To each according to his needs .....

[ckaihatsu]

I have to take on these "greed" and "laziness" arguments head-on here, because they're popping up on a couple of threads now.

I am absolutely *against* this moralistic stance of argument, because by using the terms 'greed' and 'lazy' it invites the creation of a self-appointed social moral authority that is then tasked with *defining* and *enforcing* these arbitrary definitions -- possibly in vigilante-like ways.

These moralistic arguments have *zero* real, material basis, since everything that is produced in *any* kind of economy is either a [1] good or a [2] service -- if it's a service then the person providing the service should have full, unobligated, duress-free self-determination over whether the compensation provided for that service is adequate enough, considering all factors regarding the providing of that service, whatever it may be.

And if the labor is for producing a good of some kind then we need to acknowledge that there is *no* objectively definable material standard for a ratio of mental / emotional / physical effort, to the production of one unit of that good. (This is because of mass industrial production methods that leverage and interleave various types of labor into processes that combine hydrocarbon fuels and machine efficiencies -- *very* complex!)

These liberated laborers may very well find that producing quality objects and consumables for their own usage -- without being exploited -- is *not* a linear, one-to-one relationship of work effort to productive output, especially once they've taken collective control of the means of mass production. Sure, some may continue to do handicraft-type work as self-selected artisans, but I'd say that the bulk of the population would *not* go in that direction with their lives and would be altogether comfortable using the outputs of *industrial* manufacturing processes -- and these are *not* dependent on increasing amounts of human mental / emotional / physical labor power.

So -- after easily dismissing the *capitalist* method of material valuation -- we're left with one implication of this fact of modern material production: That no one can draw a direct line from the *products* (goods and services) of mental / emotional / physical labor efforts, back to their solely existing *sources* of labor in any kind of definitive way. (For example, how many people, and which ones, exactly, should be credited for all of the knowledge contained in all of Wikipedia's pages, and for how many hours of their time, respectively? Or, how does a new owner of a used chair properly back-compensate the artisan who produced that chair 50 years ago that's still being used today?)

If even labor-conscious *Marxists* can't arrive at a definite system of quantification of material labor effort into finished goods and services, for the purpose of setting up a valid system of ratios, then we sure as hell know that the *capitalist* system of labor-*exploiting* valuations is even *further* from reflecting an accurate correlation of labor effort to abstract value.

Without an *objective* measure of quantified abstract values there's really no good way to say what goods and services are worth, *especially* by the yardstick of capital. So we have to conclude that there's no *standard* for saying how much *value* -- especially labor value -- one person is consuming versus another. Sure, there are some generalities, as with bigger items versus smaller items, but we *still* don't have a solid standard for definitively saying that 'x' person has contributed 'y' amount of effort into the common good, and therefore can receive 'z' amount of goods and services back without being "lazy" or "greedy"...(!)

[Revolution starts with U]

Lt. how many times do you have to be told that personal property does not play a role in it? You can have as many shot glasses as you want. Now, if you are making something to trade, and hiring employees, using those shot glasses, you will be required to give your workers their fair share.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE]

One thing I dislike about answering these questions is that we are hypothesizing about a situation deep into the future. However, I can almost with certainty answer that I nor anyone else need such possessions. Nor do I think that their want is anything more than a reflection of the current system and rather irrational.

In other words, dust off that Maoist uniform.
You're going to need 'em.

[Decolonize The Left]

Quick question here ....

I'm aware that in a communist society citizens will be conscious enough not to want unreasonable needs for his/her life, but does that mean that certain items that would be deemed of better luxury and a higher value would not be produced or built, say for instance, mansions for living in or Rolls Royce vehicles for driving in ?

I'm assuming that such possessions wont be consigned to the past, so when would it be deemed possible that these items could be needed and distributed ?

The phrase in question in the OP title is incomplete. It's "to each according to need and from each according to ability."

What this means is that folks get what they need, and make what they can. It establishes a base-intake minimum (needs), and a fluid-output maximum (ability).

So if everyone has what they need (shelter, food, water, clothes, education, healthcare, etc...) and there is the ability within a given community to produce more then it will be done according to the decisions of that community. So as a pedantic example, if the basic needs are met and folks decide they all want cars with pretty gold unicorns on the hoods, then they'll build pretty gold unicorns and fix them on the hoods of the cars.

- August

[Lt. Ferret]

Lt. how many times do you have to be told that personal property does not play a role in it? You can have as many shot glasses as you want. Now, if you are making something to trade, and hiring employees, using those shot glasses, you will be required to give your workers their fair share.

the issue is that personal property and "capital" often are interconnected or overlap fundamentally. i own a hammer. if its in my garage its personal property. if i build something with it and sell it, its capital. then it can be confiscated?

[ckaihatsu]

the issue is that personal property and "capital" often are interconnected or overlap fundamentally. i own a hammer. if its in my garage its personal property. if i build something with it and sell it, its capital. then it can be confiscated?

The issue is *just don't do it* (no matter *what* Nike says)(heh).

if i build something with it and sell it, its capital.

You wouldn't *need* to sell *shit* because everyone would have everything they wanted already anyway -- kind of like the suburbs but for the whole world....

And, technically, even if you *could* sell something you made (or swap, whatever), it wouldn't actually be *capital* -- funds only are used as capital when they're actively invested in a production process of some sort, however far removed through leveraging....

[RGacky3]

i own a hammer. if its in my garage its personal property. if i build something with it and sell it, its capital. then it can be confiscated?

No, no one needs your hammer.

90% of pro-capitalist arguments are rediculous over the top speculations like this, or "What if Alients stole half of all the toothbrushes, will I get my toothbrush confiscated?"

[L.A.P.]

So what your saying is that those who have the abilities and skills to make something superior and of better quality wont be able to specialise in these fields. ? sounds like a rut to me.

Technological advance would surely see a better quality of product. If something of better and higher quality is produced, what happens to it, is it kept in storage until their is abundance ?

In a communist society Rolls Royces and Ferraris wouldn't be expensive exotic or luxury cars, they would just be average affordable cars.

[Rafiq]

No, no one needs your hammer.

90% of pro-capitalist arguments are rediculous over the top speculations like this, or "What if Alients stole half of all the toothbrushes, will I get my toothbrush confiscated?"

Yeah, I love how the Capitalists always get so technical, with stupid questions.

It's like saying "If you pull me out of this gas chamber, will I have enough dollars to go to the ice cream shop and buy something"?

It's like "Man, shut up, you're going to be pulled out of a big shit mess, ask questions later"

[ckaihatsu]

"If you and your two rad band buddies took over the country would you look up my web browsing history and then execute me and my cousins by invading in tanks while wearing retro-Communist uniforms?"

(I told him yeah.)


x D

[ckaihatsu]

"Why are you against my 6-year-old kid swapping his butterscotch candy for a peppermint one with his friend during recess? That's free enterprise! Why are you against free enterprise!!"


x D

[Jimmie Higgins]

Technological advance would surely see a better quality of product. If something of better and higher quality is produced, what happens to it, is it kept in storage until their is abundance ?

There would be no reason for this to be the case if production were run on a democratic basis. And this question can easily be turned around and asked of our own society - why are homes and offices being kept "in storage" and unoccupied right now when there are tons of people in the US without a place to sleep tonight? Why are farmers subsidized to not grow food (i.e. store their labor and land) when there are people going hungry?

As for the OP, well "luxury" as in exclusive commodities would not be produced in the same way. If many people wanted a car like a Rolls Royce, then they would figure out a way to mass produce it - thus creating the same quality without the artifical scarcity caused by limited production runs and so on. As far as how to deal with actual scarcity - like limited resources or limited skill-sets - well that would be up to people to figure out in a cooperative fashion. If there was no way to produce something in the quantities needed, then maybe some kind of rotating schedule could be created or a lottery until an analogue could be developed that could be mass produced in adequate numbers. The point is that people would decide this openly and consciously and democratically as opposed to having these things dictated by circumstance or luck.

[robbo203]

Quick question here ....

I'm aware that in a communist society citizens will be conscious enough not to want unreasonable needs for his/her life, but does that mean that certain items that would be deemed of better luxury and a higher value would not be produced or built, say for instance, mansions for living in or Rolls Royce vehicles for driving in ?

I'm assuming that such possessions wont be consigned to the past, so when would it be deemed possible that these items could be needed and distributed ?

It would be better to envisage, or factor in, the idea of a kind of hierarchy of production goals to help guide the allocation of resources at the level of production units in a communist society. Rather than banning or outlawing the manfacture of luxury items, think of them instead as "residual" products - their manufacturing being contingent upon the prior satisfaction of more important or priority goods. This would be an eminently sensible and rational approach to adopt. It is not sensible or rational to produce low priority goods while high priority needs remained unmet. But if you have enough resources left over after the latter have been met then why not...


Ive written something about this here -
http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm

[ckaihatsu]

Critique from the left here....

their manufacturing being contingent upon the prior satisfaction of more important or priority goods.

It is not sensible or rational to produce low priority goods while high priority needs remained unmet.

If your only concern regarding a post-capitalist, collectivized, worker-controlled production is one of *prioritization*, I have a process for that diagrammed here....


Prioritization Chart

http://i46.tinypic.com/30mr78g.jpg

[Amphictyonis]

+ YouTube Video

Who's more evolved?

[ckaihatsu]

Who's more evolved?

Um... whoever has the most white tokens, right -- ?


x D

[ckaihatsu]

...Or would that be 'tokenism'...?


x D

x D

x D

[Baseball]

[QUOTE]

It would be better to envisage, or factor in, the idea of a kind of hierarchy of production goals to help guide the allocation of resources at the level of production units in a communist society.

Of course, a rational economy focuses upon producing goods and services that are more needed ahead of items which are lesser needed. Capitalism uses "profit" as its guidepost. Such a guidepost is unavailable to the communist, and it still seems that even after a century, the socialist still hasn't figured an effective replacement.

Rather than banning or outlawing the manfacture of luxury items, think of them instead as "residual" products - their manufacturing being contingent upon the prior satisfaction of more important or priority goods. This would be an eminently sensible and rational approach to adopt. It is not sensible or rational to produce low priority goods while high priority needs remained unmet. But if you have enough resources left over after the latter have been met then why not...

Because this scenario will never be achieved. Look at some of the other posts in this very thread: the sneering dismissal of concerns about collecting shot glasses or toothbrushes. Think about it-- At what point should labor, fuel, raw materials ect. be deployed to produce souvenirs over producing windows and heat to cook food?

[ckaihatsu]

Of course, a rational economy focuses upon producing goods and services that are more needed ahead of items which are lesser needed. Capitalism uses "profit" as its guidepost. Such a guidepost is unavailable to the communist, and it still seems that even after a century, the socialist still hasn't figured an effective replacement.

Your critique here, since it's coming from the right, really isn't being put forward in good faith. Anyone who *is* a Marxist / socialist / communist understands that, once collectively in power, the world's working class could readily sort out such issues as what's more important for production, and therefore more deserving of material assets and resources, including human labor.

[Baseball]

Your critique here, since it's coming from the right, really isn't being put forward in good faith. Anyone who *is* a Marxist / socialist / communist understands that, once collectively in power, the world's working class could readily sort out such issues as what's more important for production, and therefore more deserving of material assets and resources, including human labor.

The critique is mostly based upon the incredible vagueness of saying "could readily sort out..." It still requires some sort of explanation of how such things would be sorted out.