Can socialism be non-authoritative, voluntary or libertarian?

Things, whatever they are, will still need to be produced in a post-capitalist world.

Since this is a question of socio-political *optimization*, and a communications network infrastructure (the Internet) would be in place to facilitate everything social and political, the rest would be about how 'enlightened' (least-shitty) a society / civilization wanted itself to be.

I think the rule of thumb here is to free up as much free time, for as many people as possible, while retaining and developing the best kinds of standard infrastructure for the greatest numbers of people. Anything that causes unnecessary pain and trouble would be a societal / political concern, while the emergence of people's increasing amounts of free time is *not*. Presumably people would either be self-directed or would get caught up in larger-scale beneficial social projects.

This is why we say that such a post-capitalist society would have a collective interest in *automation*, since mechanical devices are excellent at dispatching tasks requiring repetitive behaviors and brute-force efforts -- routines that are distasteful to people since we have far more creative, enlightened abilities.

Great analysis. Too bad it isn't relevant to anything I just said.

Capitalism has been automating for the past two centuries. However it has a rationale and a justification for determining "unnecessary pain and trouble." At what costs for as much free time as possible? How do you know if you have reached these objectives?

Sure it is. You wish to make certain claims as to the nature of production in a socialist community. I am saying those claims are unsupported.

Only for the principal sake of increasing profits -- any benefits from technology produced, for the consumer and/or others, are sheerly incidental to the profit motive itself.



Translation in this context: Costs to capital.



Well, since in a *collectivized* context 'costs' would be mass-efforts-in-common, it would be up to the world's population as a whole to decide the exact 'cost' of free time (non-productivity), to society as a whole.

Those individualistically putting in more labor than the norm would be cheating themselves, in relation to the norm, which I'm sure no one else would mind. Those individualistically putting in *less* labor than the norm would be a *political concern* to the collective political economy, and would have to be addressed somehow.

You're implicitly noting that there's an inherent trade-off between free time and material productivity, so that's always the reality for everyone, no matter what the socio-political context.



As in past exchanges, Baseball, I am unable to address the specifics of a hypothetical since that would be an extrapolation within an extrapolation, or purely imaginary. The general answer is that the denizens of such a post-capitalist political economy would be self-empowered by that point to work it out as they see fit.

In a word, negotiation... Which when done by large groups of people is called democracy.

Capitalists make these decisions all the time, but it is determined based on the profit of logic or sometimes on demands beurocratic planning.

It is the basis on which these decisions are made that would change, not decision making in the abstract. How do CEOs know that their decisions are the best possible option? The look at data and try their best, but the consideration is based on market demands, not actual needs or wants. They can profit - as US companies have during the economic rebound right now - even while people go without and have less of their actual demands met... As is also happening with workers in the us during this economic uptick.

So the question is why is it better in your view the have an elite make these decisions rather than coordination by the majority?

What is the"logic" used in the socialist community decision making?

The use value rather than exchange value. The process is whatever democratic or mutual methods for organizing people choose, but the logic in basic form is... As you said we'll, things need to still be produced. The question is how and on what basis. So again, on the basis of usefulness and the desire of people involved. Like CEOs they will need to have information about what is possible with the resources available and then prioritize how to accomplish what they want.

But why do you think it's better for collective efforts to be organized in an exploitative and undemocratic way for the enrichment of the few? How is that logic better when the drive for accumulation, divorced from popular desires and needs, will lead to the destruction of the environment for short term accumulation (which has happened on the micro level for a long time and now threatens to be a world-wide crisis)? When it leads to bubbles and busts which bring ruin and chaos to the lives of workers and even undermines capital? When competition among firms leads to inefficiencies in production on the small scale and the needs of industries and the competition of regional groups of capital leads to wars over economic power and markets and control of other countries outright?

If you mean that capital still exists under socialism, you're wrong from the get-go and don't understand the very basics of the Marxian critique of capitalism.

The CEO, in the capitlist community, uses a source of information to guide his or her action. What do the workers, in the socialist community, use to demonstrate that certain actions are indeed "useful?"

I'll respond to this issue in a *general* way and posit a framework that applies to *anyone* / any entity involved in the realm of doing things (as opposed to being passive):


universal context

http://s6.postimage.org/fn8hqaxrh/12..._01_png_xc.jpg


G.U.T.S.U.C., Simplified

http://s6.postimage.org/wvo45xzhp/2_...Simplified.jpg

[QUOTE=ckaihatsu;2584686]Only for the principal sake of increasing profits -- any benefits from technology produced, for the consumer and/or others, are sheerly incidental to the profit motive itself.


But so what? The pursuit of profit guided automation.




Translation in this context: Costs to capital.

In all contexts.





Well, since in a *collectivized* context 'costs' would be mass-efforts-in-common, it would be up to the world's population as a whole to decide the exact 'cost' of free time (non-productivity), to society as a whole.

BASED UPON WHAT COMMON REFERRNCE?

Those individualistically putting in more labor than the norm would be cheating themselves, in relation to the norm, which I'm sure no one else would mind. Those individualistically putting in *less* labor than the norm would be a *political concern* to the collective political economy, and would have to be addressed somehow.

HOW IS THE "NORM" DETERMINED? WHY WOULDNT A WORKER DOING "MORE LABOR" THAN NEEDED NOT BE SEEN AS A PROBLEM? DITTO FOR A WORKER DOING LESS.

You're implicitly noting that there's an inherent trade-off between free time and material productivity, so that's always the reality for everyone, no matter what the socio-political context.


WHAT I AM ASKING IS HOW TO MEASURE THAT TRAFEOFF.

Okay, so we happen to agree on the definition of 'current-world profit-driven automation'.




No -- by definition a *post*-capitalist context would not include commodity production, or capital.




Think of it as 'economic democracy', or 'electing a policy for the use of mass production'.




Because their additional efforts would be benefitting others -- where's the problem -- ?



Because their less-than-the-norm efforts could be viewed as being offensive to the overall political collective, depending on the particulars of the situation.




Using 'G.U.T.S.U.C., Simplified' as a framework -- administration, labor, or pleasure -- we could first determine what the collective 'to-do' list is, based on overall (sorted) priorities, from everyone.

The material (non-productivity) "cost" of free time ('pleasure') is the cost of ignoring that to-do list.

No -- by definition a *post*-capitalist context would not include commodity production, or capital.

IT WOULD- IT JUST GOES BY A DIFFERENT NAME. BUT THAT IS JUST SEMANTICS RIGHT NOE. THE POINT IS SIMPLY THAT PRIORITIES WPULD NEED BE




Think of it as 'economic democracy', or 'electing a policy for the use of mass production'.







Because their additional efforts would be benefitting others -- where's the problem -- ?






Because their less-than-the-norm efforts could be viewed as being offensive to the overall political collective, depending on the particulars of the situation.

Because their additional efforts would be benefitting others -- where's the problem -- ?

HOW DO YOU KNOW THATS TRUE? TWENTY OR THIRYTY YEARS AGO THE TYPRWRITER WORKERS DOUBLING THEIR EFFORTS WOULD NOT HAVE BENEFITTED OTHERS- DESPITE THE CLAIMS BY BOTH.

I left this one unaddressed -- it's a good question, and would be a perennial issue for all of a post-capitalist political economy.

From what I've collected so far from the area of discussion around this topic, I've noticed a 'fixed' approach to this question, and a 'flexible' approach to it. The 'fixed' approach would be the communal one, especially suited for small scales, where everyone would have to pitch-in for the locality, on a more-or-less equal-time basis. Here's a model:


Rotation system of work roles

http://s6.postimage.org/6pho0fbot/24...tc_Sd_P_fs.jpg


The 'flexible' approach would be along the lines of the orthodox labor vouchers / rationing method, whereby a certain 'threshold' of labor time would have to be put in at socially needed tasks for the laborer to receive a voucher for a standard staple of basic goods and services. According to this model there would be also be stepped incentives for additional rewards of more discretionary, luxury-oriented goods and services.

I happen to be critical of this model, though, on procedural grounds, and have developed and posited my own *more-flexible*, currency-like model that remains non-commodity-production and wholly communist-type -- it uses 'labor credits' that are determined by multiplying labor hours times hazard and/or difficulty, the index for which is derived from mass surveys. The model is introduced and outlined at my blog entry.


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://s6.postimage.org/nwiupxn8t/25...Rh_JMHF_fs.jpg

No, it's *not* just semantics, because the practice of commodity production is for the end goal of making profits, which are under private control. While private production and a posited collectivized production may both make use of prioritization, that is just an *operational method* addressing the management of time and scheduling.




Sure, but you're mixing contexts -- I was talking about a collectivist context, and you're talking about historical capitalist practice.

But why should pay be reflected by how difficult a particular job is for a worker. Shouldnt it be based upon the value of that work to the community.

Yes, both, actually, so it's a good point.

The overarching social context in my 'communist supply & demand' model would be one of mass demand, prioritized daily. This would set the environment and pace for individual-based decision-making as to personal participation, for labor credits, towards fulfilling mass demand.

Here's the relevant excerpt: