Centralization in a post capitalist economy

Tuwix, tell us what a commodity is.

That is an individual, momentary exchange, and does not constitute a market economy, no more than giving gifts constituted a gift economy. And there would be no need for such exchange in a socialised economy, since any item could be obtained directly from the socially-managed surplus.

Then cite it. But I mean market definition and not consideration about market. As far I know Marx considered market but he didn't define it. It existed very long before him.

Yes, there would be such need. For example for sake of convenience. It could be faster to exchange goods instead of waiting for product from distribution center. And such exchange defines market.

So, are we living in a gift economy because people receive gifts? Is the 69 position a market? It's so nice that every political question can be resolved with a link to Wikipedia and some handwaving.

Is very nice to ignore definitions? Because Wikipedia is as bad as it is the most democratic encyclopedia ever known? And you will say about it?

“A market” is therefore an extended social formation in which the needs of people are met by the labour of other people through a network of exchange relations connecting everyone who is part of the given market. “Market” is also used with the more generalised meaning of “effective demand” – i.e., the presence of people both willing and able to pay for a given commodity.

Aside from being a means of effecting the exchange of products, a market functions to assign a price to the product each person brings to the market.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm

Is that definition "bourgeois" too? Or an exchange isn't a thing which defines market there?

It is quite nice to ignore definitions that are useless and lacking in scientific rigor. The point is not to find a one- or two-sentence definition and then use that in a deductive argument, as if we're play-acting some Socratic dialogue, but to understand the market as it actually appears as a material phenomenon - and to understand what an economy is. You still haven't answered: is the exchange of services in the 69 position a market? Is the present economy a gift economy because of Christmas? Stop trying to avoid the direct consequences of your claims. And stop trying to hide behind democracy, as if useful theories are up to a vote (you can imagine how few votes Marxism would get).

:D
And what do you know about scientific rigor? I suppose that as much as about what market really means which means not much..
Especially when you ignore every definition that isn't convenient for you...

You're still avoiding answering the questions I posed. That is to be expected, of course; that would require you to either backtrack or bite the bullet and say some very stupid things.

As well you are avoiding my questions. I think it doesn't make sense to continue this debate.

You haven't asked any questions (except inconsequential questions like "is this definition bourgeois?" - who cares if it is?).

Along with others here I'll take exception to your personal understanding of the term 'market' -- a market is only required for the mode of *commodity* production because those commodities are given *exchange* values (prices), in addition to their inherent *use* values.

Prices, then, are compared in the marketplace, for exchanges of products and money.

As revolutionaries we're upholding that a *political* economy is possible, to replace commodity production, prices / exchange values, and material exchanges *altogether*.

It's un-revolutionary-like of you to continue to *insist* that personal-level swapping of items or favors could still be considered "markets" when that kind of activity has nothing to do with *production* -- libertarians commonly mischaracterize secondary-type markets like these as being the same as the *production* that had to happen to make the items in the first place.



I'd like to hear more about this, if you would oblige -- I'm very skeptical because computers don't have the capacity for individual autonomy the way *we* do, so they wouldn't actually be *managing* anything in the pro-active sense of the term.

And, a "decentralized" kind of decision-making only begs the question -- if several (productive) entities have the same information in front of them, which one / who would be making the final decision(s) over their coordination in common, as for producing a finished product -- ?

I suppose it could be an *emergent* event, where either cooperation takes place on an ad-hoc basis, or else it doesn't. But, along the way, there could be much 'messiness' where many more entities attempted to coordinate from the beginning but found their efforts fruitless and their time wasted, for whatever reasons. (And this would be very similar politically to the chaos of the market-based planning of today.)

Is this definition bellow un-revolutionary too?

“A market” is therefore an extended social formation in which the needs of people are met by the labour of other people through a network of exchange relations connecting everyone who is part of the given market. “Market” is also used with the more generalised meaning of “effective demand” – i.e., the presence of people both willing and able to pay for a given commodity.

Aside from being a means of effecting the exchange of products, a market functions to assign a price to the product each person brings to the market.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm

I haven't invented a market nor defined. It isn't my meaning of market. It's scientific. And Marxism doesn't define it otherwise as I cited above...

F*&$ markets!

The point of contention here isn't the *definition* of 'market' -- it's about your assertion here:



I'll refer to TUZ's 'toy model' in post #18 as a very good depiction of how socialism's direct distribution can supersede today's market-based exchanges.

I agree with your blanket critique of ParEcon, and a fairly recent thread went through the particulars rather well:


Detailed Alternatives to ParEcon?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/detailed-a...018/index.html


That said, though, I happen to use a 'wishlist' (or *demands*) approach myself in approaching this aspect of a post-capitalist implementation -- it uses prioritization at the individual level, and then mass-collates these lists of priorities into a generalized priority list.


[17] Prioritization Chart

http://s6.postimage.org/jy5fntvcd/17...tion_Chart.jpg


---



---



I agree entirely with this analogy, and will point out that it's congruent with the structural model at post #8 -- the basic idea is to *generalize* productive activity as much as possible, yielding broader and deeper expanses of coordination.



In line with the above, I see (prioritized) 'wishlists' as being a very good tool for assessing mass demands, and for generalizing them accurately.



I'll note, just for the record, that my 'communist supply & demand' model uses a unique form of labor credits that are *not* exchangeable for goods or materials of any kind.

What you're describing as 'labour credits' sounds more like the conventional definition of 'labor vouchers'.

Did you even read this? Your wiki definition explicitly states that a market is only one of many systems based on exchange. Alternative modes under which exchange occur are acknowledged by your own supporting passage.

Maybe it will supersede, but there will nothing eliminate barter which is in fact very limited form of market. Then market will never cease to exist.

Okay, by these definitions I suppose you'd be correct.

Respectfully, though, I think you -- or anyone else -- is missing the point of a revolutionary politics by this statement.

Sure, much post-capitalist economic activity *could* be personal and small-scale, but that wouldn't be saying much for post-revolution possibilities and potentials.

We shouldn't attempt to *ignore* *mass* (industrial) processes -- not to accuse you of doing this.

Where and how production originates is of paramount importance, and it crucially informs our (revolutionary) politics.

I'm affraid that you recognize market as a feature of capitalism. But it isn't. Primitive communism has its market, feudalism has its market and capitalism has it too. Only in capitalism market is greatest in scale. Socialism (first phase in marxist understanding) will have it very visible too.

But I wrote earlier, I understand your (all of you) feelings of hatred towards market. And I think I know a cause of it: so-called libertarians talking a freemarket-bullshit...

It's too bad that you've taken this discussion off on an unproductive tangent, all for the sake of your own personal semantic interpretation.