Debit Cards Under Socialism: A Proposition

Political economy =/= economics.

The latter has very little to do with any communist theories of how society might be organised. The very existence of 'the economy' is antithetical to our aims, so I don't see why we'd have an academic field devoted to studying something we don't want.

@Chomsssky
Most goods are made of various resources. What if a good falls in multiple categories?

An economy is the production and consumption of wealth.
Economics or political economy the study thereof.
Communism will have both.

Unless you don't want production and consumption of wealth you're wrong. It's quite annoying when I see communists saying this, it reeks of anti-intellectualism.

Wealth is a derivative of value, derived through exchange, which allows a unit value to be attached to a good (i.e. exchange value). This is unique to capitalism, and thus won't exist in a post-capitalist society.

Political economy and economics are two separate disciplines. Economics is a relatively new discipline, which is characterised by its attempts to scientifically find the most efficient and equitable outcomes (or outputs) for a given input, or set of inputs. One could go as far as saying that the history of Economics as a distinct academic discipline is bound up with the rise of capitalism from the late 19th century onwards, or perhaps even later. As such, when capitalism dies and is replaced, so Economics the academic discipline as we know it will have ceased to be useful.

I want democratic control of the production process. I want an end to supply and demand. Economics as a discipline is, by its technocratic, pseudo-scientific nature, anti-democratic. And at the root of almost all orthodox economic theory is supply and demand.


I hold a degree in Economics. I'm not trying to shoot myself in the foot. My point isn't against intellectualism per se. My point is that i'm against furthering a discipline that has outlived its usefulness. Orthodox Economics today doesn't come up with solutions; it is dismal social science riddled with quackery and corrupt, self-confirming, self-serving behaviour by individuals. It is part of the problem.

The 'communism-is-not-an-economy camp' is really into the redefining of words. Wealth = use-value or utility. A gift economy has no exchange yet it has wealth and is an economy.

An economy is the production and consumption of goods and services.

Communism will produce goods and services, communism will consume goods and services. Hence it is an economy.

No it's not. They're same thing, political economy has fallen out of use.

That makes no sense. Supply is production of consumer goods, demand is the desire for consumer goods. A production process implies producing consumer goods (supply) for consumption (demand).

This is utterly ridiculous. Contemporary economics may be such and such, it doesn't mean economics is inherently so. Essentially, because the study of economic conduct in the capitalist mode of production has taken the form that it has, therefore there wont be any study of economic conduct in the socialist mode of production. The capitalist mode of production has given rise to this particular variant of economics, it doesn't mean that's all there is to economics.

What does that even mean? This seems oddly specific. That evil supply and demand!

Contemporary economics is a dismal science, that doesn't mean that the study of production and consumption in a communist society (i.e. communist economics) will be. It's like saying that academics in capitalism are conditioned by bourgeois ideology and that therefore communism will not have academics. Evidently, we will leave capitalist economics behind as it will be useless in the socialist mode of production which gives rise to entirely new economic problems.

Ultimately it's just semantics but it bothers me that such simplistic logic is applied. It just sounds really really stupid. T

Wealth will exist intrinsically, but in order to define it, one would have to define the intrinsic value of the good/product/resource one wishes to ascribe wealth to. Clearly, in a moneyless society, where exchange does not take place, there would be no need to do this. Ergo, 'wealth' per se would not actually exist in a moneyless society.

They're patently not the same thing. Economics has moved in totally different directions (using quantitative methods of analysis, using cliometrics to analyse past societies etc.) to what political economy used to be. They are, IMO, different disciplines in the qualitative sense. 'New economics' is basically a pseudo-science; the numbers fit the conclusions and, as long as they do this, then the economists continue to purport their false theories of the economy based on this and that assumption. That was generally less of a phenomenon in the 19th century and before, when writing political economy was generally a more qualitative endeavour that relied on logic and rigour of argument as opposed to fitting numbers neatly into regression models.


No. Supply/Demand analysis is the root of bourgeois economics. Its basic axiom is that the most efficient outcome in ALL situations is the equilibrium outcome (i.e. where supply = demand). This is basically bullshit, it is the basis of supply-side economics (i.e. neo-liberalism) and doesn't allow for any element of social justice, or equity in outcomes. It is a pile of crap.


If you really understood supply and demand analysis, you wouldn't scoff at the idea that it - as the main constituent part of bourgeois Economics - is the root of much evil.


It's not semantics. You are being fucking bourgeois by refusing to let go of this notion that we can form a post-capitalist society based on the capitalist notion of supply and demand, and through using Economics as an academic discipline to plan the economy, rather than using democratic, inclusive means to do so.

Elitist snob. :glare:This is a non-issue, just as it is a non-issue under capitalism. How would the wine industry in a certain state grow so disproportionately for this to even be a problem? The only way for the situation you're describing to arise would be if first both WA and CA wine were just as good, and then suddenly WA wine became horrible and CA wine became awesome.

I have to respectfully disagree and contend with your interpretation here, TB.

You're asserting that the mere *conceptualization* into 'supply' and 'demand' is problematic, when that is not necessarily the case. Of course a post-capitalist 'production' would be *democratic* -- and I, for one, have not proposed anything tantamount to a bureaucratic-collectivist administration.

I think it'd be best to just analyze such goods as a whole rather than analyzing their different parts. For example, suppose I have a TV. Instead of asking about each thing that it's made of, environmentalists would determine whether production of that TV overall is harmful environmentally, and if so, to what extent. Then, if it was harmful, the process would be taken to correct the part parts that were harmful to the environment so as would no longer have to be placed in the category of "environmentally sensitive" resources. This is when it would be appropriate to look at which specific parts had a negative environmental impact. Same thing should be done by economists to figure out supply relative to demand of the TV (for example), and then, if it couldn't be placed in the first category that I mentioned, figure out specifically what was going wrong.

Also @The Boss here's the thing. You're going to have some resources where there aren't currently enough to go around to everyone who wants them. And note, I'm using the word "wants" not, "needs". Things can't be distributed according to need when no one really has a need for them.

So that leaves two options. A method similar to mine, or just rationing everything equally while trying to make it post-scarce.

Here's the problem with the latter approach. Suppose that I want a new flatscreen TV and a new smartphone. My neighbor wants both these things as well. For the sake of argument, lets assume that for both TVs and smartphone, there are more people who want them than there are currently TVs and iPhones to go around. Now, suppose that I really want a flatscreen TV but don't care as much about getting a new smartphone. But my neighbor really wants a smartphone and doesn't care as much about getting a flatscreen TV. Now, if we ration everything equally, both my neighbor and I have to wait months or even years possibly to get the things that we want. But, if we simply allow people to prioritize to lower consumption, then I might not want a smartphone enough to deplete the "points" that I have, but I definitely can and will get a TV right away because it's something that I really want, and I've prioritized it. The same is true with my neighbor for their smartphone. It seems obvious that this outcome is more preferable than just having to wait for possibly months or even years in some cases for certain resources instead of just being able to prioritize. Plus, keep in mind that it's only temporary. The goal is still post-scarcity.

Questions for socialists?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/questions-...ml#post2711042

What I'm talking about already addresses that though. To lower the consumption of anything to equal out the supply you can put a "price tag" on it (obviously no one makes money off the item, it just depletes someone's "points"), so that people will prioritize and less people will go after that thing. The higher the "price tag", the more that you lower consumption. So, in this case, you'd just give LED flashlights a lower "price tag" than lithium-ion batteries, because they're undersupplied by a lower amount. This is if we operated under the assumption of not treating something like a flashlight as a basic good/necessity that most people require, which I think it actually might be for a lot of people (which would warrant different treatment of the resource), but that's besides the point seeing as it's just an example.

Also another idea would be to use rationing but combined with prioritizing. For example, you might create a queue of things that you want. Things that you put towards the top of the list (more important things) you'd be guaranteed to receive sooner, while things you put towards the bottom of the queue you might not receive as fast. For things that go together like flashlights + batteries, you'd have them deliver together and treat as one resource when rationing. I wouldn't be opposed to this approach either, although I don't think it could be nearly as exact in making sure not to run out or over-consume things that are already scarce or environmentally sensitive, so we'd need to be careful of that.

Well, it's known that people will consume less if they know a surplus exists.

It may sound counterproductive, but maybe it's one of those ideas that are so crazy it might work:

Take a non-perishable item, for example, cans of tuna. Now, if there is a 'limit' on the amount of cans of tuna people can buy, it would seriously increase anxiety. People don't like feeling constrained, no matter how slight the constraint is. It's this whole idea of freedom. Here's a sub-example:

If I give you a bag of potato chips, and say that you can only have 100 chips, you would start worrying. You would literally be counting potato chips, making sure you had as many as you could without going over. On the other hand, if I gave you a bag of potato chips and said you could have as many chips as you wanted, then would you really eat 100? Probably not - 100 potato chips is a lot even if your hungry. So the point is, imposing a limit will cause anxiety, ultimately making the activity less enjoyable, and may actually cause you to eat MORE potato chips.

Now let's take that back to the example of the cans of tuna. Now, even though it may be in short supply/environmentally degrading, we could try at first to make many more than necessary. We'll make a whole pile of cans of tuna through any means necessary. Fish more than usual, produce more tin for the cans, etc etc, even if it's unsustainable.

So we have a giant pile of cans of tuna, more than anybody could ever use. I think if you do that just a few times, people would get the message and start buying less tuna. And if it's non-perishable, the surplus cans of tuna aren't even going to waste. At the end of the day, maybe 20 years down the road, people will perpetually be consuming less cans of tuna, and enjoying their tuna more than if there were limits imposed.

Obviously we'd have to make sure the tuna population would be able to survive the initial overfishing, but if they recovered sufficiently, they would be much better off in the long run. Also, this might be 'morally wrong', because ultimately, it's the illusion of freedom of tuna.

Just an idea. Probably very irresponsible, but it's worth being toyed around with. I think sociology could tell us a lot more tbh.

I haven't seen any actual evidence to suggest that that would work, plus we're already on track to possibly have no fish in the ocean by 2050.

But food is obviously something that people need, not something that they just want, so it's not something you'd have to prioritize with to get, it's something that would be guaranteed to everyone. But really most if not all basic needs like food, shelter, etc. are already abundant enough where there's enough to go around. Most items that are naturally scarce aren't things that people actually need. Plus, we already spend money now (although it's much different than what I'm proposing), so we're already limited. This system basically guarantees you the majority of the things you have to buy now for free provided you work (if you're able-bodied and able to), and also gives you credit to spend on even more additional stuff; stuff which will only get less expensive over time. If anything that's going to reduce peoples stress.

I'm really not that nit-picky though, so long as a responsible and fair system is implemented to distribute naturally scarce and environmentally scarce resources that wont lead to overconsumption. This is just personally what I thought of.

Okay.

I don't want to be overly critical on any of this -- I think this is probably the best overall approach to a post-capitalist political economy that I've seen so far, aside from my own (see blog entry), but I *will* pose one issue with it:

How would points be assigned to individuals in the first place -- ?

If it's on a strictly across-the-board consistent basis -- say 100 points per person per month -- that would be very egalitarian, but it would be an overall (societal) *disincentive* towards new efforts at greater social coordination and experimental / speculative advancements in research and development.

And, conversely, if *increasing* rates of points could be obtained for increased amounts of work effort, *that* would be tantamount to the commodification of labor, since labor would be directly exchangeable for material rewards -- too close to a capitalistic market economy, in other words.

Part of the reason for using RevLeft so much is precisely for this question of a feasible political-logistical approach to a post-capitalist political economy, and why I've developed my own 'solution' for such, at my blog entry, blah blah blah....



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaculture

I've been thinking about these sorts of things myself lately (albeit from a left wing market anarchist perspective... I think, still not sure where I am on the anarchism spectrum).

I think a lot of people misunderstand the role that economic units like money once played before capitalists turned them towards the end of profit and exploitation. For one thing money used to be a kind of "stand in" for goods and services. A farmer might have harvested a corn crop but not needed anything just yet. By exchanging that crop for its equivalent in money the farmer could then go and purchase things later when necessary or desired. Holding onto the corn for that long would have seen it rot and go to waste.

Now obviously most of us on the far left don't want such an individualist market but according to the "from each-to each" condition it could be convenient to have some sort of central public trust that could create labour credits on the spot at someone's request which would just be numbers on an electronic swipe card just in case someone wants to turn in their work to a communal store but not claim back any wants or needs just yet. It would be a way of keeping record and proving that you truly are taking only what you need while also providing what you are able, digital records being available for public scrutiny to all.

I appreciate the overall ethos here, but my reservations from 6 months ago (post #35) haven't changed. The process of *quantifying* anyone's work into labor vouchers / points / tokens / whatever is problematic because there's no criteria proposed for how differing types of work would be valued in relation to each other (mining coal vs. picking berries, for example).

Here's an illustration of my critique:


Pies Must Line Up

http://s6.postimg.org/erqcsdyb1/1404...ine_Up_xcf.jpg

Some communities in Anarchist Spain that functioned according to anarcho-communism had the following mechanism:

Normal functioning is to agree on a common plan of production to satisfy needs of the people of the commune (or federation of communes), people sign up for this or that job that needs to be done, produce according to the plan, put all products in communal warehouses, and everyone takes what he wants with no charge. If some products start get scarce, they are rationed it in a certain way. Everyone gets a credit account with an amount of credits, scarce products get priced in those credits according to their scarcity- more scarce products costing more credits- and the scarce products get sold that way in the communal warehouses.

Another way of rationing that can be applied either on it's own or mixed with the previous one- scarce products are distributed according to a list for which people apply to, and then get ranked on it according to how much they need the product, however the people of the specific commune decide to measure that.

Once the scarcity passes, you go back to free access.

These "fail-safe" mechanisms are the answer to this objection to communism, which is basically the only real objection to it there is.

You can't be serious about maintaining monetary transactions or debit cards?

It would maintain the necessary categories that allow capital to exist, the same relations between people mediated by a fetishised representative of something's value. I'm a bit rusty on this but it's something like that.

I'm *not* objecting to communism -- that's an overgeneralization, from my critique.



This is where I have concerns -- what is "an amount", exactly -- ?

Are you saying that the mere process of formalization tends to inhibit selection and consumption -- is that it -- ? If so, it's the same as this argument, from before:



Regardless, the more-particular question of *how many* points would / should be assigned comes to the fore -- how is the number of points arrived-at, for any given person -- ?

Here's my critique of that approach, from earlier in the thread:




This just begs the political-economy question because in effect this is simply reverting to the market mechanism, and I happen to want a lot of points so that I can buy more scarce products.



This, itself, would be first-come-first-served, which is not so objectionable:



---



The hazard with this is called 'groupthink' -- maybe the people of the specific commune wind up disproportionately favoring one person in particular with most of the goods that exists, and suddenly there's not enough of the stuff left over for *everyone else* who put themselves on the list.



Okay.