Sure, I hear ya -- and, the good news is that such can be finally, definitively decided by those who would do the actual (liberated) labor.
No. Who cares what the "liberated" workers wish to make?
If there is a need for 100 TV sets, then the system needs to figure out a way to produce 100 sets. That the liberated only wish to do sufficient work as to produce 50 sets is of no relevence.
Quote:
So, for the #1, #2, and #3 rankings of demands X, Y, and Z, respectively, there would be the proposals or policy packages of A, B, and C, on a decreasing scale of cost (of labor credits), that each addresses demands X, Y, and Z, combined.
Labor credits= money
Quote:
True, and will exist in whatever state of advancement at the time of its being seized.
Yep-- and the world is not stationary.
Quote:
I'm not sure what you're asking for -- either liberated laborers would be available and willing to put in the work to produce a called-for quantity of demand 'X', or they wouldn't. Much would depend on what the 'X' is, exactly, since not everyone would be willing to work to produce just *anything*.
What your doing here is saying that workers of say, televisions, will produce tv's based upon their own criteria. Maybe it will line up with what consumers of TV's wish.
And maybe not.
But the purpose of those workers is to satisfy the needs of people who want TV's. Your proposals do not coordinate the two.
Yes, whether there TV's are made are dependent upon whether there are workers who are willing and able to do the labor. Capitalism has mechanisms to connect the two.
But you have nothing. If people do not wish TVs... oh well, people who want TV's are SOL.
That's no way to run an economy, a community. It certainly can't result in a "gift" economy. In no way can it be considered a superior system to capitalism.
Quote:
You're mixing apples with oranges here -- historical lessons about the relation of politics-strategies-and-tactics, to historical contexts, can be found by studying revolutionary history, but then you're casting socialists as being *passive* beings who would *passively* experience some kind of future historical occurrence.
Not at all. I am saying that there is plenty of time to think about socialism NOW, rather than waiting for the Big Moment.
No. Who cares what the "liberated" workers wish to make?
Well, this is the whole *point* of a revolutionary leftist politics -- to make sure that there's never again anything in the least that resembles the exploitation and/or oppression of labor.
If there is a need for 100 TV sets, then the system needs to figure out a way to produce 100 sets. That the liberated only wish to do sufficient work as to produce 50 sets is of no relevence.
Just take some deep breaths -- I'm sure it'll work itself out.
No, without a bourgeoisie that needs to incessantly calculate their private holdings, there would no longer be any need for the use of money. Labor credits would not be necessary for the procurement of needed and desired items, because the most common of those would already be mass-produced, and readily available.
A post-capitalist liberated labor *would* need to know that their collective system of 'pay it forward' was being used in *proportionate* ways -- again, so that any given worker is not being taken advantage of. Hence the method of using labor credits.
I'm not sure what you're asking for -- either liberated laborers would be available and willing to put in the work to produce a called-for quantity of demand 'X', or they wouldn't. Much would depend on what the 'X' is, exactly, since not everyone would be willing to work to produce just *anything*.
What your doing here is saying that workers of say, televisions, will produce tv's based upon their own criteria. Maybe it will line up with what consumers of TV's wish.
And maybe not.
But the purpose of those workers is to satisfy the needs of people who want TV's. Your proposals do not coordinate the two.
Yes, whether there TV's are made are dependent upon whether there are workers who are willing and able to do the labor. Capitalism has mechanisms to connect the two.
But you have nothing. If people do not wish TVs... oh well, people who want TV's are SOL.
That's no way to run an economy, a community. It certainly can't result in a "gift" economy. In no way can it be considered a superior system to capitalism.
I'm not here in hopes of reassuring you about your reservations -- and opposition-to -- a socialist approach to material matters.
It should suffice to say that the historical abuses of labor are too much to allow the same kind of treatment to continue forever -- that's why the political sentiment here will always side with the laborer and give them the benefit of the doubt.
A socialist-type system *would* be superior to capitalism in terms of how people are *treated* -- that's the main benefit, and material concerns can mostly be allayed by the prowess of current and future technological productivity.
You're mixing apples with oranges here -- historical lessons about the relation of politics-strategies-and-tactics, to historical contexts, can be found by studying revolutionary history, but then you're casting socialists as being *passive* beings who would *passively* experience some kind of future historical occurrence. The point of being revolutionary is to be *actively* participating in the course of history. I'll confidently say that the revolutionary socialist cause is not at a loss for theory.
Not at all. I am saying that there is plenty of time to think about socialism NOW, rather than waiting for the Big Moment.
Glad to have these exchanges, then, in that case.
26th February 2014, 23:04
Baseball
Quote:
Well, this is the whole *point* of a revolutionary leftist politics -- to make sure that there's never again anything in the least that resembles the exploitation and/or oppression of labor.
How is it exploitive that workers are expected to produce 100 TV sets, should that be the need?
Quote:
Just take some deep breaths -- I'm sure it'll work itself out.
Ahhh... faith.
Quote:
I'm not here in hopes of reassuring you about your reservations -- and opposition-to -- a socialist approach to material matters.
Fair enough.
Quote:
It should suffice to say that the historical abuses of labor are too much to allow the same kind of treatment to continue forever -- that's why the political sentiment here will always side with the laborer and give them the benefit of the doubt.
Benefit of the doubt pertaining to what?
Quote:
A socialist-type system *would* be superior to capitalism in terms of how people are *treated* -- that's the main benefit, and material concerns can mostly be allayed by the prowess of current and future technological productivity.
You have not demonstrated there would be continued "technological prowess" in the socialist community. As you have agreed, you are relying upon faith that the technological prowess, as developed under a capitalist mode of production, would continue in a socialist one.
How is it exploitive that workers are expected to produce 100 TV sets, should that be the need?
Well, for this simplistic example, perhaps it *wouldn't* -- but, as I'm sure we're both aware, the real world has complexities at play that would go beyond a mere 100 TVs.
If the ethos of a society is 'Consumer demand must always be satisfied' then you'll find that the exploitation of labor is necessary to uphold that kind of social order.
It should suffice to say that the historical abuses of labor are too much to allow the same kind of treatment to continue forever -- that's why the political sentiment here will always side with the laborer and give them the benefit of the doubt.
You have not demonstrated there would be continued "technological prowess" in the socialist community. As you have agreed, you are relying upon faith that the technological prowess, as developed under a capitalist mode of production, would continue in a socialist one.
Well, this may be something of a misconception -- and even a fetish projected from the right -- about what the revolutionary aim is about. Sure, we're for the *elimination* of inequality that's currently based on the social institution of private property, but I don't think it's accurate to paint revolutionaries as rabidly being for an anally-retentive *leveling* of everyone, their abilities, and their personalities.
No I didn't mean that at all. I know communists don't want to homogenize society. What I mean is inequality of economic status, pure and simple. Haves and have-nots, bla bla.
Quote:
We should probably take 'equal' to be more like the bourgeois-revolutionary 'equal in front of the eyes of the law' -- so that would be about civil society first, and the revolutionary thrust takes it to be about everyone's standing in relation to the means of mass (industrial) production, as well.
So instead of focusing on the *individual* for the measurement of a social 'equality', we should instead focus on the *social institutions*, particularly on how mass production is accomplished.
Something like "equal opportunity"? This sounds like Liberal ethics. What does your economy do to give people more access to opportunity?
Quote:
I guess I mean to emphasize that -- for *any* social order -- we have to look at both the [1] political, and the [2] economic. Here's a graphic, merely for the sake of reference:
Agreed. I think ...
Quote:
As I mentioned before, a socialist society would primarily feature a liberated-labor-led *gift economy*. This, politically, means that the prevailing ethos would be one of providing labor -- only if willing -- for the sake of producing for direct distribution and consumption, with no monetary layer required, or in place.
Does this entail that the non-worker, the idle citizen, who chooses leisure over work has free access to produce?
Quote:
I'll remind you, and the reader, that this is *materially possible*, given today's productive capacities -- there's no lack of productive logistics for this to feasibly happen tomorrow.
It's technologically possible, but contingent on people continuing to labour with no tangible incentive.
Quote:
So while you repeatedly uphold a plasma TV to be the 'brass ring' of an everyman's material acquisitions, its availability does *not necessarily* have to depend on monetary exchanges, including labor-as-a-commodity, for its provisioning to everyone in the world who wants one.
Well you can substitute Plasma TV for any scarce item of your choice. Yachts, mansions, helicopters, whatever.
Quote:
In other words why would anyone bother with even *labor credits* at all when they could just go to some local warehouse -- or put in an order for delivery -- and get one, since they're already freely available -- ?
Naturally. But making everything freely available would just lead to over-consumption.
Quote:
Many of the discussions here at RevLeft regarding the *finer points* of how a post-capitalist society could logistically be organized -- which I tend to incline towards myself -- are just that, regarding the *finer points*. The basic revolutionary *ethos*, or goal-mindedness, covers the *bulk* of agreement amongst revolutionaries about what human society is capable of, once liberated from exploitation and oppression.
This word you use, 'liberated', what is your actual definition of it. My understanding of it is that in means you work if you want, and you don't if you don't. And if you decide to work, you work on whatever interests you.
Now you're sounding like a monetarist, more than anything else.
All money is created by the banking system currently, whether one is a monetarist or not. I can't see a problem with this.
Quote:
This is a good example that you've chosen -- if a business in your 'market socialism' was into gold mining, it would be employing laborers to do the actual work of mining gold.
But you're not indicating any sort of co-ownership of the business by the miners / workers. According to your description here it sounds like one individual could be the sole owner, employing labor, and profiting richly from it.
So, according to this, it can't *possibly* be socialism *of any sort* since this system you're describing implies the exploitation of labor.
No, there is no wage labor in market socialism. All firms are owned by their workers and democratically managed.
Quote:
Let's say the gold-mining business owner wanted to expand -- they would look for investment capital, and could go to the public banking system, but there'd be nothing *limiting* that person to just the public banks. Any other person with wealth could readily take on the role of a lender, providing a business owner with the necessary access to capital for business expansion.
This process, reiterated over and over, *would* result in a gradient of differing wealth ownership among those with excess money who engage in finance.
It doesn't matter. Some wealthy individuals don't destroy the system.
Quote:
Bribery and corruption aside, the main issue here is whether private ownership of business is allowed or not, and if financial-type operations are a part of this system. According to what you've said so far, the answer to both is 'yes', meaning that laborers can simply be paid a wage for their work by the owner of any given private company, and that businesses can grow and merge thanks to their use of available capital reserves.
No, there is no wage labor in market socialism.
Quote:
These dynamics very much cut against any "socialist" ethos attributed to a populist
administration of public central banking. I find your position to be equivalent to that of the radical *reformist* call to put current banking under government control -- nationalization, at best, and still far from a socialist-type proletarian control of society's means of mass production.
No, there is still no wage labor in market socialism. There is direct worker control of the means of production and its democratic management.
Well, do you imagine this kind of economy producing a more equal society? Taking into account unequal skills, work ethic, intelligence, etc, I can't see it would produce anything like an equal society.
Well, this may be something of a misconception -- and even a fetish projected from the right -- about what the revolutionary aim is about. Sure, we're for the *elimination* of inequality that's currently based on the social institution of private property, but I don't think it's accurate to paint revolutionaries as rabidly being for an anally-retentive *leveling* of everyone, their abilities, and their personalities.
No I didn't mean that at all. I know communists don't want to homogenize society. What I mean is inequality of economic status, pure and simple. Haves and have-nots, bla bla.
I think I can say confidently and definitively that 'economic status' would simply become obsolete and meaningless in a post-capitalist context. As an example of convenience I'll point to what happened to Yanukovich's mansions and private collections -- they've become 'collectivized' and turned into museums -- state / public property -- for anyone to see and experience.
If this example can be likened to the transition from feudal holdings to capitalism, then we can see that a *proletarian* revolution would turn over all *productive* implements (factories) to collective control, for the good of the public.
So this is all prelude to the point that, in a *post-capitalist* social order, anyone who would have the initiative enough to "amass" collections of mansions, grounds, zoos, decor, art, etc., would effectively be a 'point-person' for public / collectivist administration over the same -- certainly no one would 'own' anything that *requires labor* for upkeep and functioning. To put it another way, people would have their day-to-day personal possessions, and their habitual domicile(s), but anything a person could not actually use on a regular basis would be considered as part of the world's collectivist 'commons', for anyone to access and use, or to fall into disuse. I have this as part of the model I developed, which I advocate:
Quote:
Ownership / control
communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only
labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property
consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property
No I didn't mean that at all. I know communists don't want to homogenize society. What I mean is inequality of economic status, pure and simple. Haves and have-nots, bla bla.
That said, about the annihilation of 'economic status', though, I happen to have an instrument of 'labor credits' as a part of this 'communist supply & demand' framework -- the premise is that since everything large-scale would be collectivized, with no more commodity production, the only economic 'variable' remaining would be that of (liberated) labor itself.
[T]here could very well be population subsets of 'workaholics' who tend to look for projects to do, and they may also look for better rates of labor credits, but they wouldn't gain *material* rewards from such dedication -- they would gain the *political* reward of having a greater say in who would be brought on board for projects, going forward, due to their possession of greater numbers of labor credits, compared to the average person.
We should probably take 'equal' to be more like the bourgeois-revolutionary 'equal in front of the eyes of the law' -- so that would be about civil society first, and the revolutionary thrust takes it to be about everyone's standing in relation to the means of mass (industrial) production, as well.
So instead of focusing on the *individual* for the measurement of a social 'equality', we should instead focus on the *social institutions*, particularly on how mass production is accomplished.
Something like "equal opportunity"? This sounds like Liberal ethics. What does your economy do to give people more access to opportunity?
Again you're focusing on the *individual* scale -- while this *can be* a valid standpoint, I'd like to re-emphasize that a post-capitalist 'equality' would be about 'proportionate access to the means of mass production'. So the 'careerist' mentality that you're alluding to would be of secondary concern to the *overall* construction, of a fundamentally *collectivist* approach to how all implements are organized and put to use.
As I mentioned before, a socialist society would primarily feature a liberated-labor-led *gift economy*. This, politically, means that the prevailing ethos would be one of providing labor -- only if willing -- for the sake of producing for direct distribution and consumption, with no monetary layer required, or in place.
And, to address this, my conception of such a social order *would* readily allow individuals to receive goods *without* providing work themselves, *because of* the existence of machinery that doesn't require much work-effort input to produce mass quantities of manufactured goods.
Here's the "proof", in steps:
Quote:
Material function
consumption [demand] -- All economic needs and desires are formally recorded as pre-planned consumer orders and are politically prioritized [demand]
Quote:
Determination of material values
consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination
Quote:
Ownership / control
communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only
Quote:
Infrastructure / overhead
communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions
Quote:
Propagation
labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality
So, in brief, this means that any one person's demands would only be their own, but, depending on what's demanded, they may resonate with the same, or similar, demands of many others.
If the goods that someone wanted were commonly demanded and routinely produced then it would just be a matter of making sure that the number of units produced would be adequate to satisfy one's own personal requirements -- I'd imagine this would simply be an administrative matter of contacting those whose policy package it is that's actively in use, to have production bumped-up accordingly. I doubt that additional labor credits would have to be considered for this, since you're only one person, and the additional production to cover one person would be negligible.
So we can see that the key variable here is 'which goods'. If the request / demand can be satisfied with already-existing mass production, then there you have it -- no work needed on your part, and you get what you want, subject to the real-world political process.
The downside is that it *would* still require you to be part of a *social-political* process, since the context is a *political economy*, unless regular practices included producing significant surpluses of whatever, for those like yourself to just find and take from.
At *worst* you might have to deal in a more-involved way with those whose policy package is being used, to have it favorably amended, and/or to deal with the liberated laborers themselves, to ask them to run a larger batch, for your personal benefit.
I'll remind you, and the reader, that [a liberated-labor-led gift economy] is *materially possible*, given today's productive capacities -- there's no lack of productive logistics for this to feasibly happen tomorrow.
It's technologically possible, but contingent on people continuing to labour with no tangible incentive.
I disagree here -- once everyone's basic needs can be guaranteed, from a liberated-labor mass production, that reality would free everyone to freely pursue interests of a personal nature, which may also have social / societal benefit as well.
You might at this point point-out that this is only 'begging the question': Who, exactly, would be willing to do the labor necessary to provide *everyone* with the necessities of life and living -- to be the initial 'engine' of a post-revolution gift economy that materially equips everyone else with the free time to individually pursue what they like -- ?
For this I would simply indicate that, currently, there are plenty of people who -- even within capitalism's competitive paradigm -- prefer to do volunteer-type work that has social impact. As long as there is a sufficient 'core' group of volunteer types who would see to a general basic social upkeep, that collective effort would be enough to leverage everything else.
I'll add that, besides the *professional* incentive of doing good meaningful work, there *could* be the more-material individualistic incentive of increasing one's own liberated-labor-organizing capacity, through the personal earning of labor credits, as mentioned above.
[T]here could very well be population subsets of 'workaholics' who tend to look for projects to do, and they may also look for better rates of labor credits, but they wouldn't gain *material* rewards from such dedication -- they would gain the *political* reward of having a greater say in who would be brought on board for projects, going forward, due to their possession of greater numbers of labor credits, compared to the average person.
Quote:
Propagation
labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality
Well you can substitute Plasma TV for any scarce item of your choice. Yachts, mansions, helicopters, whatever.
Sure -- in a *collectivist* context (as already mentioned) no one would privately 'own' *anything* -- there would be those with an uncoerced individual interest in certain projects, including maintenance and upkeep, and there would be those who like to *use* certain available infrastructure and resources.
(For any given infrastructure there may *not necessarily* be sufficient interested liberated labor to guarantee its availability indefinitely -- and that's okay. Much that currently exists today may very well simply fall into disuse, due to lack of interest in its upkeep in the future.)
In other words why would anyone bother with even *labor credits* at all when they could just go to some local warehouse -- or put in an order for delivery -- and get one, since they're already freely available -- ?
Naturally. But making everything freely available would just lead to over-consumption.
I disagree -- I don't think that's a *given* and/or *problematic*, as you're making it out to be.
Firstly, consider that everyone has *finite* physical capabilities in realtime -- the archetypal 'kid at Disneyland' can only cover so much ground in one day, and the same goes for *everyone*. After some time beyond capitalist commodity-production, it could very well be the case that the world develops its infrastructure of leisure possibilities to the point where *no one* could possibly cover it all with one's own finite life-time -- it would be like what the Internet is today, for all of the physical / material world.
Also consider that a collectivist society would have a collective interest in collectivism, basically, meaning that more numbers with a shared interest in common would enable more to happen, thereby facilitating a kind of 'over-consumption' as a real possibility. (Perhaps something similar to the Bittorrent dynamic.)
This word you use, 'liberated', what is your actual definition of it. My understanding of it is that in means you work if you want, and you don't if you don't. And if you decide to work, you work on whatever interests you.
Yeah, that pretty-much covers it. I'll copy from my model once again:
Quote:
Infrastructure / overhead
labor [supply] -- All workers will be entirely liberated from all coercion and threats related to basic human living needs, regardless of work status -- any labor roles will be entirely self-selected and open to collective labor organizing efforts on the basis of accumulated labor credits
Just print the money or credit the requestor's account. After all, new money is created by banks, so why can't it be backed by real investment instead of debt instruments?
All money is created by the banking system currently, whether one is a monetarist or not. I can't see a problem with this.
I mean to say that your concern with the 'solidness' of a money's valuation (relative to its face-value) belies / indicates your inclination towards the *capitalist* side of things -- a more-leftist stance wouldn't give a *shit* about underlying monetary valuations.
This is a good example that you've chosen -- if a business in your 'market socialism' was into gold mining, it would be employing laborers to do the actual work of mining gold.
But you're not indicating any sort of co-ownership of the business by the miners / workers. According to your description here it sounds like one individual could be the sole owner, employing labor, and profiting richly from it.
So, according to this, it can't *possibly* be socialism *of any sort* since this system you're describing implies the exploitation of labor.
No, there is no wage labor in market socialism. All firms are owned by their workers and democratically managed.
Okay, acknowledged, but even with a localist worker ownership all of the market-type *financial* functions, like a firm's issuing of bonds, and/or the extension of credit to individuals, would still be at hand, correct -- ? This means that the market-type economics would take on a life of its own, as it does today. People could spend more than their share of the firm's revenue, and firms could be forcibly taken over financially, etc.
Let's say the gold-mining business owner wanted to expand -- they would look for investment capital, and could go to the public banking system, but there'd be nothing *limiting* that person to just the public banks. Any other person with wealth could readily take on the role of a lender, providing a business owner with the necessary access to capital for business expansion.
This process, reiterated over and over, *would* result in a gradient of differing wealth ownership among those with excess money who engage in finance.
It doesn't matter. Some wealthy individuals don't destroy the system.
Again you're ignoring the very-real potential and possibility for this "market socialism" to lose the 'socialism' aspect altogether because of its allowing of financial operations -- so while the good-behavior workers would dutifully put their wages into the *public* banking system there'd also be -- per your acknowledgement -- wealthy individuals who could very well *out-compete* the public banking system through their greater market capitalizations. They'd be able to make capital available, as for business expansion, at much better rates than what the relatively under-capitalized public banking system could manage to offer.
Bribery and corruption aside, the main issue here is whether private ownership of business is allowed or not, and if financial-type operations are a part of this system. According to what you've said so far, the answer to both is 'yes', meaning that laborers can simply be paid a wage for their work by the owner of any given private company, and that businesses can grow and merge thanks to their use of available capital reserves.
Okay, again acknowledged, but the financial realm remains intact -- as co-owners the localist 'workers' are no longer workers with a common class interest, but rather are more like shareholders who each have an individual stake in the company's profitability.
This structure would lend itself to a dotcom / tech company -like process and dynamic of *over-valuation*, since that's what would matter in this landscape, moreso than actual labor done or tangible revenues brought in -- again, *nothing similar* to socialism whatsoever.
These dynamics very much cut against any "socialist" ethos attributed to a populist administration of public central banking. I find your position to be equivalent to that of the radical *reformist* call to put current banking under government control -- nationalization, at best, and still far from a socialist-type proletarian control of society's means of mass production.
I think I can say confidently and definitively that 'economic status' would simply become obsolete and meaningless in a post-capitalist context. As an example of convenience I'll point to what happened to Yanukovich's mansions and private collections -- they've become 'collectivized' and turned into museums -- state / public property -- for anyone to see and experience.
If this example can be likened to the transition from feudal holdings to capitalism, then we can see that a *proletarian* revolution would turn over all *productive* implements (factories) to collective control, for the good of the public.
So this is all prelude to the point that, in a *post-capitalist* social order, anyone who would have the initiative enough to "amass" collections of mansions, grounds, zoos, decor, art, etc., would effectively be a 'point-person' for public / collectivist administration over the same -- certainly no one would 'own' anything that *requires labor* for upkeep and functioning. To put it another way, people would have their day-to-day personal possessions, and their habitual domicile(s), but anything a person could not actually use on a regular basis would be considered as part of the world's collectivist 'commons', for anyone to access and use, or to fall into disuse. I have this as part of the model I developed, which I advocate:
That said, about the annihilation of 'economic status', though, I happen to have an instrument of 'labor credits' as a part of this 'communist supply & demand' framework -- the premise is that since everything large-scale would be collectivized, with no more commodity production, the only economic 'variable' remaining would be that of (liberated) labor itself.
Again you're focusing on the *individual* scale -- while this *can be* a valid standpoint, I'd like to re-emphasize that a post-capitalist 'equality' would be about 'proportionate access to the means of mass production'. So the 'careerist' mentality that you're alluding to would be of secondary concern to the *overall* construction, of a fundamentally *collectivist* approach to how all implements are organized and put to use.
Yes, due to the prevailing humane ethos and full automation of mass production, for the common good. Here's a 'proof' for that:
I disagree here -- once everyone's basic needs can be guaranteed, from a liberated-labor mass production, that reality would free everyone to freely pursue interests of a personal nature, which may also have social / societal benefit as well.
You might at this point point-out that this is only 'begging the question': Who, exactly, would be willing to do the labor necessary to provide *everyone* with the necessities of life and living -- to be the initial 'engine' of a post-revolution gift economy that materially equips everyone else with the free time to individually pursue what they like -- ?
For this I would simply indicate that, currently, there are plenty of people who -- even within capitalism's competitive paradigm -- prefer to do volunteer-type work that has social impact. As long as there is a sufficient 'core' group of volunteer types who would see to a general basic social upkeep, that collective effort would be enough to leverage everything else.
I'll add that, besides the *professional* incentive of doing good meaningful work, there *could* be the more-material individualistic incentive of increasing one's own liberated-labor-organizing capacity, through the personal earning of labor credits, as mentioned above.
Sure -- in a *collectivist* context (as already mentioned) no one would privately 'own' *anything* -- there would be those with an uncoerced individual interest in certain projects, including maintenance and upkeep, and there would be those who like to *use* certain available infrastructure and resources.
(For any given infrastructure there may *not necessarily* be sufficient interested liberated labor to guarantee its availability indefinitely -- and that's okay. Much that currently exists today may very well simply fall into disuse, due to lack of interest in its upkeep in the future.)
I disagree -- I don't think that's a *given* and/or *problematic*, as you're making it out to be.
Firstly, consider that everyone has *finite* physical capabilities in realtime -- the archetypal 'kid at Disneyland' can only cover so much ground in one day, and the same goes for *everyone*. After some time beyond capitalist commodity-production, it could very well be the case that the world develops its infrastructure of leisure possibilities to the point where *no one* could possibly cover it all with one's own finite life-time -- it would be like what the Internet is today, for all of the physical / material world.
Also consider that a collectivist society would have a collective interest in collectivism, basically, meaning that more numbers with a shared interest in common would enable more to happen, thereby facilitating a kind of 'over-consumption' as a real possibility. (Perhaps something similar to the Bittorrent dynamic.)
Yeah, that pretty-much covers it. I'll copy from my model once again:
Rightio, well I really hope your idea materialises in my lifetime because I'd love nothing more than to spend my life in the pursuit of leisure while letting the rest of society produce all the things I want.
No but seriously, your plan for an economy where people work only if they want to and take anything they want from a hoped-for abundance of "gifts" about the place is one that I can't take seriously. I mean that with no disrespect. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me. Who knows maybe one day it will make more sense to me.
Rightio, well I really hope your idea materialises in my lifetime because I'd love nothing more than to spend my life in the pursuit of leisure while letting the rest of society produce all the things I want.
No but seriously, your plan for an economy where people work only if they want to and take anything they want from a hoped-for abundance of "gifts" about the place is one that I can't take seriously. I mean that with no disrespect. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me. Who knows maybe one day it will make more sense to me.
Well, thanks for your interest -- I'd be talking all this stuff to myself otherwise.... (grin)
I'll only add that the way to imagine this would be to see the magnitude and complexity of all of it 'ramping up' -- the idea is to eliminate capitalism and all of its ills first while providing the basics to everyone, and then see where it can go from there.
Take care, feel free to inquire further anytime.
1st March 2014, 01:53
liberlict
I'll definitely be keeping it all in mind as I study more.
I'll definitely be keeping it all in mind as I study more.
I actually have a response to this....
Since this is about *politics*, it's *not* academia -- while plenty exists out there for study, like revolutionary history, I think what counts is what *you* (or anyone) *thinks* about all of this.
If, for example, global events shift one day and suddenly, one neighborhood away from you, people are storming the barricades -- what would one's reaction be? Would someone want to 'study' to look for similar historical examples that might be instructive for this present moment -- ? Perhaps, although even better would be to already have a *grasp* of why the current events are the way they are, and if one has cause to lend one's efforts to the ongoing political situation.
Obviously this applies to *any* day of the week, and not necessarily only to uprising-type events.
Since this is about *politics*, it's *not* academia -- while plenty exists out there for study, like revolutionary history, I think what counts is what *you* (or anyone) *thinks* about all of this.
If, for example, global events shift one day and suddenly, one neighborhood away from you, people are storming the barricades -- what would one's reaction be? Would someone want to 'study' to look for similar historical examples that might be instructive for this present moment -- ? Perhaps, although even better would be to already have a *grasp* of why the current events are the way they are, and if one has cause to lend one's efforts to the ongoing political situation.
Obviously this applies to *any* day of the week, and not necessarily only to uprising-type events.
All the best, take care.
Yes I do actually agree with you, because (hate to sound like a post-modernist) all the legal and ethical codes we abide by are all produced 'inter-subjectively'. As long as our thought processes are fluid so are the societies we build.
I like the idea of liberated labour, I just don't think it's realizable because people instinctively think of themselves first. And also I don't think there is anything ethically wrong with that. It would seem to me anti-natural if people expended their talents on strangers rather than themselves.
Yes I do actually agree with you, because (hate to sound like a post-modernist) all the legal and ethical codes we abide by are all produced 'inter-subjectively'.
That's true in the *abstract* sense, but, on a more real-world note, the 'inter-subjective' social / political world is held in place through brute force by the (bourgeois) state.
As long as our thought processes are fluid so are the societies we build.
At present "we" (the 99%) don't have the discretion to 'build' any aspects of society since we're not in collective control of the implements for such -- meaning mass production, etc.
I like the idea of liberated labour, I just don't think it's realizable atm because people instinctively think of themselves first.
It's not realizable at the moment mostly because we're *denied* it by those who wield power over politics and economics. We're economically hyper-individuated, to the point where we have to manage individually-portioned monetary resources -- and our own, *commodified* labor, for the sake of the 'markets' -- instead of being empowered as a *class* to do all of these things on a *collective* basis, which makes far more sense from a material perspective.
Hence the need for revolution first.
2nd March 2014, 02:33
Baseball
Quote:
Well, for this simplistic example, perhaps it *wouldn't* -- but, as I'm sure we're both aware, the real world has complexities at play that would go beyond a mere 100 TVs.
If the ethos of a society is 'Consumer demand must always be satisfied' then you'll find that the exploitation of labor is necessary to uphold that kind of social order.
Well, if distribution is supposed to be free at the point of production, how is this not a cry for "consumer demand must always be satisfied"?
Granted, if you wish to argue for philosohical, moral, religious reasons that its not always good to get what you want, fine.
But its tough then to swallow the socialist complaint that such a state of affairs exists in capitalism, and the aim is to change it.
Well, for this simplistic example, perhaps it *wouldn't* -- but, as I'm sure we're both aware, the real world has complexities at play that would go beyond a mere 100 TVs.
If the ethos of a society is 'Consumer demand must always be satisfied' then you'll find that the exploitation of labor is necessary to uphold that kind of social order.
Well, if distribution is supposed to be free at the point of production, how is this not a cry for "consumer demand must always be satisfied"?
That's quite a stretch, actually -- you're going to have to do better to describe how the former could *possibly* imply the latter.
If distribution is free-access at the point of production that still leaves overall control over production in the hands of those doing the actual work -- liberated labor -- as it should be. If anyone in that situation were to raise the call of 'Consumer demand must always be satisfied!', the workers there could just respond with a simple 'Fuck you', or 'Okay, then *you* do the work here to make that shit for yourself.'
Here's from my blog entry:
Quote:
[I]t would only be fair that those who put in the actual (liberated) labor to produce anything should also be able to get 'first dibs' of anything they produce.
In practice [...] everything would be pre-planned, so the workers would just factor in their own personal requirements as part of the project or production run. (Nothing would be done on a speculative or open-ended basis, the way it's done now, so all recipients and orders would be pre-determined -- it would make for minimal waste.)
But its tough then to swallow the socialist complaint that such a state of affairs exists in capitalism, and the aim is to change it.
Oh, you're attempting to make it sound like only *capitalism* is materialist -- meaning that people can individually decide on self-directed goals in their lives -- and that *no other* mode of social production could *possibly* do the same.
So, according to this reasoning of yours, capitalism shouldn't be impugned because somehow this mode is the *only* system that could possibly allow self-directedness in one's life, no matter how much capitalism also *fucks up* people's normal, reasonable plans through the commodification of their labor (lives), unexpected and uncontrollable bouts of unemployment, etc. etc.
This mentality is called (business) 'positivism', and was satirized centuries ago in 'Candide', by Voltaire -- with the memorable quote that 'This is the best of all possible worlds.'
No. Who cares what the "liberated" workers wish to make?
If there is a need for 100 TV sets, then the system needs to figure out a way to produce 100 sets. That the liberated only wish to do sufficient work as to produce 50 sets is of no relevence.
There are other pressures as well. It's not just the pressure of the people involved in making things. Supply and demand remain as pressures--it's just the overall needs of all involved in the transaction become symmetric.
No. The devil is in the details. Labor credits aren't transferable. This prevents financialization and other fancy tricks that do not promote production.
What your doing here is saying that workers of say, televisions, will produce tv's based upon their own criteria. Maybe it will line up with what consumers of TV's wish.
And maybe not.
But the purpose of those workers is to satisfy the needs of people who want TV's. Your proposals do not coordinate the two.
...
You assume that there are no natural mechanisms to manage this. On the contrary there are. Again supply and demand do not cease to exist. They simply become democratized.
You're referring to an orthodox formulation of 'labor credits', about which I have reservations -- the labor credits of my own conception are introduced at my blog entry and are part of this whole system:
Quote:
communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors
This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.
You're referring to an orthodox formulation of 'labor credits', about which I have reservations -- the labor credits of my own conception are introduced at my blog entry and are part of this whole system:
Thank you for the correction. I still hold to the fact that labor credits =/= money, as I'm sure you do. There still remain some differences.
I still hold to the fact that labor credits =/= money, as I'm sure you do. There still remain some differences.
Well, this actually brings up the reservation I have -- *any* method that retains material exchangeability with whatever counters are being used is inherently problematic.
My standing critique, though, is that a 'points system' doesn't go far enough because the question of how points are issued in the first place is intractable:
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....