economy would be a little broader than just the bare economic relationships of supplier-consumer. Just as we have governmental regulations under capitalism over areas such as food and health, a communist economy -- ushered in by a global revolutionary sentiment -- would most likely establish blanket policies over industrial production practices that would be backed up by science and academic research. A communist government would be accountable to workers and consumers, but would also *transcend* the simplistic, black-market-like economic relationships that you're suggesting, through policy.


Okay. So what might some of these policies be?


I personally advocate a specific priority of supply that should be attended to by a post-capitalist society's productive capacity. It is defined generally by Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:





Maslow's hierarchy of needs is predetermined in order of importance.[5] It is often depicted as a pyramid consisting of five levels: the first lower level is being associated with Physiological needs, while the top levels are termed growth needs associated with psychological needs. Deficiency needs must be met first. Once these are met, seeking to satisfy growth needs drives personal growth. The higher needs in this hierarchy only come into focus when the lower needs in the pyramid are met. Once an individual has moved upwards to the next level, needs in the lower level will no longer be prioritized. If a lower set of needs is no longer being met, the individual will temporarily re-prioritize those needs by focusing attention on the unfulfilled needs, but will not permanently regress to the lower level. For instance, a businessman at the esteem level who is diagnosed with cancer will spend a great deal of time concentrating on his health (physiological needs), but will continue to value his work performance (esteem needs) and will likely return to work during periods of remission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs


Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://tinyurl.com/5mjhhh


Additionally, given that society has developed the technology to enable every person on earth to have individualized shopping lists online (as through Amazon.com or other similar retail portals), we could easily implement a system of individualized *demand* lists for every single person on earth. These would be individual, customized, prioritized lists of outstanding needs and desires that would be considered standing political demands against the communist government.

Ultimately it would be the workers themselves who would decide what is to be produced, based on available information about political demands (and / or consumer preferences). Generalized agreements among workers over time could be formalized into standing policies.

[RGacky3]

The information we use now is based upon capitalist notions of economic activity. Presumably, such information would not be available to te democratic socialist community.


Why not? Wants and needs don't change, productive ability and resources don't change, what changes is the hiarchy.


The problem then, from your end, has not been resolved. You are left to hoping... that behave rationally (without defibing what a rational course of action under communist principles, might be).

Like I said before, asking me what behaving rationally would be, would be like asking a guy what a democracy would decide, its a democracy, the people decide.


It is true that the dog food producers are accountable to those who have dogs, and not to those without a dog. But you need to explain why a socialist dog food producer should be accountable to the consumer with no interest in dog food, and why such concern is actually better.

THey should'nt, my point is that the market overall, is unjust and tyrannical, under communism dog food producers would'nt more investment then producing food for people that starve, if there re people that starve. Under Capitalism it does'nt matter, who ever has the money is the one that wins.


Okay. So what might some of these policies be?

THat question is as absurd as asking what a democratic society would decide on, it could be many things. Depending on the circumstances, your question is rediculous and irrelivent.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=ckaihatsu;1378265]A post-capitalist (socialist / communist) economy would be entirely *political*, meaning that all planning and production would be dependent on the agreement of the workers who actually labor to produce the goods and services available to the economy.


Which requires a body of knowledge, of information, which they understand to be more or less true, to guide their decisions.
Also, please recall that in your scenario, the decision is being made by te producers (the workers who actually labor to produce a good or service). But why should producers decide what will be available to be consumed?



Also please keep in mind that a global revolutionary movement would *seize* all *existing* assets and resources -- all government infrastructure and private property -- in order to collectivize it under the control of global revolutionary labor. So a socialist / communist world would not *have* to industrialize because humanity has already done that.


A stagnant view. Had the global revolution in 1920...






Yes, I'll again recognize that the material on planet earth is finite, but that's mostly beside the point. What *matters*, in terms of human usage, is whether human *needs* (and desires) are being fulfilled or not. Just as the twenty-six letters of the English alphabet can be rearranged in an infinite variety to lend an infinity of meanings, through words and sentences, so too can the finite material of planet earth be transformed, through certain processes, to fulfill certain organic needs and people-defined desires.


And those "certain processes...?"







Just as we have the centralized administration of municipal services like sewage, water service, policing, civil and criminal justice, waste disposal, roads, parks, and so on, we could continue this trajectory to include *every single other* activity that is done on a mass scale to produce goods and services. As a shorthand just think of it as the elimination of the private sector in favor of expanding the public sector to 100%, and placed under the control of the workers who would do the actual labor needed to create those goods and services.


As said above... Why should the workers who do the actual labor to produce a good or service control that production? It makes no sense, since the purpose of production is to satisfy the needs of th consumers of those goods, not to satisfy th needs of the proucer of those goods.








Additionally, given that society has developed the technology to enable every person on earth to have individualized shopping lists online (as through Amazon.com or other similar retail portals), we could easily implement a system of individualized *demand* lists for every single person on earth. These would be individual, customized, prioritized lists of outstanding needs and desires that would be considered standing political demands against the communist government.


Ok. So "we" will set up a list of goods and services available to people. Ignoring the rather totalitarian nature of such a list, where would personal computers have been on the list say 30 years ago?
Furthermore, the list forgets the production processes ad that producers of tables and chairs are also consumers of wood and energy.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=RGacky3;1378373]Why not? Wants and needs don't change, productive ability and resources don't change, what changes is the hiarchy

I have said in the past a worker owned firm is not an "uncapitalist" entity. Thank you for agreeing with me on the matter.




Like I said before, asking me what behaving rationally would be, would be like asking a guy what a democracy would decide, its a democracy, the people decide.


If you wish to argue that the workers can place a capitalist system "democratically" because they see it as the most rational of choices, so be it.
But would such a community be considered a socialist community?
IOW, is it the "democracy" which is important in declaring a community to be socialist, or what the community, democratically, decides to do?

[ckaihatsu]

A post-capitalist (socialist / communist) economy would be entirely *political*, meaning that all planning and production would be dependent on the agreement of the workers who actually labor to produce the goods and services available to the economy.

Which requires a body of knowledge, of information, which they understand to be more or less true, to guide their decisions.


Yes.





Also, please recall that in your scenario, the decision is being made by te producers (the workers who actually labor to produce a good or service). But why should producers decide what will be available to be consumed?


*What* should be produced would be a political decision to be made by the communist society / government in general. It would prioritize human need, as a matter of revolutionary concern -- (this is by definition, because a socialist / communist society could only be brought forth in the first place by a revolution-minded political upheaval).

A post-revolution economy would be bountiful enough -- using industrial processes -- to leave behind any coercive methods for procuring labor. In other words, people would not have to work at *any* employment if they didn't want to -- the society would easily have enough goods and services in surplus to enable a baseline of guaranteed health and livelihood regardless of employment status.

This means that workers -- within some parameters, I suppose -- would be able to *walk away* from any work projects that they didn't want to participate in -- no one could be coerced, as a principle. In this way it's the *workers* who ultimately decide what is to be produced. If there were absolutely *no* workers who wanted to fulfill a work order then the project would *not* be completed, no matter what the political society came up with. Regarding *what* would be supplied, in general, please see this reiteration:





I personally advocate a specific priority of supply that should be attended to by a post-capitalist society's productive capacity. It is defined generally by Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:


[...]


Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://tinyurl.com/5mjhhh


Additionally, given that society has developed the technology to enable every person on earth to have individualized shopping lists online (as through Amazon.com or other similar retail portals), we could easily implement a system of individualized *demand* lists for every single person on earth. These would be individual, customized, prioritized lists of outstanding needs and desires that would be considered standing political demands against the communist government.

Ultimately it would be the workers themselves who would decide what is to be produced, based on available information about political demands (and / or consumer preferences). Generalized agreements among workers over time could be formalized into standing policies.





Also please keep in mind that a global revolutionary movement would *seize* all *existing* assets and resources -- all government infrastructure and private property -- in order to collectivize it under the control of global revolutionary labor. So a socialist / communist world would not *have* to industrialize because humanity has already done that.

A stagnant view. Had the global revolution in 1920...


Instead of "stagnant", how about "outstanding", or "still valid" -- ?





Yes, I'll again recognize that the material on planet earth is finite, but that's mostly beside the point. What *matters*, in terms of human usage, is whether human *needs* (and desires) are being fulfilled or not. Just as the twenty-six letters of the English alphabet can be rearranged in an infinite variety to lend an infinity of meanings, through words and sentences, so too can the finite material of planet earth be transformed, through certain processes, to fulfill certain organic needs and people-defined desires.

And those "certain processes...?"


Industrial processes, mostly.





Additionally, given that society has developed the technology to enable every person on earth to have individualized shopping lists online (as through Amazon.com or other similar retail portals), we could easily implement a system of individualized *demand* lists for every single person on earth. These would be individual, customized, prioritized lists of outstanding needs and desires that would be considered standing political demands against the communist government.

Ok. So "we" will set up a list of goods and services available to people. Ignoring the rather totalitarian nature of such a list, where would personal computers have been on the list say 30 years ago?
Furthermore, the list forgets the production processes ad that producers of tables and chairs are also consumers of wood and energy.


There's no "we", as you have put inside double quotation marks, to indicate skepticism. I have clearly noted that every single person, of the 6-2/3 billion+ people on earth, could easily be provided with a personal consumer shopping web page, in the interests of reflecting their own, individualized political demands / consumer preferences. In this scenario there would be no totalitarianism, because there could be no interlocuter, or political middleman approach possible -- every person's political and consumer intentions could be clearly referenced over the Internet, for purposes of planning and production.

I do not need to entertain your hypothetical scenario that is past-oriented. This is a scenario that is based on present capabilities and is forward-looking.

Resources like wood and energy required for the production of finished products like tables and chairs would have to be planned for and sourced by any worker-collective-based administration that is tasked to oversight of any given project, or production run. All resources required, at all levels up the supply chain, could be sourced this way.

[Green Dragon]

A post-revolution economy would be bountiful enough -- using industrial processes -- to leave behind any coercive methods for procuring labor. In other words, people would not have to work at *any* employment if they didn't want to -- the society would easily have enough goods and services in surplus to enable a baseline of guaranteed health and livelihood regardless of employment status.

Ok. So people will not have to work anywhere.
So how easy will it be to provide society with enough goods?


This means that workers -- within some parameters, I suppose -- would be able to *walk away* from any work projects that they didn't want to participate in -- no one could be coerced, as a principle. In this way it's the *workers* who ultimately decide what is to be produced. If there were absolutely *no* workers who wanted to fulfill a work order then the project would *not* be completed, no matter what the political society came up with.

Ok. So if nobody wished to produce home computers, none would be produced.
But why is that system a better system to provide needed wants and goods?
BTW, what wuld be the parameters to convince people to produce home computers?











Instead of "stagnant", how about "outstanding", or "still valid" -- ?


No. Because you are basing your conception upon the here and now...









There's no "we", as you have put inside double quotation marks, to indicate skepticism. I have clearly noted that every single person, of the 6-2/3 billion+ people on earth, could easily be provided with a personal consumer shopping web page, in the interests of reflecting their own, individualized political demands / consumer preferences.

Provided by whom?


In this scenario there would be no totalitarianism, because there could be no interlocuter, or political middleman approach possible -- every person's political and consumer intentions could be clearly referenced over the Internet, for purposes of planning and production.

Oh. So in other words everything you wish to consume is public knowledge . But since you recognise priorities need to be addressed first, this means that YOUR personal priority may not be considered a priority, in terms of production, by the rest of the community.
You may think it is a priority to get a new car every year, but society may not so think.
Society, the beaurocracies set up to administer the shopping lists, are the middlemen.

[ckaihatsu]

A post-revolution economy would be bountiful enough -- using industrial processes -- to leave behind any coercive methods for procuring labor. In other words, people would not have to work at *any* employment if they didn't want to -- the society would easily have enough goods and services in surplus to enable a baseline of guaranteed health and livelihood regardless of employment status

Ok. So people will not have to work anywhere.


I did not say that. Yes, labor will have to be performed but there would not have to be much of it for a post-capitalist economy to produce enough of a surplus to support a global population of billions.



.

So how easy will it be to provide society with enough goods?


Not that difficult.





This means that workers -- within some parameters, I suppose -- would be able to *walk away* from any work projects that they didn't want to participate in -- no one could be coerced, as a principle. In this way it's the *workers* who ultimately decide what is to be produced. If there were absolutely *no* workers who wanted to fulfill a work order then the project would *not* be completed, no matter what the political society came up with.

Ok. So if nobody wished to produce home computers, none would be produced.


Correct.





But why is that system a better system to provide needed wants and goods?


Because there would be no coercion over labor. Labor would be entirely self-determining. Certainly a post-capitalist economy would be able to prioritize the production of goods that are critical to human well-being.





BTW, what wuld be the parameters to convince people to produce home computers?


By "within some parameters" I mean that there would most likely be some overall guidelines as to how much or how little workers should work, for the overall production goals that the political society has set. Again, the most important aspect, though, would be the overall surplus that an automated, industrialized post-revolution society could produce. The average standard of living would be directly dependent on this societal surplus.





Instead of "stagnant", how about "outstanding", or "still valid" -- ?

No. Because you are basing your conception upon the here and now...


Yes, and the here-and-now contains conditions that could be developed into a global workers' revolution to overthrow the forces of capital. These same conditions have existed in past decades as well.





There's no "we", as you have put inside double quotation marks, to indicate skepticism. I have clearly noted that every single person, of the 6-2/3 billion+ people on earth, could easily be provided with a personal consumer shopping web page, in the interests of reflecting their own, individualized political demands / consumer preferences.

Provided by whom?


It would require a worldwide working-class revolution to overthrow the current ruling class of capitalists. The workers at that point could determine the best way to proceed from there -- I can only provide certain suggestions in the here-and-now, for consideration in the future.





In this scenario there would be no totalitarianism, because there could be no interlocuter, or political middleman approach possible -- every person's political and consumer intentions could be clearly referenced over the Internet, for purposes of planning and production.

Oh. So in other words everything you wish to consume is public knowledge .


If you're talking about me, personally, I'll remind you that the world is still under capitalist rule. I have been describing a possible, revolutionary scenario.





But since you recognise priorities need to be addressed first, this means that YOUR personal priority may not be considered a priority, in terms of production, by the rest of the community.


I'm not the community, myself, so I can't speak for them, whomever they may happen to be.





You may think it is a priority to get a new car every year, but society may not so think.


This is true.





Society, the beaurocracies set up to administer the shopping lists, are the middlemen.


I'd like to think that information technology (the Internet) would allow society to *be* the bureaucracy, in the broadest, levelest definition of power conceivable. The shopping lists would be individual and posted publicly on the net, so there would be no room for any middlemen.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

If you want to truly measure someones contribution to labour then there are so many factors that it would be almost impossible to record. Therfore you shouldn't use a renumeration policy as it would not be fair.

[Green Dragon]

It would require a worldwide working-class revolution to overthrow the current ruling class of capitalists. The workers at that point could determine the best way to proceed from there -- I can only provide certain suggestions in the here-and-now, for consideration in the future.

No suggestions have been forthcoming. Thus far, all that is said is that if people do not wish to produce computers, none will be produced. Naturally, there is no reason why such a truth cannot be extended into any other product.










I'd like to think that information technology (the Internet) would allow society to *be* the bureaucracy, in the broadest, levelest definition of power conceivable. The shopping lists would be individual and posted publicly on the net, so there would be no room for any middlemen.
[/QUOTE]

The internet shopping lists do not create whatever is requested. Somebody has to take your shopping list, and PRIORITISE it, with the shopping list of 6 billion other people. Those people will be the "middleman" (assuming of course there are people who want to do the work. If not, then it does not get done and the entire community collapses).

[Green Dragon]

It would require a worldwide working-class revolution to overthrow the current ruling class of capitalists. The workers at that point could determine the best way to proceed from there -- I can only provide certain suggestions in the here-and-now, for consideration in the future.

No suggestions have been forthcoming. Thus far, all that is said is that if people do not wish to produce computers, none will be produced. Naturally, there is no reason why such a truth cannot be extended into any other product.










I'd like to think that information technology (the Internet) would allow society to *be* the bureaucracy, in the broadest, levelest definition of power conceivable. The shopping lists would be individual and posted publicly on the net, so there would be no room for any middlemen.
[/QUOTE]

The internet shopping lists do not create whatever is requested. Somebody has to take your shopping list, and PRIORITISE it, with the shopping list of 6 billion other people. Those people will be the "middleman" (assuming of course there are people who want to do the work. If not, then it does not get done and the entire community collapses).

[ckaihatsu]

If you want to truly measure someones contribution to labour then there are so many factors that it would be almost impossible to record. Therfore you shouldn't use a renumeration policy as it would not be fair.


*You* should've worked for the Bush Administration when they were drafting their legal justification for torture (now continued by the Obama Administration).

This statement of yours essentially justifies slavery. You're saying that -- in your opinion -- since figuring out labor value is "so complicated" (which it isn't), we should say to hell with it all and *not* remunerate labor at all -- is that it? You might also want to note *who* "it would not be fair" to....

I'll assume you had a different meaning in mind for those words of yours -- taken at face value they can be interpreted in a *very* fatalistic way (for labor).

Please recall, everyone, that the source of *all* value is human effort, because animals do not build up a surplus. Resources do not gather themselves and assets require *someone* to put in the work as the source of their value.

For any given project, assets and resources -- (that is, capital, or past labor) -- are combined with current labor to produce goods and services. The *cost* of these goods and services is defined entirely from the value of the capital and the value of the labor. If you know the cost of capital, just subtract that from the total cost of the goods and services and what's left is the cost of the labor. This is the *labor value* that goes into the production of the goods and services.

Guess what? The labor value is *not* fully remunerated -- workers are ripped off under capitalism, first, of their labor value, and then second, from the exorbitant markup to retail prices they must pay as consumers. What a rip-off!


Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

http://tinyurl.com/6bs6va


To counter your apparent fatalism, I'll recommend that we revolutionize the world by ditching capitalism in favor of a system that focuses first on organic, or subsistence, needs of people -- once this is supplied *then* we can talk about (surplus) value and its possible valuation. Perhaps we could define value in terms of providing for leisure -- aside from subsistence (including reproduction / child care for the upkeep of humanity into the future) a pool of surplus can only then go to infrastructure, or else it is consumed in leisure.


communist economy diagram

http://tinyurl.com/bom9ca


G.U.T.S.U.C. The Grand Unified Theory of Society Under C_______

http://tinyurl.com/2c252w

[Stranger Than Paradise]

*You* should've worked for the Bush Administration when they were drafting their legal justification for torture (now continued by the Obama Administration).

This statement of yours essentially justifies slavery. You're saying that -- in your opinion -- since figuring out labor value is "so complicated" (which it isn't), we should say to hell with it all and *not* remunerate labor at all -- is that it? You might also want to note *who* "it would not be fair" to....

I'll assume you had a different meaning in mind for those words of yours -- taken at face value they can be interpreted in a *very* fatalistic way (for labor).

Please recall, everyone, that the source of *all* value is human effort, because animals do not build up a surplus. Resources do not gather themselves and assets require *someone* to put in the work as the source of their value.

For any given project, assets and resources -- (that is, capital, or past labor) -- are combined with current labor to produce goods and services. The *cost* of these goods and services is defined entirely from the value of the capital and the value of the labor. If you know the cost of capital, just subtract that from the total cost of the goods and services and what's left is the cost of the labor. This is the *labor value* that goes into the production of the goods and services.

Guess what? The labor value is *not* fully remunerated -- workers are ripped off under capitalism, first, of their labor value, and then second, from the exorbitant markup to retail prices they must pay as consumers. What a rip-off!


Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends




To counter your apparent fatalism, I'll recommend that we revolutionize the world by ditching capitalism in favor of a system that focuses first on organic, or subsistence, needs of people -- once this is supplied *then* we can talk about (surplus) value and its possible valuation. Perhaps we could define value in terms of providing for leisure -- aside from subsistence (including reproduction / child care for the upkeep of humanity into the future) a pool of surplus can only then go to infrastructure, or else it is consumed in leisure.


communist economy diagram




G.U.T.S.U.C. The Grand Unified Theory of Society Under C_______



Sorry you have misunderstood. What I meant was in a system where someone is not rewarded directly by money or even with an amount of goods because this would definitely be a very narrow way to measure a persons labour. I believe the person themself should be able to take what they need from a community store and decide the value of their labour. I was meaning to advocate the ideas of Peter Kropotkin.

[ckaihatsu]

No suggestions have been forthcoming. Thus far, all that is said is that if people do not wish to produce computers, none will be produced. Naturally, there is no reason why such a truth cannot be extended into any other product.


My entire series of exchanges with you have been suggestions and recommendations.





I'd like to think that information technology (the Internet) would allow society to *be* the bureaucracy, in the broadest, levelest definition of power conceivable. The shopping lists would be individual and posted publicly on the net, so there would be no room for any middlemen.

The internet shopping lists do not create whatever is requested. Somebody has to take your shopping list, and PRIORITISE it, with the shopping list of 6 billion other people. Those people will be the "middleman" (assuming of course there are people who want to do the work. If not, then it does not get done and the entire community collapses).


The compilation / prioritization of the political demands / consumer preferences lists is just a mathematical computation. *No* human labor would be required -- it would be fully automated, like the routing of packets over the switching nodes of the Internet.

[ckaihatsu]

You still need to describe the mathematical computation.





If your conception is a static community (life and demands never change over time), that might be so.


No, your assertion doesn't hold up. All of the individualized demand lists, *and* the communist economy as a whole, can be completely dynamic and flowing, through time.

All that would be needed from each person would be a "shopping list" of political demands and consumer preferences. As the simplest solution, a linear list could work just fine -- the math would be to divide 100 by the ranking of each item to come up with larger numbers for higher-ranked items. So the first item (#1) would be given 100 points, #2 would be 100 / 2, or 50 points, the third would be 100 / 3, or 33-1/3 points, and so on.

By compiling the lists over a certain area -- say by zip code, or whatever -- we would have an automatically generated group list, updated daily, reflecting the ongoing political demands and consumer preferences for thousands of people living near each other. Sorting the cumulative list by points would reveal the overall priorities for the population of that area.

(We could even provide some gray area, geographically, by defining border areas of mixed zip codes, if that was needed -- so everyone might have membership in either one area or one area plus a border area of two neighboring zip codes.)


---


I could even advance a different approach to this solution, which would be a relative-weighting system of preferences. In this method everyone would have to limit their "voting" for political demands and consumer preferences to a set number of "votes" -- say, 1000 "votes" or points per person. These 1000 points would have to be distributed over all of the demands and items being demanded. Those that are meant to be more important to someone would be given more points -- if someone was particularly adamant about getting cornflakes, then they might reserve 500 points for cornflakes alone, with the remaining 500 points distributed among all other items.


Prioritization Chart

http://tinyurl.com/2q48sf





But even within that framework, it still fails to function.


Nope -- just because you say something doesn't make it true.





And that is because your shopping lists are from the point of the consumer.


This part, by itself, is true -- the demand lists deal with the self-defined, aggregated demands and preferences over thousands, millions, and billions of people.





It forgets the producer.





My concern with [an] insistence on a leveling of labor rates across the board is that it might very well be too top-down, or bureaucratic, and miss out on the particulars of this-or-that local economy. Perhaps being a firefighter in a city is a much more demanding position than being one in the suburbs. Production of shoes at one plant may be much more efficient than the same shoes at a smaller, less advanced factory with resources spread further out.

[I think] that we might want to have a floating system of labor rates, *after* the world's assets have been collectivized and put under workers' control (no private property). Keep in mind that in this kind of economy all of labor's claims to certain labor rates would implicitly be political demands against the communist state, so it would play out politically anyway.

If one particular city seemed to have extraordinarily high labor rates, due to successful political demands, that might play at the local level, but when it came to larger projects that city might get passed over by central planning in favor of a group with relatively lower labor rates. (This *is* still materialism, after all...!)

The overall administration (central planning) would be bottom-up, in terms of pooling workers' political initiatives together into an overarching, societal policy.

The overall *execution* of that administration would be top-down, in terms of coordinating among the industries into a single network of social planning, by project, tapping local assets in a rational manner to effect policy.





And a consumer of certain goods is a producer of other goods. This is the case with an individual checking off for a box of cornflakes, as well as the producer of the cornflakes, which consumes goods from other producers, and would need its own shopping list (how does the shopping list determine that the farmer should ship the corn to the cereal people, as opposed to shipping to the cannery or for corn on the cob?)


The roles of consumer and producer are two different, separate roles, and are unrelated in any one single individual.

Supply chains end with the consumer, and originate with the sourcing of materials (usually from the environment, or nature). We can simply start with the end user, the consumer, and work our way *backwards*, up the supply chain, to establish the chains of supply, including labor, needed for the manufacture of certain goods and services at each step.

As I've noted in the excerpt reproduced above, the supply of labor at any given step in the supply chain would necessarily involve political discussion and planning. All assets and resources required by labor for any given step would also be political issues and would have to be resolved by the workers concerned.

[Kronos]

Those of you who stated that the value of labor cannot be determined objectively are correct, as there are no such things as "ethical propositions", and "value" is an ethical concept.

The beauty of what Marx did concerning his attempts to define labor value was not in his success, because he didn't succeed. What he did, however, was indirectly demonstrate that despite the impossibility of defining labor value objectively, there is clearly no value whatsoever in the productive capacities of the capitalist class. It can be said that while we may never agree on a distinct "formula" for calculating the value of labor, we certainly can agree that we cannot even be mistaken about the labor value of the productive capacities of the capitalist class....because there are none to be mistaken about.

The capitalist plays absolutely no role in the forces of production. He exists only in so far as his "dead capital" represents credit in the monetary system. This "credit" is not a real entity, so it has no material relevance- it is an ideological symbol. There is no utility "value" in money....except for the fact that it could be used to start a fire or blow your nose.

That aside, I like to think that the only possible way to conceive of a "value" for labor would be to determine the costs and efforts involved in developing the skills and talents required for the labor task in question.

For example, the "value" of the labor of a janitor would be determined by what resources were required to train him. This value would be compared to, and relative to, the value of another trade...and the requirements for the development.

A neurosurgeon would take longer to train and require more effort than a janitor, so the extent of the value is determined by what it costs the society that produces him. The value is made clear by the required investments.

Now, value does not mean "importance"....as in the case that a neurosurgeon is more important than a janitor. In fact, the value is retrogressive- it does not affect or concern the future, nor does it indicate a potential risk to the material relations on the future. It simply is defined as "what it cost us" to invest in the development of this person's professional skills.

As far as the philosophical concept of value is regarded, it remains purely subjective and therefore at the individual's discretion. It may be an "intersubjective" fact that "ice cream is good and therefore valuable because good things are valuable", but there is no certainty that everyone will like ice cream.

[ckaihatsu]

Those of you who stated that the value of labor cannot be determined objectively are correct, as there are no such things as "ethical propositions", and "value" is an ethical concept.


No, 'value' is a *material* concept. If people did not find usefulness in material objects, or if we lived in primitive communism there would be no material or surplus to valuate. And, in a future advanced communism we would be able to value collectivized assets, resources, labor, goods, and services by the yardstick of labor time -- with multipliers for difficulty / effort / training, resulting in roughly equivalent labor credits as a standard.





That aside, I like to think that the only possible way to conceive of a "value" for labor would be to determine the costs and efforts involved in developing the skills and talents required for the labor task in question.

For example, the "value" of the labor of a janitor would be determined by what resources were required to train him. This value would be compared to, and relative to, the value of another trade...and the requirements for the development.

A neurosurgeon would take longer to train and require more effort than a janitor, so the extent of the value is determined by what it costs the society that produces him. The value is made clear by the required investments.





[G]iven the years of schooling and preparation needed to produce a qualified surgeon, those labor hours -- or labor minutes -- would have a *much* higher multiplier on them than for that of a carpenter (no offense).

So maybe our table would look something like this:


OCCUPATION_______%_OF_POPULATION_______MULTIPLIER_ _____LABOR_HOURS______LABOR_CREDITS

surgeon________________2%_(guessing)__________300X ________0.25_per_minor_surgery____75_credit-hours
carpenter_______________5%_(guessing)__________1X_ (sorry)____75_per_month,_part-time____75_credit-hours


I'd like to emphasize, as I noted before, that in a planned economy, this labor could *not* be done on a strictly self-motivated basis, because if there's no actual *demand* for it in the economy then it's a hobby.





Now, value does not mean "importance"....as in the case that a neurosurgeon is more important than a janitor. In fact, the value is retrogressive- it does not affect or concern the future, nor does it indicate a potential risk to the material relations on the future. It simply is defined as "what it cost us" to invest in the development of this person's professional skills.


Yes, this is a * materialist * approach, because labor can be defined as a person's directed effort (mental / emotional / physical) towards some material result, something that is *not* done for one's own leisure or pleasure, or for politically motivated or business motivated results -- (organizational overhead).

Many occupations require education or training of some sort, so that can be materially quantified in terms of how much time is spent in learning-effort. I maintain that the use of surveys could reveal what is popularly thought of as "difficult" courses or occupations, and what are considered "easy" courses or occupations. On this basis we would be using mass inter-subjectivity as a valid substitute for objectivity, giving us a solid factor ("education" / "training") to mix into a multiplier for determining labor credits from hours of work time.





As far as the philosophical concept of value is regarded, it remains purely subjective and therefore at the individual's discretion. It may be an "intersubjective" fact that "ice cream is good and therefore valuable because good things are valuable", but there is no certainty that everyone will like ice cream.


Yeah, there has to be some outstanding request -- and subsequent consumption -- of goods and services for them to be considered materially useful. We would *not* want a production process on autopilot -- the point is to first find out what needs and desires people would *actually* satisfy if they were provided the means to do so.

This is why a collectivized, planned communist economy is fundamentally better than a market-based economy -- market-based systems are prone to overproduction and waste of resources, including people's (human lifetimes') labor time.

[trivas7]

This is why a collectivized, planned communist economy is fundamentally better than a market-based economy -- market-based systems are prone to overproduction and waste of resources, including people's (human lifetimes') labor time.
But Stalin's Russia and Communist China's record of waste and environmental destruction are well documented. Re this is among the worst blights of socialism's history.

[Green Dragon]

For example, the "value" of the labor of a janitor would be determined by what resources were required to train him. This value would be compared to, and relative to, the value of another trade...and the requirements for the development.

A neurosurgeon would take longer to train and require more effort than a janitor, so the extent of the value is determined by what it costs the society that produces him. The value is made clear by the required investments.


How many resources would be needed to train a Roman gladiator? How about an alchemist? How much value would either professions have to a community today?

It would seem the resources used in training a person reflect the cost to the community of those resources. It says nothing about whether the cost was worth it to the community, whether the resources used were -valuable-, whether the end result created value.

[ckaihatsu]

But Stalin's Russia and Communist China's record of waste and environmental destruction are well documented. Re this is among the worst blights of socialism's history.


Yeah, well, so *don't* do it that way...!

Socialism, by definition *has* to be complete, and *not* confined to the rulership of just one country or another -- in those cases it's just back to being *nationalism* and *imperialism*, like what Britain or the U.S. did with *their* empires....

Economic systems *don't* mix, so it's gotta be one or the other -- it would take a *worldwide* workers' revolution to displace capitalism *globally* and prevent the formation of elitist, nation-based counter-revolutionary bureaucracies, like what we saw / see in Communist Russia and China....

[Green Dragon]

All that would be needed from each person would be a "shopping list" of political demands and consumer preferences. As the simplest solution, a linear list could work just fine -- the math would be to divide 100 by the ranking of each item to come up with larger numbers for higher-ranked items. So the first item (#1) would be given 100 points, #2 would be 100 / 2, or 50 points, the third would be 100 / 3, or 33-1/3 points, and so on.

By compiling the lists over a certain area -- say by zip code, or whatever -- we would have an automatically generated group list, updated daily, reflecting the ongoing political demands and consumer preferences for thousands of people living near each other. Sorting the cumulative list by points would reveal the overall priorities for the population of that area.


Saying that people want things is just part of the problem.



I could even advance a different approach to this solution, which would be a relative-weighting system of preferences. In this method everyone would have to limit their "voting" for political demands and consumer preferences to a set number of "votes" -- say, 1000 "votes" or points per person. These 1000 points would have to be distributed over all of the demands and items being demanded. Those that are meant to be more important to someone would be given more points -- if someone was particularly adamant about getting cornflakes, then they might reserve 500 points for cornflakes alone, with the remaining 500 points distributed among all other items.


Ok. What you have described is otherwise known as money. And those sorts of tradeoffs happen all the time, for thousands of years. Nothing has been changed.

But the solution is incomplete. Those units have to mean something, they have to have value to people. Otherwise its a waste of time.
If somebody decides to reserve 500 units for corn flakes, it means that person is debiting 500 units from his account. But it means the corn flake manufacturer is crediting 500 units to his account. Reason alone would seem to indicate that the objective of the consumer of cornflakes is to get his cornflakes while debiting his account as little as possible (perhaps less than 500 units?). That way he has more units for other items. Reason would also seem to indicate that the producer of cornflakes would want to get as many units as possible for his cornflake (perhaps more than 500 units?). That way he has more units to grow and develop his firm (if units grow on trees, then they have no value. Units, like cornflakes, must be limited), since after all, the the corn for the flakes will be a debit of units (since the manufacturer is now a consumer of corn), while it will be a credit to the corn farmers.
The objective would need to be to maximise the amount of units credited, and minimise the amount of units debited. Otherwise, one runs out of units.






Supply chains end with the consumer, and originate with the sourcing of materials (usually from the environment, or nature). We can simply start with the end user, the consumer, and work our way *backwards*, up the supply chain, to establish the chains of supply, including labor, needed for the manufacture of certain goods and services at each step.


You are forgetting that the cornflake manufacturer is also a consumer of corn. The supply train doesn't stop there. That manufacturer has to deal with the constant issues of change in demand, and of supply.


As I've noted in the excerpt reproduced above, the supply of labor at any given step in the supply chain would necessarily involve political discussion and planning.



All assets and resources required by labor for any given step would also be political issues and would have to be resolved by the workers concerned.[/quote]

[Green Dragon]

Yeah, well, so *don't* do it that way...!

Socialism, by definition *has* to be complete, and *not* confined to the rulership of just one country or another -- in those cases it's just back to being *nationalism* and *imperialism*, like what Britain or the U.S. did with *their* empires....

Economic systems *don't* mix, so it's gotta be one or the other -- it would take a *worldwide* workers' revolution to displace capitalism *globally* and prevent the formation of elitist, nation-based counter-revolutionary bureaucracies, like what we saw / see in Communist Russia and China....

But socialism has to accept the reality that a sudden world wide revolt will not happen. So it does need to figure how to deal with the capitalist powers until they go.

[ckaihatsu]

All that would be needed from each person would be a "shopping list" of political demands and consumer preferences. As the simplest solution, a linear list could work just fine -- the math would be to divide 100 by the ranking of each item to come up with larger numbers for higher-ranked items. So the first item (#1) would be given 100 points, #2 would be 100 / 2, or 50 points, the third would be 100 / 3, or 33-1/3 points, and so on.

By compiling the lists over a certain area -- say by zip code, or whatever -- we would have an automatically generated group list, updated daily, reflecting the ongoing political demands and consumer preferences for thousands of people living near each other. Sorting the cumulative list by points would reveal the overall priorities for the population of that area.





Saying that people want things is just part of the problem.


Hah! So are you suggesting that people *stop* consuming things and *stop* participating in interconnected networks that transport objects and value, for the rest of eternity??? Should we all go back to a village-type existence and ditch all of the conveniences and enlightenment that global, networked activity has brought us? You first. Tell us how it goes...!!!


> B^ >






I could even advance a different approach to this solution, which would be a relative-weighting system of preferences. In this method everyone would have to limit their "voting" for political demands and consumer preferences to a set number of "votes" -- say, 1000 "votes" or points per person. These 1000 points would have to be distributed over all of the demands and items being demanded. Those that are meant to be more important to someone would be given more points -- if someone was particularly adamant about getting cornflakes, then they might reserve 500 points for cornflakes alone, with the remaining 500 points distributed among all other items.





Ok. What you have described is otherwise known as money. And those sorts of tradeoffs happen all the time, for thousands of years. Nothing has been changed.


Laugh. Out. Loud. Now you're *intentionally* misrepresenting my meaning, and this is not the first time you've done that.

If you'll notice, I'm talking about a *mass prioritization* of fulfillment of our needs and desires -- since we can't have it all, we have to have a system for prioritizing what should get done first, second, and so on.

What I have described is a system of *conscious*, *planned* demands and production that *precludes* the use of money. We don't need to *bother* with the messiness of money -- a tool of elitist rule -- when we can *consciously* decide how to run the material world, using forums like RevLeft.

The only difference between our political discussion here, right now, and a future one in the context of a future communist economy is that in *that* one we could be discussing *** what actually gets done in industry ***. In the here-and-now the best I can do is make recommendations that hopefully will make sense to people and are worth fighting for.





But the solution is incomplete. Those units have to mean something, they have to have value to people. Otherwise its a waste of time.
If somebody decides to reserve 500 units for corn flakes, it means that person is debiting 500 units from his account.


Nope -- again, you're misrepresenting. I said *nothing* about "units" or "credits" here -- go back and read my words again. This is about *prioritizing* *policy* choices -- this way no money or politicians / representatives are needed.





But it means the corn flake manufacturer is crediting 500 units to his account. Reason alone would seem to indicate that the objective of the consumer of cornflakes is to get his cornflakes while debiting his account as little as possible (perhaps less than 500 units?). That way he has more units for other items. Reason would also seem to indicate that the producer of cornflakes would want to get as many units as possible for his cornflake (perhaps more than 500 units?). That way he has more units to grow and develop his firm (if units grow on trees, then they have no value. Units, like cornflakes, must be limited), since after all, the the corn for the flakes will be a debit of units (since the manufacturer is now a consumer of corn), while it will be a credit to the corn farmers.
The objective would need to be to maximise the amount of units credited, and minimise the amount of units debited. Otherwise, one runs out of units.


Now you're just making shit up.... - Whatever -





Supply chains end with the consumer, and originate with the sourcing of materials (usually from the environment, or nature). We can simply start with the end user, the consumer, and work our way *backwards*, up the supply chain, to establish the chains of supply, including labor, needed for the manufacture of certain goods and services at each step.





You are forgetting that the cornflake manufacturer is also a consumer of corn. The supply train doesn't stop there. That manufacturer has to deal with the constant issues of change in demand, and of supply.





As I've noted in the excerpt reproduced above, the supply of labor [and corn] at any given step in the supply chain would necessarily involve political discussion and planning.





All assets and resources required by labor for any given step would also be political issues and would have to be resolved by the workers concerned.





But socialism has to accept the reality that a sudden world wide revolt will not happen. So it does need to figure how to deal with the capitalist powers until they go.


Hey, now you have a crystal ball!!! Cool, gonna share???

Maybe not *everyone* is as fatalistic as you are, so enjoy the village life -- don't expect a best-seller out of it, either....

[Green Dragon]

[quote=ckaihatsu;1388126]Hah! So are you suggesting that people *stop* consuming things and *stop* participating in interconnected networks that transport objects and value, for the rest of eternity??? Should we all go back to a village-type existence and ditch all of the conveniences and enlightenment that global, networked activity has brought us? You first. Tell us how it goes...!!!


No. You misunderstood. But I did write it poorly.

I am saying the problem isn't just consumption, its production, since as you do state, not everyone can have everything they want.





Laugh. Out. Loud. Now you're *intentionally* misrepresenting my meaning, and this is not the first time you've done that.

If you'll notice, I'm talking about a *mass prioritization* of fulfillment of our needs and desires -- since we can't have it all, we have to have a system for prioritizing what should get done first, second, and so on.

What I have described is a system of *conscious*, *planned* demands and production that *precludes* the use of money. We don't need to *bother* with the messiness of money -- a tool of elitist rule -- when we can *consciously* decide how to run the material world, using forums like RevLeft.


Call 'em points, call 'em cornflakes, it is still called money.



The only difference between our political discussion here, right now, and a future one in the context of a future communist economy is that in *that* one we could be discussing *** what actually gets done in industry ***. In the here-and-now the best I can do is make recommendations that hopefully will make sense to people and are worth fighting for.


No. Since the future society is not supposed to be a tyranny, you will still be discussing reccomendations that you hope will make sense to most people.






Nope -- again, you're misrepresenting. I said *nothing* about "units" or "credits" here -- go back and read my words again. This is about *prioritizing* *policy* choices -- this way no money or politicians / representatives are needed.


Call e'm units, call 'em cornflakes, call 'em points. It is still money.






Now you're just making shit up.... - Whatever -


No, because since you recognise everyone cannot get what they want all the time, your system has to have a way of accounting, of documenting, and determining.




Hey, now you have a crystal ball!!! Cool, gonna share???


Its called living in reality. Its also called planning for all contingencies. I thought planning was all the rage?

[ckaihatsu]

No. You misunderstood. But I did write it poorly.

I am saying the problem isn't just consumption, its production, since as you do state, not everyone can have everything they want.


Okay, I'll give you some rope here -- so what would be the problem with production in a worker-controlled, planned economy, then? In your earlier posts you seem to think that there would be a shortage of natural resources, or that there would be disputes over which facilities have access to resources.

If this is the case I'll remind you that the problem in the world is *not* a problem of lack of *overall capacity* for producing enough for everyone. The problem is the elitism of decision-making over *what* gets produced, and *who* gets to own it. Distribution of the fruits of production is extremely inequitable, and it's *that* aspect that has to be overthrown and replaced with workers' collectivization and control.





Call 'em points, call 'em cornflakes, it is still called money.


Are you writing *this* part poorly, too? Should I give you the benefit of the doubt, or are you deliberately mixing up priority points with actual material measures of value, like money? Re-read that part a *third* time....





No. Since the future society is not supposed to be a tyranny, you will still be discussing reccomendations that you hope will make sense to most people.


You're actually showing a sense of humor here, and it's actually funny. I'm glad that you manage to find opportunities for levity within your hectic workweek.





No, because since you recognise everyone cannot get what they want all the time, your system has to have a way of accounting, of documenting, and determining.


Uh-huh -- I'm not even going to bother with the courtesy of copying-and-pasting my previous posts, in which I address this issue, so you know the drill -- go back and re-read....

[Green Dragon]

[quote=ckaihatsu;1388456]Okay, I'll give you some rope here -- so what would be the problem with production in a worker-controlled, planned economy, then? In your earlier posts you seem to think that there would be a shortage of natural resources, or that there would be disputes over which facilities have access to resources.


What I have said is that simply having a worker controled community changes nothing. Saying it is "planned" means nothing.

There are always shortages of natural resources; there are always disputes over where resources go (why should that wood be shipped to the furniture factory as opposed to the paper mill?). There would be no difference in your system. True, the nature of the discussion would be different, the manner as well. But your community still needs to resolve the same problems.
So your solution to the problem is, in part I guess, priority points, where people get points so as to aquire needed goods, is nothing more than money, where the worker decides how to allocate his own resource (money or if it makes you happier, points). fHow else do people spend money today today, if not on their priorities first?



If this is the case I'll remind you that the problem in the world is *not* a problem of lack of *overall capacity* for producing enough for everyone. The problem is the elitism of decision-making over *what* gets produced, and *who* gets to own it. Distribution of the fruits of production is extremely inequitable, and it's *that* aspect that has to be overthrown and replaced with workers' collectivization and control.


But again, worker collectivisation does nothing to equitably distribute production, Those worker control industries have to make certain choices and structure their production in certain ways for this to occur. So one has to examine how might this be done. As said earlier, priority points is nothing but money renamed, and automation simply shifts the problem elsewhere.

[heiss93]

According to this article the labor theory of value can be calculated using statistical probabilities similar to thermodynamics
http://paeditorsblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-physics-is-validating-labor-theory.html



But 25 years ago help came from an unexpected source. Two mathematicians Moshe Machover and Emanuel Farjoun, wrote a book called the Laws of Chaos. Their book gave a radically new way of looking at how capitalism worked as a chaotic and disorganised system. Farjoun and Machover had the the insight to see that physics had already developed theories to describe similar disorganised and chaotic systems.

In a market economy, hundreds of thousands of firms and individuals interact, buying and selling goods and services. This is similar to a gas in which very large numbers of molecules interact, bouncing off one another. Physics speaks of such systems as having a 'high degree of freedom', by which it means that the movements of all individual molecules are 'free' or random. But despite the individual molecules being free to move, we can still say things about them in the aggregate. We can say what their average speed will be ( their temperature ) and what their likely distributions in space will be.

The branch of physics which studies this is statistical mechanics or thermodynamics. Instead of making deterministic statements, it deals with probabilities and averages, but it still comes up with fundamental laws, the laws of thermodynamics, which have been found to govern the behaviour of our universe.

Now here is the surprise! When they applied the method of statistical mechanics to the capitalist economy, they found that the predictions it made coincided almost exactly with the labour theory of value as set out in volume 1 of Marx's Kapital. Statistical mechanics showed that the selling prices of goods would vary in proportion to their labour content just as Marx had assumed. Because the market is chaotic, individual prices would not be exactly equal to labour values, but they would cluster very closely around labour values. Whilst in Kapital I the labour theory of value is just taken as an empirically valid rule of thumb. Marx knew it was right, but did not say why. Here at last was a sound physical theory explaining it.

It is the job of science to uncover causal mechanisms. Once it has done this it can make predictions which can be tested. If two competing theories make different predictions about reality, we can by observation determine which theory is right. This is the normal scientific method.

In a market economy, hundreds of thousands of firms and individuals interact, buying and selling goods and services. This is similar to a gas in which very large numbers of molecules interact, bouncing off one another. Physics speaks of such systems as having a 'high degree of freedom', by which it means that the movements of all individual molecules are 'free' or random. But despite the individual molecules being free to move, we can still say things about them in the aggregate. We can say what their average speed will be ( their temperature ) and what their likely distributions in space will be.
.

[ckaihatsu]

What I have said is that simply having a worker controled community changes nothing. Saying it is "planned" means nothing.

There are always shortages of natural resources;


Just because *you* say that nothing would change doesn't make it so. You can also say that there would always be shortages, and the saying of *that* doesn't make *that* true, either. You could also say that people will always be killing each other with missiles -- your saying it doesn't make *that* true either....





there are always disputes over where resources go (why should that wood be shipped to the furniture factory as opposed to the paper mill?).


Look, I don't know who died and made you God, but you really have to stop this ridiculousness. Just lay off the Sim games for awhile -- I think it's gone to your head...!





There would be no difference in your system.


"My" system -- ??? Like I'm the one who came up with the idea of overthrowing capitalism? Yeesh, why didn't I get it trademarked and patented? Do you have any idea how much money I'm going to miss out on when the revolution takes place and *I* lose out on residuals???

And you really think nothing changes when the whole economic system changes? Like from feudalism to mercantilism? Or from slavery to free labor?

You know, during the time of slavery people said *slavery* would always be with us....





True, the nature of the discussion would be different, the manner as well. But your community still needs to resolve the same problems.
So your solution to the problem is, in part I guess, priority points, where people get points so as to aquire needed goods,


Nope -- you're *still* missing the point of the points. I'll admit it's a *whole different* method, but I don't think it's *that* difficult to understand.... How about this analogy:

Think of it as a society in which there are *always* street protests going on -- they go on *all the time*, day and night, in *many* areas of the city and rural areas -- wherever people live and work.

It's *strictly* on the basis of the protests that the economy operates. No one would do shit for anyone if they didn't feel the pressure of a hundreds-strong street protest breathing down their necks. This society has found that that's what it takes to make things happen, anytime and always.

The *cool* thing about this is that no ownership or money are needed because of this. Many workers who are in a position to make the factories run and produce stuff feel pressured enough by certain street protests and demands -- maybe for clothing one week and lumber the next -- to put these demands into motion and work the factories to produce the stuff.

Those demanding the stuff will *stop* their protests once the stuff they're demanding starts issuing forth from the factories -- then they gather it up, as they need it, and get it back to *where* they need it, to use it. Once the demands have been fulfilled the street protests stop, so then the workers stop working, factory production shuts down, and the factory goes back to being unused.

Perhaps the people in *a different* area then begin to demand clothing, or lumber, soon after. They find out that because of the *first* street protest and factory production there's not enough cotton available anymore for producing cloth, or trees left nearby for lumber.

They may decide to then put the call out over a *much wider* area, around them, to get workers to get off their butts and make some cotton happen, or search out another tree farm somewhere that can be used to source lumber. There may happen to be a greater area of people that would *want* to get some clothing and lumber going on, and so the *next* street protest could be even *larger* and could wind up getting even *more* cotton harvested and trees cut down for textiles and lumber, respectively.

Several areas (zip codes / whatever) of people might come together to then hash out exactly *how much* cloth and wood there is, which neighborhoods exactly are demanding how much of each, and so on -- the details can be worked out so that nothing is wasted from the harvest, or from the efforts of the workers....





is nothing more than money, where the worker decides how to allocate his own resource (money or if it makes you happier, points). fHow else do people spend money today today, if not on their priorities first?


No, it's *not* money, because the priority points themselves have no convertible value. The priority points have *political* value, which is a different thing -- have you ever done something nice for someone, like run an errand for them? Once you have they kind of "owe you one" -- and that means that a request of yours in the future will be more of a *priority* for them -- you've "scored points" by doing that favor for them....

Money gives us the idea that *everything on earth* has been chopped up and a price tag has been put on it -- priority points gives us the idea that everything is unused and waiting for us to do something with it if only we could organize ourselves and prioritize *what* it is we want done, as larger groups of people.

So the difference between money and priority points is the difference between economics and politics, respectively.

I'm not saying that a *strictly* political economy, like one that uses priority points, will be *perfect*, but it can certainly be much more on-the-ground and responsive to actual human need that an *economic*-based system could ever be. This is because the market system is better suited for a material environment of *scarcity* -- it uses competition to force the private accumulation of basic materials / resources, as against others who are doing the same.

But the problem with market systems (capitalism) is that if there *aren't* conditions of scarcity extant it will *make* conditions of scarcity around it, as the proper environment for it to function in -- that's why there have been world wars and everyday basic wastefulness (through competition) -- the destruction of material makes whatever is left *more valuable* according to its laws of economics. Never mind that stuff, including people's lives, is being wasted -- that's simply how the *economics* of it works, no matter which this-or-that people are in what positions....

A post-capitalist, revolutionary, planned economy based on worker collectivization of the means of mass production would get past this dehumanizing impediment of market economics so that we can get to the *production process itself* as workers and consumers.





But again, worker collectivisation does nothing to equitably distribute production,


Look, we're not balancing mathematical equations here -- this *isn't* some brainy mind puzzle to be solved in the most elegant way possible -- this is about *making production available to mass demands*. As revolutionaries we're saying that there's plenty of genuine demand for human needs out there that's unaddressed by the productive capacity out there -- and this is because of the middleman of capitalism.

Worker collectivization would effectively throw *everything* "onto the table" to be decided on by those closest to it, geographically. (And from there capacity could be generalized and decided on over broader areas of geography -- centralized -- but not all revolutionaries agree with me on this point.)





Those worker control industries have to make certain choices and structure their production in certain ways for this to occur. So one has to examine how might this be done.


Right -- this part of what you're saying is *correct*. This would be the politics of worker-controlled production, under collectivization.





As said earlier, priority points is nothing but money renamed, and automation simply shifts the problem elsewhere.


No, and no -- automation, like the kind we're seeing today, is the *democratization* of materialism. Capitalism has done good in making more stuff available to millions and billions more people, but it's come at a monstrous cost. We should be using that automation for ourselves, bypassing the market mechanism and its demon (bourgeois) politics.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=ckaihatsu;1390700]Just because *you* say that nothing would change doesn't make it so.

Sure it does. Who cares who owns, who controls it. Its what they do with the possession, with the control, that matters.


You can also say that there would always be shortages, and the saying of *that* doesn't make *that* true, either.

Sure it does. There are always limits upon what people can produce.
Heck, what if your street protests are unimpressive? You are the one saying if nobody wants to buld computers then none will be built.



Look, I don't know who died and made you God, but you really have to stop this ridiculousness. Just lay off the Sim games for awhile -- I think it's gone to your head...!

Look again. A tree is chopped down. You can turn it into furniture, paper, firewood, wood for housing, picture frames ect. It can be one or the other, but not all.







And you really think nothing changes when the whole economic system changes? Like from feudalism to mercantilism? Or from slavery to free labor?


Of course, Because production was DIFFERENT under feudalism than mercantilism, slavery vs free labor.



Think of it as a society in which there are *always* street protests going on -- they go on *all the time*, day and night, in *many* areas of the city and rural areas -- wherever people live and work.

It's *strictly* on the basis of the protests that the economy operates. No one would do shit for anyone if they didn't feel the pressure of a hundreds-strong street protest breathing down their necks. This society has found that that's what it takes to make things happen, anytime and always.

The *cool* thing about this is that no ownership or money are needed because of this. Many workers who are in a position to make the factories run and produce stuff feel pressured enough by certain street protests and demands -- maybe for clothing one week and lumber the next -- to put these demands into motion and work the factories to produce the stuff.

Those demanding the stuff will *stop* their protests once the stuff they're demanding starts issuing forth from the factories -- then they gather it up, as they need it, and get it back to *where* they need it, to use it. Once the demands have been fulfilled the street protests stop, so then the workers stop working, factory production shuts down, and the factory goes back to being unused.


I live in an urban area of the USA. How will my joining street protests, here, for the workers of Costa Rico, there, to get off their ass and send me bannanas, impress them?

And if people are protesting on a regular basis for things that they want and need, when do you suppose they have time to produce to satisfy the demands of that other band of protesters down the block?



They may decide to then put the call out over a *much wider* area, around them, to get workers to get off their butts and make some cotton happen, or search out another tree farm somewhere that can be used to source lumber.

But why should that tree farm "somewhere" ship lumber to the protesters?



There may happen to be a greater area of people that would *want* to get some clothing and lumber going on, and so the *next* street protest could be even *larger* and could wind up getting even *more* cotton harvested and trees cut down for textiles and lumber, respectively.

Several areas (zip codes / whatever) of people might come together to then hash out exactly *how much* cloth and wood there is, which neighborhoods exactly are demanding how much of each, and so on -- the details can be worked out so that nothing is wasted from the harvest, or from the efforts of the workers....



I wonder about New Orleans. Imagine all those street protests in that town for gardeners and decorative shrubs, maybe some paint to spruce up the shingles. Then they figure exactly what they want, it is produced exactly as demanded (no waste)...
... And then Katrina blows through and all the plans go to shit. Because shrubs in the front yard are suddenly no longer a priority for anyone.
Back to the barricades!!!





No, it's *not* money, because the priority points themselves have no convertible value. The priority points have *political* value, which is a different thing -- have you ever done something nice for someone, like run an errand for them? Once you have they kind of "owe you one" -- and that means that a request of yours in the future will be more of a *priority* for them -- you've "scored points" by doing that favor for them....


Ok. But the fellow making television sets that you have never met, never will meet, and will never know existed, isn't out to do you a favor. He is most likely being chased to work by your street protests...


Money gives us the idea that *everything on earth* has been chopped up and a price tag has been put on it -- priority points gives us the idea that everything is unused and waiting for us to do something with it if only we could organize ourselves and prioritize *what* it is we want done, as larger groups of people.

OK. People will spend priority points first on those things which they deem to be a priority, then on things they dem less a priority, and so forth.
I asked you before, how do you suppose people use money? THE SAME WAY!!!




I'm not saying that a *strictly* political economy, like one that uses priority points, will be *perfect*, but it can certainly be much more on-the-ground and responsive to actual human need that an *economic*-based system could ever be. This is because the market system is better suited for a material environment of *scarcity* -- it uses competition to force the private accumulation of basic materials / resources, as against others who are doing the same.


The market system recognises there are limits to human action. There are only so many hours in the day, only so many hours which people can work, only so much raw materials at any given time ect ect ect. That is what is meant by scarcity. Communism will never change that.




A post-capitalist, revolutionary, planned economy based on worker collectivization

Street protests are a "planned economy." No street protests= no production of needed and wanted goods. Not well planned out.








Worker collectivization would effectively throw *everything* "onto the table" to be decided on by those closest to it, geographically. (And from there capacity could be generalized and decided on over broader areas of geography -- centralized -- but not all revolutionaries agree with me on this point.)


You keep throwing words out like "capacity" and "decided" without explaining what that means in the context of your system.

[ckaihatsu]

Sure it does. Who cares who owns, who controls it. Its what they do with the possession, with the control, that matters.





Sure it does. There are always limits upon what people can produce.
Heck, what if your street protests are unimpressive? You are the one saying if nobody wants to buld computers then none will be built.





Look again. A tree is chopped down. You can turn it into furniture, paper, firewood, wood for housing, picture frames ect. It can be one or the other, but not all.


Here you're simply being argumentative, or glass-half-empty. You're contending that we have to live half our lives during the nighttime, in the absence of sunlight. Certainly no one can "argue" or "refute" you on what you're saying, but you're really not saying much.

The *point* of having *any* discussion on RevLeft, or *any* political discussion whatsoever, for that matter, is to *be constructive* and *plan for the future*. Anyone can go around and throw a bucket of water on people and then point out that they're wet, but then you have to look at your own actions and ask yourself what the fuck you're doing with your time.

So we can say that in this discussion we're in a situation here of dueling subjectivities -- you want to posit that things would still be imperfect in a post-capitalist society, and I'm trying to maintain that it would at least be a vast improvement over the exploitation and oppression that we currently see, due to capitalism.





Of course, Because production was DIFFERENT under feudalism than mercantilism, slavery vs free labor.


Right -- you're agreeing with my point here. When *production* is different -- meaning more efficient, and thus improved -- then *people's lives* are improved. They can work less, or have more choice as to what to work at, or more people can be more commonly wealthier, or all of the above. *That's* worthwhile, unignorable, and even worth fighting for.





I live in an urban area of the USA. How will my joining street protests, here, for the workers of Costa Rico, there, to get off their ass and send me bannanas, impress them?

And if people are protesting on a regular basis for things that they want and need, when do you suppose they have time to produce to satisfy the demands of that other band of protesters down the block?





Street protests are a "planned economy." No street protests= no production of needed and wanted goods. Not well planned out.


See -- here again you're nitpicking and being (purposely?) obtuse -- my point with the scenario was to make the statement that we could have an economic system *** free from private ownership and money-values ***. This would be a vast improvement in the *** efficiency of production ***, thus raising the quality of life for people in common. The prioritization of mass human demands (through time) could be done with local street protests, or it could be done with a system of democratic prioritization points.





But why should that tree farm "somewhere" ship lumber to the protesters?


Why shouldn't it?





I wonder about New Orleans. Imagine all those street protests in that town for gardeners and decorative shrubs, maybe some paint to spruce up the shingles. Then they figure exactly what they want, it is produced exactly as demanded (no waste)...
... And then Katrina blows through and all the plans go to shit. Because shrubs in the front yard are suddenly no longer a priority for anyone.
Back to the barricades!!!


Hope you're enjoying yourself....





Ok. But the fellow making television sets that you have never met, never will meet, and will never know existed, isn't out to do you a favor. He is most likely being chased to work by your street protests...


And since he's participating in a formal political economy he would be *compensated* for his labor, and free from the exploitation of labor value that we see continuously under the capitalist economic system.... (My scenario was purposely *crude* in format to make a point. I advocate the "socialist supply and demand" model that you can read at my blog, at the link in this posting's header.)





OK. People will spend priority points first on those things which they deem to be a priority, then on things they dem less a priority, and so forth.
I asked you before, how do you suppose people use money? THE SAME WAY!!!


No, you're *still* confusing policy priorities with exchange values -- there's a difference, because policy priorities implies / requires a mass base of support while exchange value (money) can be used *privately*, on an *individual* basis.





The market system recognises there are limits to human action. There are only so many hours in the day, only so many hours which people can work, only so much raw materials at any given time ect ect ect. That is what is meant by scarcity. Communism will never change that.


No, you're describing materialism, or the material universe that we inhabit. That, by itself, is *not necessarily* scarcity. The proof is that the human race has gone from thousands to the current 6-2/3 billion individuals we currently have on the face of the earth. This indicates growth of an exponential rate, which is *certainly* *not* scarcity of the basics for supporting human life, in general.

But despite this incredible population growth rate we are still encumbered by an economic system that *enforces scarcity* by its function -- World War I and World War II are the best examples of this process. This is why we need a global workers' revolution to overthrow capitalism with its destructive features.





You keep throwing words out like "capacity" and "decided" without explaining what that means in the context of your system.


Okay, this is a fair inquiry -- *capacity* means the technical upper-limit to what could *possibly* be produced, if all equipment and resources could be used to their fullest, on an ongoing basis.

*Decided* means that the human activity of groups of people in close proximity to each other *facilitates* the productive process so that it functions in the best interests of people, for their health and well-being.

[Lynx]

The market system recognises there are limits to human action. There are only so many hours in the day, only so many hours which people can work, only so much raw materials at any given time ect ect ect. That is what is meant by scarcity. Communism will never change that.
We can make a distinction between opportunity cost and scarcity. The market solution for scarcity is higher prices; an alternative, and not necessarily socialist solution, is rationing.
When it comes to opportunity cost, the market system allocates resources according to the profit motive. Communism would replace profit with social need. These goals (criteria) by themselves aren't sufficient to optimize decision making - additional data is required. Neither capitalists nor communists enjoy the idea of stumbling through the dark, wondering which decisions would have best accomplished their goals.

[ckaihatsu]

We can make a distinction between opportunity cost and scarcity. The market solution for scarcity is higher prices; an alternative, and not necessarily socialist solution, is rationing.


Nicely done.

You're mentioning rationing, which the average person would associate with Stalinism and its less-than-sufficient, poorly managed, bureaucratically run historical economies. You're saying rationing is "not necessarily socialist", but in that phrase you're certainly casting doubt on the ability of a revolutionary socialist economy to indeed provide the goods *without* rationing.

How about we just say that an alternative to *not* having enough is to kick-start the productive process so that *enough stuff* *is made* -- this is the litmus test for any post-capitalist economy / society, anyway -- we're kind of begging the question here....





When it comes to opportunity cost, the market system allocates resources according to the profit motive.


Yes, or, put another way, capitalism allocates resources based on the primitive accumulation of capital, even if the society has far surpassed the need to allocate resources this way. Capitalism's inherent competitive function will even bring owners to the unavoidable option of violence and destruction of competitors' assets and resources, through war, and the destruction of competitors, through killing.





Communism would replace profit with social need. These goals by themselves aren't sufficient to optimize decision making - additional data is required. Neither capitalists nor communists enjoy the idea of stumbling through the dark, wondering which decisions would have best accomplished their goals.


You're really blithely putting the goals of *profit-making* and *social need* side-by-side in some kind of rinky-dink taste-test comparison???

So to you the "optimization equation" is king, and both economic systems need to provide "additional data" so that we can finally come to a determination??? That way both "capitalists [and] communists [won't have to be] stumbling through the dark, wondering which decisions would have best accomplished their goals" -- ???

May I ask you which planet you're living on?!!! Do you realize that this is *not* some issue that we can take to a TV judge to decide on before the next commercial break? And, as much as I'm a fan of spreadsheets, this *isn't* an issue to be solved with some well-modelled number-crunching by Excel.

Please leave us the dignity of being politically partisan and *don't* treat this like some kind of abstract physics thought-experiment...!

[Lynx]

You're mentioning rationing, which the average person would associate with Stalinism and its less-than-sufficient, poorly managed, bureaucratically run historical economies. You're saying rationing is "not necessarily socialist", but in that phrase you're certainly casting doubt on the ability of a revolutionary socialist economy to indeed provide the goods *without* rationing.
Rationing is a kinder, gentler method to price hiking. It's not necessarily socialist because capitalism also makes use of rationing, in the form of price hikes. There is also another option, subsidies.
Rationing, price hikes and subsidies are mechanisms used to resolve particular market situations. Their association with Stalinism and failure should be broken - such associations are nonsensical. The only real topic of discussion are the comparative advantages / disadvantages of these mechanisms.

How about we just say that an alternative to *not* having enough is to kick-start the productive process so that *enough stuff* *is made* -- this is the litmus test for any post-capitalist economy / society, anyway -- we're kind of begging the question here....
We could - but others won't let us, and rightfully so.

Yes, or, put another way, capitalism allocates resources based on the primitive accumulation of capital, even if the society has far surpassed the need to allocate resources this way. Capitalism's inherent competitive function will even bring owners to the unavoidable option of violence and destruction of competitors' assets and resources, through war, and the destruction of competitors, through killing.
This may be due to a qualitative difference in criteria. Whereas the profit motive is blunt and mindless, social need is democratically determined, and policy driven.


You're really blithely putting the goals of *profit-making* and *social need* side-by-side in some kind of rinky-dink taste-test comparison???

So to you the "optimization equation" is king, and both economic systems need to provide "additional data" so that we can finally come to a determination??? That way both "capitalists [and] communists [won't have to be] stumbling through the dark, wondering which decisions would have best accomplished their goals" -- ???

May I ask you which planet you're living on?!!! Do you realize that this is *not* some issue that we can take to a TV judge to decide on before the next commercial break? And, as much as I'm a fan of spreadsheets, this *isn't* an issue to be solved with some well-modelled number-crunching by Excel.

Please leave us the dignity of being politically partisan and *don't* treat this like some kind of abstract physics thought-experiment...!
I'm merely pointing out that when it comes to opportunity cost, both communism and capitalism share the same challenge. They share an equal footing. This will hopefully put to rest the idea that capitalism has a comparative advantage in calculating OC.

[Green Dragon]

When it comes to opportunity cost, the market system allocates resources according to the profit motive. Communism would replace profit with social need. These goals (criteria) by themselves aren't sufficient to optimize decision making - additional data is required.

Profit is the additional information which the capitalist sytem uses in their decision making. It is difficult to see how the communist system could reject it, considering it is data which demonstrates that people value the finished product greater tha the sum of its parts. But I do understand often time the objection is not to the profit accrued, but to who accrues it.


Neither capitalists nor communists enjoy the idea of stumbling through the dark, wondering which decisions would have best accomplished their goals.[/QUOTE]

True. But since nobody can see the future, all eonomic activity and decisions are essentially made in the dark.

[Green Dragon]

When it comes to opportunity cost, the market system allocates resources according to the profit motive. Communism would replace profit with social need. These goals (criteria) by themselves aren't sufficient to optimize decision making - additional data is required.

Profit is the additional information which the capitalist sytem uses in their decision making. It is difficult to see how the communist system could reject it, considering it is data which demonstrates that people value the finished product greater tha the sum of its parts. But I do understand often time the objection is not to the profit accrued, but to who accrues it.


Neither capitalists nor communists enjoy the idea of stumbling through the dark, wondering which decisions would have best accomplished their goals.[/QUOTE]

True. But since nobody can see the future, all eonomic activity and decisions are essentially made in the dark.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=ckaihatsu;1391634]Here you're simply being argumentative, or glass-half-empty. You're contending that we have to live half our lives during the nighttime, in the absence of sunlight. Certainly no one can "argue" or "refute" you on what you're saying, but you're really not saying much.


I am pointing out that those are realities which your system has to accept and account for. It is not doing it.



The *point* of having *any* discussion on RevLeft, or *any* political discussion whatsoever, for that matter, is to *be constructive* and *plan for the future*. Anyone can go around and throw a bucket of water on people and then point out that they're wet, but then you have to look at your own actions and ask yourself what the fuck you're doing with your time.


As above.


So we can say that in this discussion we're in a situation here of dueling subjectivities -- you want to posit that things would still be imperfect in a post-capitalist society,

No. What I am saying is that the problems which you think is created by capitalism, is simply part of life. That those same problems will have to be addressed by the socialist system. You seem to think that is throwing a bucket of cold water. Maybe it is, and maybe that is what is needed.








Right -- you're agreeing with my point here. When *production* is different -- meaning more efficient, and thus improved -- then *people's lives* are improved. They can work less, or have more choice as to what to work at, or more people can be more commonly wealthier, or all of the above. *That's* worthwhile, unignorable, and even worth fighting for.


"Different" production is not by definition "more efficient" production. It is simply "different" production. Street protesting does nothing to change production in a more efficient manner. All it can possibly do is simply compel people to make more of something.








See -- here again you're nitpicking and being (purposely?) obtuse -- my point with the scenario was to make the statement that we could have an economic system ***

Since your entire scenario was based upon production occurring based upon a reaction to street protests (which, as an aside, is production based upon pointing a gun) it was scarcely nitpicking to apply it.








Why shouldn't it?


Another question: Why would there be any tree farms, since the only time they would be used is when people show up with torches and pitchforks?






Hope you're enjoying yourself....


Yes. But your system has to account for emergencies and natural disasters. The New Orleans scenario was absolutely fair and on point challenge to what you are saying.






And since he's participating in a formal political economy he would be *compensated* for his labor, and free from the exploitation of labor value that we see continuously under the capitalist economic system.... (My scenario was purposely *crude* in format to make a point. I advocate the "socialist supply and demand" model that you can read at my blog, at the link in this posting's header.)


But again, its the "what do you with the tree" problem which the socialist system has to face. Just because our fine fellow is using his work time making TV's, doesn't mean his time is being used efficiently, or even properly. Even if the protesters say otherwise.






No, you're *still* confusing policy priorities with exchange values -- there's a difference, because policy priorities implies / requires a mass base of support while exchange value (money) can be used *privately*, on an *individual* basis.


Ok. The concession that the socialist system is not primarily concerned with the individual.






No, you're describing materialism, or the material universe that we inhabit. That, by itself, is *not necessarily* scarcity. The proof is that the human race has gone from thousands to the current 6-2/3 billion individuals we currently have on the face of the earth. This indicates growth of an exponential rate, which is *certainly* *not* scarcity of the basics for supporting human life, in general.


Scarcity doesn't mean there is not enough of something. It means that people are limited by factors beyond their control in using it.




Okay, this is a fair inquiry -- *capacity* means the technical upper-limit to what could *possibly* be produced, if all equipment and resources could be used to their fullest, on an ongoing basis.


There you go- scarcity, even in the socialist system.

[ckaihatsu]

Your pessimism regarding conscious human activity, *and* your disingenuous representation of what I advocate, are *both* appalling.

Again, I *advocate* a priority-point system for determining mass human need / demand -- my description of it is in a prior posting, and is also at my blog, which you can find a link to in the posting header. I do *not* advocate the *crude*, perpetual-protest form of expressed mass demand -- I used that as a scenario for *illustrative* purposes only.





It is difficult to see how the communist system could reject [profit], considering it is data which demonstrates that people value the finished product greater tha the sum of its parts. But I do understand often time the objection is not to the profit accrued, but to who accrues it.


Here you are, *yourself* saying that "people value the finished product greater than the sum of its parts" -- isn't *that* enough of a guide to determining a hierarchy of value??? We can easily dispense with the extraction of profit since that just robs production of funding. (!!!)





True. But since nobody can see the future, all eonomic activity and decisions are essentially made in the dark.


I find it incredible how you can be so brainwashed as to think that people could *never* express their needs and desires that a planned-production economy could then respond to.

Don't people continuously make plans in their lives? Don't they have wants that they would like to make happen in the near-future, in the next 2 months, in the next 6 months, in the next year, in the next 5 years???

And don't millions of people happen to have the same, or similar, needs and wants that a planned-production system could then respond to???





I am pointing out that those are realities which your system has to accept and account for. It is not doing it.


No, you're not.





No. What I am saying is that the problems which you think is created by capitalism, is simply part of life. That those same problems will have to be addressed by the socialist system. You seem to think that is throwing a bucket of cold water. Maybe it is, and maybe that is what is needed.


No, you're mistaken. The problems *can* be solved with a revolution to a mass-human-intention-based system, as opposed to the current system which *has no* conscious mass planning -- it is merely the aggregation of individual aspirations to profit.





"Different" production is not by definition "more efficient" production. It is simply "different" production. Street protesting does nothing to change production in a more efficient manner. All it can possibly do is simply compel people to make more of something.


Right -- it is the people's needs and desires (demands) which should be the driving force of an economy -- *not* profit.





Since your entire scenario was based upon production occurring based upon a reaction to street protests (which, as an aside, is production based upon pointing a gun) it was scarcely nitpicking to apply it.


Street protests are a valid way of expressing *mass* demand -- however we need to overthrow capitalism so that an easier, more routine system can be used to register mass demand -- my system of prioritization points is an option for that.

Your equating of street protests with the threat of physical violence is appalling -- I think most people understand there to be a world of difference between the two.





Another question: Why would there be any tree farms, since the only time they would be used is when people show up with torches and pitchforks?


Again, you're intentionally missing my *political* point, in favor of misrepresenting my characterizations.





Yes. But your system has to account for emergencies and natural disasters. The New Orleans scenario was absolutely fair and on point challenge to what you are saying.


Emergency situations could be handled the same way, and just as well, as anything else under a system of conscious, planned production.





But again, its the "what do you with the tree" problem which the socialist system has to face. Just because our fine fellow is using his work time making TV's, doesn't mean his time is being used efficiently, or even properly. Even if the protesters say otherwise.


"Properly" would be defined as responding to the collective demands (needs and desires) expressed by masses of people in a geographic area. "Efficiently" would be getting the most output of goods and services for the least input of asset usage, resource usage, and labor effort.





Ok. The concession that the socialist system is not primarily concerned with the individual.


It's not a "concession", as you characterize it -- it's the truth.

Under capitalism certain individuals who have amassed large fortunes of private wealth are given preferred treatment. A communist revolution would sweep that away, in favor of mass responses to mass, commonly human, needs and wants, like clean water, food, housing, education, health care, and so on.





Scarcity doesn't mean there is not enough of something. It means that people are limited by factors beyond their control in using it.





There you go- scarcity, even in the socialist system.


Well, then we obviously disagree on this definition of 'scarcity' -- I think we agree on the *meaning* you're expressing, though, which is that we are finite beings who are limited in consumption-ability and in *all* abilities, on a finite earth with finite resources -- but that's not saying much when it comes to economics and politics.

[Green Dragon]

Again, I *advocate* a priority-point system for determining mass human need / demand -- my description of it is in a prior posting, and is also at my blog, which you can find a link to in the posting header. I do *not* advocate the *crude*, perpetual-protest form of expressed mass demand -- I used that as a scenario for *illustrative* purposes only.


OKay. So people get priority points to get what they need.

Priority points=money but we have been over this before.






Here you are, *yourself* saying that "people value the finished product greater than the sum of its parts" -- isn't *that* enough of a guide to determining a hierarchy of value??? We can easily dispense with the extraction of profit since that just robs production of funding. (!!!)


THat is profit. And since the objective is for the finished product to be of greater value than the sum of its parts, the objective of your system as well has to be profit. If your finished product is valued less than the sum of its parts, it would suggest the product is not needed, or there is some sort of problem in the production process.




I find it incredible how you can be so brainwashed as to think that people could *never* express their needs and desires that a planned-production economy could then respond to.

Don't people continuously make plans in their lives? Don't they have wants that they would like to make happen in the near-future, in the next 2 months, in the next 6 months, in the next year, in the next 5 years???


Yep, we do indeed. As individuals, not "mass man."



And don't millions of people happen to have the same, or similar, needs and wants that a planned-production system could then respond to???


They could. Whether a planned-production system is the best way to meet it has yet to be demonstrated.






No, you're mistaken. The problems *can* be solved with a revolution to a mass-human-intention-based system, as opposed to the current system which *has no* conscious mass planning -- it is merely the aggregation of individual aspirations to profit.


Which results in production where the finished product is worth than the sum of its parts. Which, as you agreed, is the objective of your system.






Right -- it is the people's needs and desires (demands) which should be the driving force of an economy -- *not* profit.


Will need a systems to determine whether in fact people's needs are being truly met. Profit does that for capitalism.







Your equating of street protests with the threat of physical violence is appalling -- I think most people understand there to be a world of difference between the two.


A few notes ago, it was you who suggested that the street protests would motivate people to get up and into the factory.











Emergency situations could be handled the same way, and just as well, as anything else under a system of conscious, planned production.


How does one "plan" for a house being burned down? One could say, we will produce extra lumber and extra electrical wiring in case of such a problem. But excess production is usually something which socialists complain is a problem of capitalism.




"
Properly" would be defined as responding to the collective demands (needs and desires) expressed by masses of people in a geographic area.

It would need to be more than that.


"Efficiently" would be getting the most output of goods and services for the least input of asset usage, resource usage, and labor effort.

Very good. The objective will be to turn a profit.









Well, then we obviously disagree on this definition of 'scarcity' -- I think we agree on the *meaning* you're expressing, though, which is that we are finite beings who are limited in consumption-ability and in *all* abilities, on a finite earth with finite resources -- but that's not saying much when it comes to economics and politics.
[/QUOTE]

We are limited in production abilities was more accurate as to what I said. But if we are not, why bother worrying about using the fewest resources as possible? What is the advantage? None that I can see. If anything, that would seem to reduce the potential of using resources to benefitting the community large, which again is the repeated stated desire of the socialist system.

[ckaihatsu]

OKay. So people get priority points to get what they need.

Priority points=money but we have been over this before.


Wrong -- priority points *do not* equal money.

A list of priorities can be endless, but what matters is the *linear order* in which the items are put. Those items ranked higher will receive political attention *sooner in time*.

Money is different, because it is supposedly an accurate reflection of value -- it *does not* specify any order of political attention, or importance.

It's apples and oranges here -- you need to recognize this.





Yep, we do indeed [make plans]. As individuals, not "mass man."





They could [have similar plans]. Whether a planned-production system is the best way to meet it has yet to be demonstrated.





If your finished product is valued less than the sum of its parts, it would suggest the product is not needed, or there is some sort of problem in the production process.





Which results in production where the finished product is worth than the sum of its parts. Which, as you agreed, is the objective of your system.





THat is profit. And since the objective is for the finished product to be of greater value than the sum of its parts, the objective of your system as well has to be profit.


I assure you, profit is *not* an objective of socialism or communism -- profit is an inherent function of capitalism, which needs to be overthrown, but you know all of this already, so you really should stop being argumentative.

Value can be *judged* in relative terms, through the prioritization of popular demand -- those goods and services that are near the top of more people's priority lists can be *produced*, as a priority -- this way ownership is not needed, and quantitative measures of value, like money, are not needed either.





Will need a systems to determine whether in fact people's needs are being truly met. Profit does that for capitalism.


Yeah, it's called a to-do list -- either people's demands are being met, or they aren't -- everything can be made transparent and available on the web so that it's *clear* to everyone how responsive the system is.





A few notes ago, it was you who suggested that the street protests would motivate people to get up and into the factory.


Sure, that's one option available to people if that's what it takes.





How does one "plan" for a house being burned down? One could say, we will produce extra lumber and extra electrical wiring in case of such a problem. But excess production is usually something which socialists complain is a problem of capitalism.


Hey, whatever it takes to prevent preventable fires....





It would need to be more than that.


Oh! Well, then, do specify what would be needed....





Very good. The objective will be to turn a profit.


No, again you're talking about capitalism. Profit functions as a bribe, which must be removed from the funding available to the production process -- therefore, it's *not* an efficient system of financing in terms of the production itself, especially when the bribes reach such high levels, as we're currently seeing with the executive bonuses (bribes) given to the banking, insurance, and housing executives in the government-backed "bailout" -- really the extortion of public funds.





We are limited in production abilities was more accurate as to what I said.


Yes, we are ultimately 6-2/3 billion individuals, which is a *finite* number. The productive abilities -- no matter how well leveraged -- of these 6-2/3 billion people will also be *finite*, no matter what the economic and political system is.





But if we are not, why bother worrying about using the fewest resources as possible?


No, I agree that we're talking about *finite* quantities of everything here.





What is the advantage? None that I can see. If anything, that would seem to reduce the potential of using resources to benefitting the community large, which again is the repeated stated desire of the socialist system.


Look, we're obviously going to have to deal with issues of *efficiency* because we don't want to *waste* people's time and effort, or the materials available to us. My definition of 'efficiency' stands.

[Green Dragon]

Wrong -- priority points *do not* equal money.

A list of priorities can be endless, but what matters is the *linear order* in which the items are put. Those items ranked higher will receive political attention *sooner in time*.

Money is different, because it is supposedly an accurate reflection of value -- it *does not* specify any order of political attention, or importance.

It's apples and oranges here -- you need to recognize this.


A list of priorities could be endless because individual priorities vary.
The money you have in your pocket presently is spent according to what is a priority to you, and not spent where it is not a priority to you.
The function is the same.


















I assure you, profit is *not* an objective of socialism or communism -- profit is an inherent function of capitalism, which needs to be overthrown, but you know all of this already, so you really should stop being argumentative.



Look at it this way: The socialist enterprise which produces oranges. As per your own standard, that enterprise will seek to produce as many oranges as possible (credit), while using the fewest resurces as possible (debit). If it succeeds, it is creating a profit, because it is creating more value (credit) than it consumes (debit). If it does not, then it consumes more resources (debit) than it creates (credit). If such a state of affairs is irrelevent, that is to say, if 100 oranges are needed, and it does not matter if the firm uses 100 orange pickers to harvest them, why the concern about efficiency as stated later in this note?
But if it does matter how many orange pickers are used, how does your firm measure how many are needed, how many are just right? Political pressure? But does such pressure automatically lead to more efficiency? Or are certain steps neccessary to get it?




Value can be *judged* in relative terms, through the prioritization of popular demand -- those goods and services that are near the top of more people's priority lists can be *produced*, as a priority -- this way ownership is not needed, and quantitative measures of value, like money, are not needed either.


In other words, goods and services which are in more demand will be produced ahead of goods and services which are less in demand.
That makes sense, and is how capitalism is basically structured.
Except that socialists routinely condemn capitalism for its failure to allocate resources for less in demand, yet equally neccessary, goods and services.











Sure, that's one option available to people if that's what it takes.


Barrel of the gun...











Oh! Well, then, do specify what would be needed....


Standards such as "eficiency" come to mind...





No, again you're talking about capitalism. Profit functions as a bribe, which must be removed from the funding available to the production process --

Then from does the funding come from? You are otherwise describing a zero sum game, where the cost of production is the cost of the finished product. Nothing has been accomplished.
And what happens with shifts in consumer demand in this scenario? The firm absolutely requires that every product be purchased, else the cost of its operation exceeds its benefits.




Look, we're obviously going to have to deal with issues of *efficiency* because we don't want to *waste* people's time and effort, or the materials available to us. My definition of 'efficiency' stands.
[/quote]

Its a fair definition of efficiency. Its also a major problem in incorporating it into your system.

[ckaihatsu]

A list of priorities could be endless because individual priorities vary.
The money you have in your pocket presently is spent according to what is a priority to you, and not spent where it is not a priority to you.
The function is the same.


No, the function is different, because of the different underlying qualities -- with a list of priorities *everyone* has equal claim to make demands on the communist system of production (by locality).

With money, not everyone may have it, or else they may have it in widely varying amounts, so their respective claims to the output of the capitalist economic system -- its goods and services -- will vary greatly, from gargantuan claims from the wealthy to miniscule claims from the poor.





Look at it this way: The socialist enterprise which produces oranges. As per your own standard, that enterprise will seek to produce as many oranges as possible (credit), while using the fewest resurces as possible (debit).


No, your assertion is incorrect. Socialism does *not* use "enterprises" -- it uses the mass collectivization of assets and resources so that there is *no* ownership -- there is only worker-controlled usage according to mass demand.





If it succeeds, it is creating a profit, because it is creating more value (credit) than it consumes (debit). If it does not, then it consumes more resources (debit) than it creates (credit).


Nope -- you *still* are confusing the profit-seeking mentality with the communist system of collectivized production.

Please get this straight: There is *no* profit, or profit-seeking behavior in a socialist or communist economic system.

What you are describing *could* produce a surplus / shortage, relative to mass demand, but in either case there would be an administration to subsequently straighten it out, according to plan.





If such a state of affairs is irrelevent, that is to say, if 100 oranges are needed, and it does not matter if the firm uses 100 orange pickers to harvest them, why the concern about efficiency as stated later in this note?
But if it does matter how many orange pickers are used, how does your firm measure how many are needed, how many are just right? Political pressure? But does such pressure automatically lead to more efficiency? Or are certain steps neccessary to get it?


Or, best of all, why use human labor *at all*? I'd imagine there'd be a motivation to *automate* the farming and harvesting process altogether so that *no one* would have to do farm work. Think of robotically controlled vertical farming buildings in every neighborhood in every city -- at most we'd have to monitor them once they're built and in motion, but that'd be about it...(!)





In other words, goods and services which are in more demand will be produced ahead of goods and services which are less in demand.
That makes sense, and is how capitalism is basically structured.


Only measured by the *dollar*, or *money*, standard -- politically it reflects *vast* inequalities of wealth and ownership.





Except that socialists routinely condemn capitalism for its failure to allocate resources for less in demand, yet equally neccessary, goods and services.


Yup.





Barrel of the gun...





Since your entire scenario was based upon production occurring based upon a reaction to street protests (which, as an aside, is production based upon pointing a gun) it was scarcely nitpicking to apply it.





Street protests are a valid way of expressing *mass* demand -- however we need to overthrow capitalism so that an easier, more routine system can be used to register mass demand -- my system of prioritization points is an option for that.

Your equating of street protests with the threat of physical violence is appalling -- I think most people understand there to be a world of difference between the two.





Then from does the funding come from? You are otherwise describing a zero sum game, where the cost of production is the cost of the finished product. Nothing has been accomplished.
And what happens with shifts in consumer demand in this scenario? The firm absolutely requires that every product be purchased, else the cost of its operation exceeds its benefits.


Again, a communist system would *not* require ownership (valuation of assets) or money (valuations of exchange value).

Let me put it *this* way -- how do we value the consumption of parks usage? We could count how many people visit public parks over a given year, and keep records. If too many people are visiting, to the point where the park's facilities are being overused, then there would be a record of such and the administration could decide to build more facilities and make more land into public parks facilities.

This type of feedback system would *not* necessarily require ownership or money, but it *would* require labor and administration -- consumption of service is implied, and trackable. Same thing goes for tangible goods -- we *could* make a plan to produce a *surplus* of goods, but we really don't have to, and so we don't have to plan it that way, because it would require more labor than the workers involved may want to provide.





Standards such as "eficiency" come to mind...





Its a fair definition of efficiency. Its also a major problem in incorporating it into your system.


Says you.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=ckaihatsu;1392638]No, the function is different, because of the different underlying qualities -- with a list of priorities *everyone* has equal claim to make demands on the communist system of production (by locality).

With money, not everyone may have it, or else they may have it in widely varying amounts, so their respective claims to the output of the capitalist economic system -- its goods and services -- will vary greatly, from gargantuan claims from the wealthy to miniscule claims from the poor.


They can make the demand, yes, but with the issue of scarcity still existing (finite supplies and all that) the problem has yet to be resolved on allocation using priority points. Add to that your insistence production totally at the whim of the producer and now we have the problem that goods and services may not be available anyhow.




No, your assertion is incorrect. Socialism does *not* use "enterprises" -- it uses the mass collectivization of assets and resources so that there is *no* ownership -- there is only worker-controlled usage according to mass demand.


Call it whatever you wish. My comment stands as unrefuted. Worker controlled usage will still have to shoot to turn a profit as a measure of their effciency.






Nope -- you *still* are confusing the profit-seeking mentality with the communist system of collectivized production.

Please get this straight: There is *no* profit, or profit-seeking behavior in a socialist or communist economic system.


If the objective is to produce as many goods and services, while using the fewest possible resources, that difference is profit. But we can call it cornflakes if you wish. It will not change the substance of what "it" is.



What you are describing *could* produce a surplus / shortage, relative to mass demand, but in either case there would be an administration to subsequently straighten it out, according to plan.


We went from "everything on the internet and just click your preferences and no middleman" to the exstence of an "administration" who will keep production in synch.
OK. If there is a shortage of goods, does the "administration" have the authority to compel people to work in those areas where the shortage exists? If surpluses, can it compel people NOT to work in those areas?






Or, best of all, why use human labor *at all*? I'd imagine there'd be a motivation to *automate* the farming and harvesting process altogether so that *no one* would have to do farm work. Think of robotically controlled vertical farming buildings in every neighborhood in every city -- at most we'd have to monitor them once they're built and in motion, but that'd be about it...(!)


Except that, as usual, you are forgetting that while you have solved the orange picking problem, you now have the same problem with respect to the construction and monitoring of the machine. And of course the problem whether it is efficient to use scarce land in cities for farming warehouses (when perhaps the land could be used for homes or hospitals) versus leaving farming to the rural areas.







Let me put it *this* way -- how do we value the consumption of parks usage? We could count how many people visit public parks over a given year, and keep records. If too many people are visiting, to the point where the park's facilities are being overused, then there would be a record of such and the administration could decide to build more facilities and make more land into public parks facilities.


Bad analogy. It is difficult to quantify the value of a park versus the value of homes that could otherwise be built upon it.
In production, simply saying X number purchased this product during Y time period, therefore we will produce X number in Y time period in the future, means you are basing production on past patterns of consumption, not planning for future patterns.

Earlier it was the people via the internet making all these decisins. But now it is the "administration" determining whether to use scarce land (particularly in the city) for parks or schools.



This type of feedback system would *not* necessarily require ownership or money, but it *would* require labor and administration -- consumption of service is implied, and trackable. Same thing goes for tangible goods -- we *could* make a plan to produce a *surplus* of goods, but we really don't have to, and so we don't have to plan it that way, because it would require more labor than the workers involved may want to provide.


You are, again, assuming a stagnant community where needs and demands are unchanged. You are also declaring clairvoyance, that you can see the future as to what will be needed and not needed.

[ckaihatsu]

They can make the demand, yes, but with the issue of scarcity still existing (finite supplies and all that) the problem has yet to be resolved on allocation using priority points. Add to that your insistence production totally at the whim of the producer and now we have the problem that goods and services may not be available anyhow.


Okay, so we know that there is a finite amount of supplies / resources available on the planet earth. We also know that there is a finite supply of human labor -- 6-2/3 billion people x 24 hours in the day -- minus sleep, recreation, etc.

I *never* insisted that "production [is] totally at the whim of the producer" -- based on the cumulative priority lists what we would have is a list, by locality, of prioritized mass demands. A general administration, also by locality, would be employed by each locality as an ongoing demand for general administration of the priority list(s). The workers who fill the positions in this administration would be directly accountable to the population of the locality, and each worker could be immediately recalled (fired) as a priority demand by the people of that locality, at any time. (The people would have to have agreed on a standing policy in advance for the threshold required to recall an administrative worker.)

This administration would be tasked with the responsibility to determine the best ways (scenarios) for fulfilling the demands (cumulative priority list) of the locality's people. There might be an intermediate step where the initial demand (say, for olives) is broken down into a number of realistic scenarios by the administration for fulfilling the demand / order. There might be a scenario to build the means for producing olives locally, or for bartering for them with a nearby locality, or for importing them at greater (material) cost from a far-away area.

These possible scenarios could then be looped back into the population for a second round of prioritization, this time on the specific scenarios.

Note that the prioritization lists for each inidividual, and the cumulative one for the locality, would be updated daily.





Call it whatever you wish. My comment stands as unrefuted. Worker controlled usage will still have to shoot to turn a profit as a measure of their effciency.





If the objective is to produce as many goods and services, while using the fewest possible resources, that difference is profit. But we can call it cornflakes if you wish. It will not change the substance of what "it" is.


No, this is *not* the case at all.

Efficiency can be determined by a balance sheet of what goods and services are being produced by a given project or production run, divided by what assets, resources, and labor are going into the project or production run. These data can be tracked over time, with adjustments made to either make the process *more* efficient (fewer resources used for the same output), or not, depending on the prioritized demands of the locality.





We went from "everything on the internet and just click your preferences and no middleman" to the exstence of an "administration" who will keep production in synch.
OK. If there is a shortage of goods, does the "administration" have the authority to compel people to work in those areas where the shortage exists? If surpluses, can it compel people NOT to work in those areas?


No, I don't think authority would be needed on a day-to-day basis, except possibly in atypical situations, such as in natural emergencies, or, initially, in completing the revolution against the armed forces of capital.

The administration, as I described above, would be directly and transparently staffed by the prioritized demands of the locality's population. This administration would only *reflect*, or *administer to*, the demands of the locality -- it could not *substitute* for the will of the population.

If there was a shortage of some goods or services -- based on outstanding demand -- then that would make work hours (labor credits) that much more available for anyone who wanted to accumulate labor hours / credits. If the work involved in producing those goods or services was particularly difficult, or required a high degree of education or training, or was particularly distasteful, then the *multiplier* attached to the labor hours for that kind of work would go up, as a section of the locality's population would become impatient enough to re-issue their demand -- this time at a higher multiplier, and at a new priority level.

This offering of more labor credits would be a debit to the locality's economy, because they would subsequently have to provide compensatory goods and services, as valued by labor credits, to fulfill those issued labor credits. Note that labor credits *would not circulate* -- they would simply be credits made to individuals who fulfilled the labor requirements to receive those credits from the locality.

Those goods and services that are produced through automation -- that is, highly leveraged labor power -- would most likely be so easily provided -- like drinking water, for example -- that they would fall *outside the system* of labor credits. Once goods and services became so plentiful as to be available in a *surplus* there would no longer be any demand for it -- again, demonstrating that they would fall outside of the formal, official system of labor credits by being commonly available on a daily, ongoing basis.





Except that, as usual, you are forgetting that while you have solved the orange picking problem, you now have the same problem with respect to the construction and monitoring of the machine.


It would be in the best interests of the locality to *automate* any and every task possible so that it *wouldn't* have outstanding issued labor credits -- that is, debits on the locality's economy, or claims to future (premium) goods and services that the locality would then have to provide the labor for, on demand.

It would be far less materially expensive to pay the labor credits for *one* worker to monitor and maintain an automated system of food production for the locality than to *not*, because the default alternative would be to produce food manually (farming) which requires *more than one* worker.





And of course the problem whether it is efficient to use scarce land in cities for farming warehouses (when perhaps the land could be used for homes or hospitals) versus leaving farming to the rural areas.





Earlier it was the people via the internet making all these decisins. But now it is the "administration" determining whether to use scarce land (particularly in the city) for parks or schools.





Bad analogy. It is difficult to quantify the value of a park versus the value of homes that could otherwise be built upon it.


And, yet, it *can* be done...!

We *don't* need to *quantify* anything, except maybe the land -- we can simply see how many people in an area would prioritize the land usage for farmland or farming warehouses, versus homes, hospitals, parks, or schools. The administration would only have authority, as a body, to *execute* the agreed-upon decision (policy) decided through prioritization by the locality.





You are, again, assuming a stagnant community where needs and demands are unchanged. You are also declaring clairvoyance, that you can see the future as to what will be needed and not needed.





In production, simply saying X number purchased this product during Y time period, therefore we will produce X number in Y time period in the future, means you are basing production on past patterns of consumption, not planning for future patterns.


As I described above, this method you're putting forth here would *not* be *my* recommended method.

Demand would *only* come from the prioritization lists of the people in one area. This method could be used for adequate *future* planning -- perhaps people could have a *monthly* standing list -- a *template* -- that would include their regular, ongoing choices over a longer period of time into the future. Future planning could be based on these standing templates, which could always be modified anyway before they became active according to their schedule. This would give future production a general guideline, or advanced warning, based on cumulative mass intention.

[Lynx]

Profit is the additional information which the capitalist sytem uses in their decision making. It is difficult to see how the communist system could reject it, considering it is data which demonstrates that people value the finished product greater tha the sum of its parts. But I do understand often time the objection is not to the profit accrued, but to who accrues it.
Profit is a criteria. M-C-M' where M' is greater than M. The information is contained in the unit price of the commodity sold. If the unit price is greater than the cost of producing the commodity, a profit margin will exist. In capitalism, this is considered the criteria for success. Nothing else matters. A philanthropic capitalist might look at this and argue for a break even price (M=M', or no profit, no loss). Would that make profit optional?

There is no objection to profit obtained without the exploitation of other people's labour.

The existence and nature of profit and loss depends on how it is calculated. Under capitalism, a loss is considered unsustainable. Yet if we are measuring the value of commodities in labour-time, there may be a different relationship between price and use value or what a loss will entail. Under the LTV, a loss indicates an inefficiency in labour allocation. For example, suppose it takes 50 hours to produce a mattress. The initial price would be set at 50 hours (break even), then adjusted to find a market clearing price. If the mattress were unpopular, the market clearing price may well be below the embodied labour-time used to produce it. This type of loss is not an inherently unsustainable situation - it does indicate the possibility of producing fewer mattresses, or of making an adjustment to inventory levels. In a socialist economy there is room for considerations other than profit or loss. We can consider whether a commodity is a luxury or a necessity and apply different policies to their production, pricing and distribution. We can use energy accounting to bring 'externalities' into consideration. We can develop new and better heuristics.

Also, profit should not be confused with wealth creation. Wealth creation is grander in scope.

True. But since nobody can see the future, all economic activity and decisions are essentially made in the dark.
Do you believe in focus groups, marketing, sales projections, just-in-time inventory, hedging, leveraging, insurance, securitization, or Bernie Madoff?
Sounds like a lot of effort being made to avoid risk and to see through the dark :ninja:

[Green Dragon]

[quote]
The existence and nature of profit and loss depends on how it is calculated. Under capitalism, a loss is considered unsustainable. Yet if we are measuring the value of commodities in labour-time, there may be a different relationship between price and use value or what a loss will entail. Under the LTV, a loss indicates an inefficiency in labour allocation. For example, suppose it takes 50 hours to produce a mattress. The initial price would be set at 50 hours (break even), then adjusted to find a market clearing price. If the mattress were unpopular, the market clearing price may well be below the embodied labour-time used to produce it. This type of loss is not an inherently unsustainable situation - it does indicate the possibility of producing fewer mattresses, or of making an adjustment to inventory levels. In a socialist economy there is room for considerations other than profit or loss. We can consider whether a commodity is a luxury or a necessity and apply different policies to their production, pricing and distribution. We can use energy accounting to bring 'externalities' into consideration. We can develop new and better heuristics.


There are some evident objections:
1. If it is not unsustainable to price mattresses at under 50 hours per, then there seems no reason to apply other considerations. Nothing bad is happening.
2. Determining that a mattress is a "luxury" or a "neccessity" changes nothing with respect to price of under 50 hours.
3. The community can certainly apply different standards to production to either get that mattress up to 50 hours per, or eeduce it 40 hours per.
But in doing so, it's declaring its objective (its desired state of affairs) to be a profit, while trying to avoid a loss.
4. And a loss is an unsustainable situation-even in a socialist system. Because at the bare minimum, limited as per your explanation, it means that labor is working where it is not needed, and that MUST be at the expense of working in areas where it is needed.




Do you believe in focus groups, marketing, sales projections, just-in-time inventory, hedging, leveraging, insurance, securitization, or Bernie Madoff?
Sounds like a lot of effort being made to avoid risk and to see through the dark :ninja:


None of these give the firm clairvoyance- and this will be true in the socialist system as well. A guess can be hazzarded, based upon the best information available, but remains no sure bet.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE]I *never* insisted that "production [is] totally at the whim of the producer"

OK. So now it unanimous- people will have to do work they may not wish to do.




This administration would be tasked with the responsibility to determine the best ways (scenarios) for fulfilling the demands (cumulative priority list) of the locality's people. There might be an intermediate step where the initial demand (say, for olives) is broken down into a number of realistic scenarios by the administration for fulfilling the demand / order. There might be a scenario to build the means for producing olives locally, or for bartering for them with a nearby locality, or for importing them at greater (material) cost from a far-away area.


You are not seeing by how much your argument has been declining of late.
These administrators are your middlemen, whom you long ago denied existing. They will decide whether it's the best way that somebody gets anew car ever year (as per that person's priority), versus the priorities of other people who have not had a new car in several years. There has to be some basis for the administrator to make this determination (which can also include blind favoratism and corruption).




Efficiency can be determined by a balance sheet of what goods and services are being produced by a given project or production run, divided by what assets, resources, and labor are going into the project or production run. These data can be tracked over time, with adjustments made to either make the process *more* efficient (fewer resources used for the same output), or not, depending on the prioritized demands of the locality.


Yes. As I said earlier, the idea will be to have a balance sheet that reflects greater credits than debits. That will be the criteria for success, that will be the objective for which the workers and administrators will be reaching.

[Lynx]

There are some evident objections:
1. If it is not unsustainable to price mattresses at under 50 hours per, then there seems no reason to apply other considerations. Nothing bad is happening.
2. Determining that a mattress is a "luxury" or a "neccessity" changes nothing with respect to price of under 50 hours.
3. The community can certainly apply different standards to production to either get that mattress up to 50 hours per, or eeduce it 40 hours per.
But in doing so, it's declaring its objective (its desired state of affairs) to be a profit, while trying to avoid a loss.
4. And a loss is an unsustainable situation-even in a socialist system. Because at the bare minimum, limited as per your explanation, it means that labor is working where it is not needed, and that MUST be at the expense of working in areas where it is needed.
1. Nevertheless, the opportunity cost should be periodically assessed.
2. It determines the policy to be followed in case of shortage and to a lesser extent, in times of surplus.
3. A socialist economy will want to encourage innovation, instead of profit.
4. The situation would be unsustainable if labour and material shortages were acute. It's not the same as burning through one's savings until debt and bankruptcy are reached.


None of these give the firm clairvoyance- and this will be true in the socialist system as well. A guess can be hazzarded, based upon the best information available, but remains no sure bet.
No such thing as a sure bet - but the odds can be trimmed.

[RGacky3]

OK. So now it unanimous- people will have to do work they may not wish to do.

Yeah, sometimes I don't feel like doing my dishes, but I have too because if I don't my kitchen will be dirty, and theres no one else to do it.

Some times I don't want to take out the trash, but if I don't it will get stinky, but someones gotta do it.

Whats your point with that? Me having to take out the trash or do the dishes is not nearly the same as Capitalist exploitation, meaning working for another mans profit.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE]1. Nevertheless, the opportunity cost should be periodically assessed.

Why?



2. It determines the policy to be followed in case of shortage and to a lesser extent, in times of surplus.


Which begs the question of what the "policy" consists.



3. A socialist economy will want to encourage innovation, instead of profit.


How would they know if it they have been successful? The machine that reduces labor hours to 40 from 50 might be deemed innovative. But how is that compared with the hours needed to make the new machine?



4. The situation would be unsustainable if labour and material shortages were acute. It's not the same as burning through one's savings until debt and bankruptcy are reached.


Socialists often state theirs is about puttling people before profit. Yet even here, the concession is made that the balance sheet ultimately reigns supreme. The only way to sustain a loss producing venture is support it from the profits of profit making ventures. Which means profit making ventures have to be the goal.

[RGacky3]

How would they know if it they have been successful? The machine that reduces labor hours to 40 from 50 might be deemed innovative. But how is that compared with the hours needed to make the new machine?

How do you know if its successful under Capitalism? Because it makes money, but that does'nt actually mean that its efficient and helps satisfy needs the best way. So really, Capitalism has no way of knowing if something is really successful either, just if it makes a lot of money. At least our goal would be different.


The only way to sustain a loss producing venture is support it from the profits of profit making ventures. Which means profit making ventures have to be the goal.

Theres no such thing as a profit loss or profit making in a communist society. Is taking out the trash, or helping your neighbors move, a profit making or loss venture? No its something that has to be done, so you do it.

[Green Dragon]

How do you know if its successful under Capitalism? Because it makes money, but that does'nt actually mean that its efficient and helps satisfy needs the best way. So really, Capitalism has no way of knowing if something is really successful either, just if it makes a lot of money. At least our goal would be different.







Theres no such thing as a profit loss or profit making in a communist society. Is taking out the trash, or helping your neighbors move, a profit making or loss venture? No its something that has to be done, so you do it.


Yeah, but how do you know if it done in the most efficient way?

[ckaihatsu]

Besides the (obvious) willful lack of support to create some kind of worker-labor-based system of government, the biggest source of mix-ups, confusion, and outright *undermining* of the socialist position here comes from the fact that, even in a post-capitalist, post-commodity system of economics, we would still have to deal with issues of *materialism*.

Fellow socialists and communists may even disagree with me here, on the finer points of the materialism of a post-capitalist economy -- that is fine. Many will argue that the humanistic values of a communist society will be so overriding that material concerns will work themselves out, with no need for formalism. Combined with the massive, collective use of automation the material world could readily be turned into a mechanized Garden of Eden, so to speak, with self-replenishing goods and services that would only require one to reach out and pluck them, like fruit off a tree.

I am certainly receptive to this argument, yet I find it worthwhile to assert a materialist basis of "accounting" that would be valid *even after* commodity values have been overthrown.


communist economy diagram

http://tinyurl.com/bom9ca


I posit that all collectively owned assets and resources, and goods and services produced, would be considered in the "plus" column, materially speaking.

Likewise, all of the efforts of workers, officially in labor positions, would have to be compensated, and thus would be considered in the "minus" column.

(Communist labor would produce collectively owned goods and services, and would also introduce new resources and upgrade or create new assets, all realized in the "plus" column.)

The coordination of material and labor would require task-based administrations, which would be considered and treated as labor. These factory-based and per-project administrations would be tasked out in their specific contexts by the larger body of workers in the factory and / or on the particular project. Administration would be directly accountable to the workers, and would be instantly recallable and would not receive any wage greater than that of the workers represented. Being labor, all administrative workers' labor would be in the "minus" column.





Q. What are the elements required for proletarian (workers') democracy?

A. Socialism is democratic or it is nothing. From the very first day of the socialist revolution, there must be the most democratic regime, a regime that will mean that, for the first time, all the tasks of running industry, society and the state will be in the hands of the majority of society, the working class. Through their democratically-elected committees (the soviets), directly elected at the workplace and subject to recall at any moment, the workers will be the masters of society not just in name but in fact. This was the position in Russia after the October revolution. Let us recall that Lenin laid down four basic conditions for a workers’ state—that is, for the transitional period between capitalism and socialism:

1. Free and democratic elections with right of recall of all officials.
2. No official must receive a higher wage than a skilled worker.
3. No standing army but the armed people.
4. Gradually, all the tasks of running the state should be carried out by the masses on a rotating basis. When everybody is a bureaucrat in turn, nobody is a bureaucrat. Or, as Lenin put it, "Any cook should be able to be prime minister."

http://www.newyouth.com/content/view/119/60/#workersdemocracy


All consumption of goods and services would be removing items or human labor time from the collectivized inventory, and thus would also be considered as "minuses", materially speaking.


---





I *never* insisted that "production [is] totally at the whim of the producer"





OK. So now it unanimous- people will have to do work they may not wish to do.


You may want to *ask* follow-up questions, in the true spirit of inquiry and clarification. Since we are addressing a socialist / communist model of economy you should be more directed to the model itself, and be open-minded in discussing it -- *not* argumentative -- that's only counter-productive.

If what you are asking is, "Will people have to do work that they may not wish to do?" then the answer is "In most cases, no."

The *reason* for this is that, with the widespread use of automation to *relieve* people from *having* to labor, more goods and services (that occupy people's time on an ongoing, forward-looking basis) will be available for consumption -- let's say on an hourly basis, for the sake of measurement -- *without* a respective hour of human labor needed to produce those goods and services.

A simple example of this that happens in the present can be found in the arts.

Without meaning to downplay the labor value that goes into the production of cultural goods, we can (breezily) look at "what it takes" to produce a written work. At face value it may take no more than a pencil and some paper, and the upkeep of the writer. Of course, there's more to it than that, because of education and training and life experience, but the point here is the *economics* of the labor of writing.

If a person's time is taken up with the labor of writing they are *not* requiring much in the way of overhead from the rest of society -- just the pencil, paper, and upkeep, and whatever else. So *** for that time spent *** in writing, we can quantify how *few* material demands are placed on the rest of the economy by that writer.

Likewise, you *have* to walk away from your *linear* conception of labor and labor time -- you keep implicitly insisting that labor would either be in short supply, in a collectivized economy, or that it would be so fickle as to *make itself* into a short supply by habitually refusing to work.

The *overall* point of a post-capitalist, socialist or communist economy / society would be to *** relieve human need ***. You're constantly missing this as the main goal, and are instead twisting and turning around tangential concerns.

A humane society *will not* *force* people to work if they cannot or really do not want to -- a humane society would also be materially "wealthy" enough so that not everyone's labor *would be needed*. In material terms the only times in which people are *forced* into labor is when the society itself is under siege, or is suffering from privation, or is massively upgrading its infrastructure. All other times the full participation of labor is *not even* a *societal* concern...!





This administration would be tasked with the responsibility to determine the best ways (scenarios) for fulfilling the demands (cumulative priority list) of the locality's people. There might be an intermediate step where the initial demand (say, for olives) is broken down into a number of realistic scenarios by the administration for fulfilling the demand / order. There might be a scenario to build the means for producing olives locally, or for bartering for them with a nearby locality, or for importing them at greater (material) cost from a far-away area.





You are not seeing by how much your argument has been declining of late.
These administrators are your middlemen, whom you long ago denied existing. They will decide whether it's the best way that somebody gets anew car ever year (as per that person's priority), versus the priorities of other people who have not had a new car in several years. There has to be some basis for the administrator to make this determination (which can also include blind favoratism and corruption).


As I pointed out above, you're really not addressing the socialist model of production in good faith. You are opting to use *your own* formulation of what 'administrators' would be, and function as, and that defeats the whole point of the discussion.

Look, if you want to posit that nighttime is when the sun shines and daytime only comes once a month, we can still try to carry on a discussion about the natural world, but you would only be making it that much more difficult. If you want to take the time to discuss a model of a possible socialist economy, then you should at least *accept* certain definitions -- like that of 'administrators' -- and discuss on *that* basis, not on some different one of your own that you keep re-introducing.

Please re-consider your argument here based on the definition of administration that I have outlined above.





Efficiency can be determined by a balance sheet of what goods and services are being produced by a given project or production run, divided by what assets, resources, and labor are going into the project or production run. These data can be tracked over time, with adjustments made to either make the process *more* efficient (fewer resources used for the same output), or not, depending on the prioritized demands of the locality.





Yes. As I said earlier, the idea will be to have a balance sheet that reflects greater credits than debits. That will be the criteria for success, that will be the objective for which the workers and administrators will be reaching.


No, I don't agree that the main goal of a post-capitalist society would be to *maximize surplus*, as you're saying here. The problem with creating a surplus is that it requires human labor effort, along with whatever extra material supplies to go along with it. Information gets around very quickly and workers will know that they are being told to put in *extra* effort, beyond that which is really needed to keep society running smoothly. As word gets around workers will question the motivation, or impetus, behind this urging of extra work, and they may not compy with the work order.





3. A socialist economy will want to encourage innovation, instead of profit.





How would they know if it they have been successful? The machine that reduces labor hours to 40 from 50 might be deemed innovative. But how is that compared with the hours needed to make the new machine?


Again, the watchword here -- as always -- is *human need*.

However, that aside, even if you just wanted to look at the numbers alone, this scenario would be a very good, and desirable one. The reduction of required human labor by a factor of 20%, over time, is a *very* significant achievement. Even if it took *hundreds* of hours of labor time to *build* that machine, the cost could be made up very quickly, depending on usage.





4. The situation would be unsustainable if labour and material shortages were acute. It's not the same as burning through one's savings until debt and bankruptcy are reached.





Socialists often state theirs is about puttling people before profit. Yet even here, the concession is made that the balance sheet ultimately reigns supreme. The only way to sustain a loss producing venture is support it from the profits of profit making ventures. Which means profit making ventures have to be the goal.


You should *not* be using the term 'profit' in the context of a socialist economy -- it is an incorrect usage of the term. What you *mean* to say is 'surplus' -- that if one factory was not *efficient* enough to justify its use of resources, it would have to be *subsidized* by the resources from another factory, which would cut against productivity and a possible surplus.

I don't see how this vague scenario empowers you to attack the socialist goal of putting people before profit. There aren't enough specifics here for you to reach *any* conclusion....





Yeah, but how do you know if it done in the most efficient way?


You *yourself* just noted that the socialist goal is "people before profits" -- now you're contradicting *yourself* by projecting the purported objective of "efficiency" onto socialists.

You need to focus on "people before profits", or human need, as the overriding concern, and stop introducing spurious formulations. Also see:


Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://tinyurl.com/5mjhhh

[Lynx]

1. Why?
2. Which begs the question of what the "policy" consists.
3. How would they know if it they have been successful? The machine that reduces labor hours to 40 from 50 might be deemed innovative. But how is that compared with the hours needed to make the new machine?
4. Socialists often state theirs is about puttling people before profit. Yet even here, the concession is made that the balance sheet ultimately reigns supreme. The only way to sustain a loss producing venture is support it from the profits of profit making ventures. Which means profit making ventures have to be the goal.
1. Because any given situation is unlikely to remain static.
2. The policy is whether to ration, subsidize, maintain inventory, or not interfere. You can find a discussion of it here:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/market-clearing-prices-t89237/index.html
3. See Chris' reply. It's a 'return on investment' that can be calculated, with a different purpose in mind.
4. See Chris' reply.

[RGacky3]

Yeah, but how do you know if it done in the most efficient way?

Trial and error, expert analysis and opinion, consumer responce. You probably could have answered that yourself, there are tons of ways.

BTW, why not respond to the other parts of my post too.

[Green Dragon]

Trial and error, expert analysis and opinion, consumer responce. You probably could have answered that yourself, there are tons of ways.

BTW, why not respond to the other parts of my post too.


It seems rather inefficient ways of determining efficiency.

"consumer response?" just because he received his product does not mean it was produced efficiently.

"trial and error"- what constitutes error?

"expert analyisis and opinion"- upon what is that based?

[Green Dragon]

I[QUOTE]
am certainly receptive to this argument, yet I find it worthwhile to assert a materialist basis of "accounting" that would be valid *even after* commodity values have been overthrown.


communist economy diagram

http://tinyurl.com/bom9ca


I posit that all collectively owned assets and resources, and goods and services produced, would be considered in the "plus" column, materially speaking.

Likewise, all of the efforts of workers, officially in labor positions, would have to be compensated, and thus would be considered in the "minus" column.

(Communist labor would produce collectively owned goods and services, and would also introduce new resources and upgrade or create new assets, all realized in the "plus" column.)


That is all fine and what I have been saying for several weeks now.
But:
1. What is the benefit to this communist system of accounting? Obviously, it has to mean something, otherwise it is a total waste of time.



The coordination of material and labor would require task-based administrations, which would be considered and treated as labor. These factory-based and per-project administrations would be tasked out in their specific contexts by the larger body of workers in the factory and / or on the particular project. Administration would be directly accountable to the workers, and would be instantly recallable and would not receive any wage greater than that of the workers represented. Being labor, all administrative workers' labor would be in the "minus" column.


Yes. The administrators would have to be the "bosses," those people responsible for the successful coordination of material and labor. They naturally must have the authority to direct labor and materials along the lines they think best to complete that task. The administrators can certainly be democratically elected and instantly recallable (though that presents its own problems), but they must have that ability to compel the workers to work as they (the administrators) think best.















Likewise, you *have* to walk away from your *linear* conception of labor and labor time -- you keep implicitly insisting that labor would either be in short supply, in a collectivized economy, or that it would be so fickle as to *make itself* into a short supply by habitually refusing to work.


As you concede that labor and raw materials ect. are finite, the community has to work with what is has.



The *overall* point of a post-capitalist, socialist or communist economy / society would be to *** relieve human need ***. You're constantly missing this as the main goal, and are instead twisting and turning around tangential concerns.


Not at all. The objection I have is to how socialism proposes to do this.




As I pointed out above, you're really not addressing the socialist model of production in good faith. You are opting to use *your own* formulation of what 'administrators' would be, and function as, and that defeats the whole point of the discussion.


Not at all. Its your sincere assertion as to the role and operation of the administrators. I do not agree.



Look, if you want to posit that nighttime is when the sun shines and daytime only comes once a month, we can still try to carry on a discussion about the natural world, but you would only be making it that much more difficult. If you want to take the time to discuss a model of a possible socialist economy, then you should at least *accept* certain definitions -- like that of 'administrators' -- and discuss on *that* basis, not on some different one of your own that you keep re-introducing.


I have accepted your definition. In the first paragraph of this note, i described how they must function.



No, I don't agree that the main goal of a post-capitalist society would be to *maximize surplus*, as you're saying here.

What I am saying is that your accounting system of credits and debits MUST have some sort of relevence to the communist system. Else why use it? As such, a result where the "credits" outstrip "debits" has to be considered a positive development. Thus, the administrators would have to do their job, their coordination of material and labor, with that in mind. Certainly a situation where "debits" outsrip "credits" cannot be considered a positive outcome.


The problem with creating a surplus is that it requires human labor effort, along with whatever extra material supplies to go along with it. Information gets around very quickly and workers will know that they are being told to put in *extra* effort, beyond that which is really needed to keep society running smoothly. As word gets around workers will question the motivation, or impetus, behind this urging of extra work, and they may not compy with the work order.

But what is the basis of the workers such a determination? They could be wrong, after all.












However, that aside, even if you just wanted to look at the numbers alone, this scenario would be a very good, and desirable one. The reduction of required human labor by a factor of 20%, over time, is a *very* significant achievement. Even if it took *hundreds* of hours of labor time to *build* that machine, the cost could be made up very quickly, depending on usage.


Except that those hundreds of hours building the machine are hundreds of hours not spent building other things.








You *yourself* just noted that the socialist goal is "people before profits" -- now you're contradicting *yourself* by projecting the purported objective of "efficiency" onto socialists.


One would think that one would wish to satisfy "human need" the most efficient way possible.

[RGacky3]

It seems rather inefficient ways of determining efficiency.

"consumer response?" just because he received his product does not mean it was produced efficiently.

"trial and error"- what constitutes error?

"expert analyisis and opinion"- upon what is that based?

Inefficient compared to what? Compared to profit motive, lets ask the vast of the world living in brutal poverty how efficient Capitalism is at meeting their needs, it sure as hell is efficient in meeting the wants of the rich.

What consittutes faliure is that the product is'mt meeting its intent, and the consumer responce would be "The community needs more this or that", expert analysis based on what is needed and what is availabe, its really no that hard, people do it today too, only its not about whats needed, its about what gets the cash.

Capitalism is rediculously ineficient, they spend millions and millions of dollars on a know iphone or new lazer guided missles, while people are still starving and people can't afford housing, but moneys being made, so I suppose thats efficient for you.