Some sort of control in a Gift Economy?

[The Man]

What if someone decides that he wants to take every single Item X in a gift economy. What would prevent someone from doing something like that? and taking everything? Should there be a weekly limit?

[mikelepore]

A gift economy is a completely unworkable idea. Any one crackpot person could make the economic system collapse. All someone would have to do is go to the distribution center and tell them, "Have a thousand tons of diamonds delivered to my house, and make that a 500-room house for me to put them all in." Then the signal would be automatically sent out to all industries that every member of the population is expected to work 24 hours a day to increase productivity to the level that matches the items that you have requested. People who support such a gift economy are going under the assumption that, in the entire human race, there will not be even one crackpot.

On top of that, even among the average and reasonable people, there would be no reason to go to work, so not only is the crackpot calling for infinite productivity, but at the same time, having no one going to work would produce zero productivity. The whole idea is strained by this self-contradiction.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Thanks for posting the arguments of rightist defenders of the current order, Mike. I'm sure a few people here weren't familiar with them.

[PoliticalNightmare]

A gift economy is a completely unworkable idea. Any one crackpot person could make the economic system collapse. All someone would have to do is go to the distribution center and tell them, "Have a thousand tons of diamonds delivered to my house, and make that a 500-room house for me to put them all in." Then the signal would be automatically sent out to all industries that every member of the population is expected to work 24 hours a day to increase productivity to the level that matches the items that you have requested. People who support such a gift economy are going under the assumption that, in the entire human race, there will not be even one crackpot.

On top of that, even among the average and reasonable people, there would be no reason to go to work, so not only is the crackpot calling for infinite productivity, but at the same time, having no one going to work would produce zero productivity. The whole idea is strained by this self-contradiction.

Obviously this is a ridiculous scenario that would never happen (I presume you are being sarcastic) but there needs to be some system that takes into account people's actual contribution to society when rewarding them (preferably without vast quantities of bureacracy and red tape).

I think this was what the OP is getting at. (I'm trying to help phrase the OP phrase his question because as it happens, I too am trying to get an answer to this issue).

The best theory I have come across so far is the idea of non-circulatory labour vouchers (that get destroyed on use) measured according to the producer's socially necessary labour time (that is how many articles the producer has created compared divided by the average labour time of society required to create this many articles or something like that). This way ensures that people are incentivised to continue producing. However, although labour time is a lot simpler to calculate, the question remains, how it is calculated and how the special bodies in charge of calculating it are to be prevented from accumulating to much power.

[The Man]

Obviously this is a ridiculous scenario that would never happen (I presume you are being sarcastic) but there needs to be some system that takes into account people's actual contribution to society when rewarding them (preferably without vast quantities of bureacracy and red tape).

I think this was what the OP is getting at. (I'm trying to help phrase the OP phrase his question because as it happens, I too am trying to get an answer to this issue).

The best theory I have come across so far is the idea of non-circulatory labour vouchers (that get destroyed on use) measured according to the producer's socially necessary labour time (that is how many articles the producer has created compared divided by the average labour time of society required to create this many articles or something like that). This way ensures that people are incentivised to continue producing. However, although labour time is a lot simpler to calculate, the question remains, how it is calculated and how the special bodies in charge of calculating it are to be prevented from accumulating to much power.

That's what I always thought. Labor Vouchers. But in the Conquest of Bread, Peter Kropotkin said that "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." doesn't necessarily mean just bare necessities.

[PoliticalNightmare]

That's what I always thought. Labor Vouchers. But in the Conquest of Bread, Peter Kropotkin said that "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." doesn't necessarily mean just bare necessities.

Well, there are, of course, disagreements within the anarchist movement.

I would like to see a more indepth description of how a gift economy (without labour vouchers) that distributes according to need and not labour input would actually function, considering this may prevent people from freely distributing their goods if they were simply being submitted to "everyone else", if you see what I mean here.

[robbo203]

A gift economy is a completely unworkable idea. Any one crackpot person could make the economic system collapse. All someone would have to do is go to the distribution center and tell them, "Have a thousand tons of diamonds delivered to my house, and make that a 500-room house for me to put them all in." Then the signal would be automatically sent out to all industries that every member of the population is expected to work 24 hours a day to increase productivity to the level that matches the items that you have requested. People who support such a gift economy are going under the assumption that, in the entire human race, there will not be even one crackpot.

On top of that, even among the average and reasonable people, there would be no reason to go to work, so not only is the crackpot calling for infinite productivity, but at the same time, having no one going to work would produce zero productivity. The whole idea is strained by this self-contradiction.

This is the most ridiculous argument Ive come across in a while against the idea of a communist society. If someone wants a thousand tons of diamonds delivered to their doorstep well - tough titties! - it aint gonna happen and the fact that it is not going to happen is not going to bring a communist society collapsing around our heads. You can only take from what has been produced and if you want a barrowload of diamands well then, sorry, that will have to wait at the back of queue. There are much more important things to be produced which society itself will prioritise and which will have a prior claim on resources.

As for people not going to work if they are not paid, even under capitalism, according to figures produced by United Nations Development Programme, people in the industrialised countries as a whole perform as much hours in unpaid work as in paid work . (The North-South Institute Newsletter Vol.3, No.2 , 1999). In the developing countries the proportion will be somewhat higher.

You forget Mike that a communist society can only happen if a majority want it and understand it and if they do that then with that goes a commitment to make such a society work

[28350]

I always thought of it as more of a "gift culture," inasmuch as not all production would be mandated by the populace as a whole, but people would be free to make whatever they wanted. If a surplus of the product was made, it would be shared with the public. I suppose there are different methods of distribution of this surplus, but I think the point remains that for things with relatively small use-value, production wouldn't be mandated by society.

Also, now that I think about it, if the means of production were democratically controlled, how would one person get away with ordering a diamond-studded castle to be built?

[Ocean Seal]

What if someone decides that he wants to take every single Item X in a gift economy. What would prevent someone from doing something like that? and taking everything? Should there be a weekly limit?

There is always a limit in the gift economy. Obviously you can't take beyond reason or the economy would collapse, everyone has a limit based on what is being produced. It is idealistic to believe that there wouldn't be a limit.
I don't believe that we should move directly into a gift economy. I would think that after a few generations of labor vouchers, the social value of labor would increase such that the gift economy would certainly be viable.

[Victus Mortuum]

It's about distribution systems. Communism (socialism with communal distribution) is usually conceived as a gift economy, but I think a democratic-community model of distribution is a much more accurate depiction of what the intent is. Hypothetically you could have various cities democratically deciding to have different distribution models for different product groups. That seems the most workable model to me.

- Market
- Labor vouchers
- Communal-Democratic
- Gift

[ckaihatsu]

It's about distribution systems. Communism (socialism with communal distribution) is usually conceived as a gift economy, but I think a democratic-community model of distribution is a much more accurate depiction of what the intent is. Hypothetically you could have various cities democratically deciding to have different distribution models for different product groups. That seems the most workable model to me.

- Market
- Labor vouchers
- Communal-Democratic
- Gift

This is an excellent point, one I'm surprised we haven't seen earlier. You're placing these various, differentiated methods of distribution on a sliding scale according to the relative *abundance* of the component goods and services produced within.

Perhaps, then, one of the major tasks of a mass collectivized political economy administrating all of this would be to simply categorize *all* goods and services according to their abundant availability, on this sliding scale -- I picture it as a circular bulls-eye centralized point of (all) production, radiating its production outward, with gift distribution closest to the center (indicating abundance), then a bulk-pooled communal-democratic method outside of that, followed by a ratio-based labor voucher system outside of that, with a market-type system (of floating exchange rates) on the outlying peripheral area for least-common and more-specialized items.

[syndicat]

It's about distribution systems. Communism (socialism with communal distribution) is usually conceived as a gift economy, but I think a democratic-community model of distribution is a much more accurate depiction of what the intent is. Hypothetically you could have various cities democratically deciding to have different distribution models for different product groups. That seems the most workable model to me.

- Market
- Labor vouchers
- Communal-Democratic
- Gift

the problem is that economies are integrated over very large areas. products are consumed in one city that are made in another. but it is the economic system that regulates allocation of resources and distribution of products. incompatible systems can't coexist in the same economy.

they might exist on different continents are in different large regions. but not on a city by city basis. separate systems are like autarky. and this becomes ineffective if you're talking about just a community or city. at that point any economic relations between cities becomes like terms of trade between nations.

[mikelepore]

You forget Mike that a communist society can only happen if a majority want it and understand it and if they do that then with that goes a commitment to make such a society work

I draw a major distinction between what people know intellectually must get done and what they will actually be willing to do when the time comes. We know intellectually that having a good life requires production, but if people were told that they could have access to products without having to appear at work for a proportional and measured amount of time, I believe that most people would not show up at work.

Either that, or, if you tell people that they can have free access to wealth if they will just declare any job of their choice, then people would realize that they can classify themselves as poets and movie critics and wine tasters. People would quickly abandon construction, manufacturing and farming after the first month of the novelty of trying them. Production couldn't be sustained.

We can't be allowed to say "let the other people go out and do it today." We are the kind of animal that has to place restrictions on ourselves. Just as we need clocks that make noises to force us to wake up, we also need artificial means such as weekly earnings to force ourselves to produce wealth.

[ckaihatsu]

I draw a major distinction between what people know intellectually must get done and what they will actually be willing to do when the time comes. We know intellectually that having a good life requires production, but if people were told that they could have access to products without having to appear at work for a proportional and measured amount of time, I believe that most people would not show up at work.

Either that, or, if you tell people that they can have free access to wealth if they will just declare any job of their choice, then people would realize that they can classify themselves as poets and movie critics and wine tasters. People would quickly abandon construction, manufacturing and farming after the first month of the novelty of trying them. Production couldn't be sustained.

We can't be allowed to say "let the other people go out and do it today." We are the kind of animal that has to place restrictions on ourselves. Just as we need clocks that make noises to force us to wake up, we also need artificial means such as weekly earnings to force ourselves to produce wealth.

Please note, Mike, that you're referencing work and work habits within our current less-than-humane societal arrangement under capitalism.

Against this 'human nature' type of line I'll say that people readily work, especially creatively, when the work is personally meaningful to them and when they have some degree of actual control over the work process, including their own labor. You're portraying work in a decidedly blue-collar workerist way which may not necessarily be consistent with everyone's own varying work experience.

Regarding production itself perhaps a post-exploitation laboring environment would be one in which everyone is able to openly collaborate on how to lessen routine and monotonous work roles on machines. Certainly mass liberated labor wouldn't be so dull as to return to the same patterns of work designed for controlling and exploiting people -- we have yet to really integrate machinery and machine production in comprehensive, humanity-uplifting ways.

[Ben Seattle]

Hi folks,

I wrote, some time ago, about how I believe conflicts
will be resolved and fought out in the future gift economy.

Passion of all sorts will be released and there will certainly
be a lot of conflicts concerning:

(1) Consumption vs. Investment
(2) Ecosystems vs. Development

And, in the transition period to the gift economy
(ie: after bourgeois rule has been overthrown):

(3) Local vs. International Development
(4) The gift economy vs. other sectors

I have written about this in many places.
The main work is here:

The Self-Organizing Moneyless Economy
http://Leninism.org/some/

Of particular note may be this section:
The Congress of Diamond-Drill Producers Confronts
the Congress of Diamond-Drill Consumers

This section describes a scenario where the people who make
diamond drills get pissed off when their products are used carelessly.

Some of my writing on the transition period is here:

Politics, Economics and the Mass Media
when the working class runs the show
http://struggle.net/alds/essay_153_content.htm



and here:

Appendix F of "The World for which We Fight"
The ascendency of the self-organizing moneyless economy
http://struggle.net/alds/part_7_F.htm

My main work is a little difficult to read (20 thousand words) and some readers may find it easier to start with the two much shorter works above.

The logical way to settle, in a decisive way, the most important questions concerning the gift economy, would be to organize a serious debate. I do not have time to organize such a debate, but I would have time to participate in it and also offer some tips concerning the distinction between serious, constructive debate and the kind of shallow back-and-forth that often dominates many threads.

[robbo203]

I draw a major distinction between what people know intellectually must get done and what they will actually be willing to do when the time comes. We know intellectually that having a good life requires production, but if people were told that they could have access to products without having to appear at work for a proportional and measured amount of time, I believe that most people would not show up at work.

Either that, or, if you tell people that they can have free access to wealth if they will just declare any job of their choice, then people would realize that they can classify themselves as poets and movie critics and wine tasters. People would quickly abandon construction, manufacturing and farming after the first month of the novelty of trying them. Production couldn't be sustained.

We can't be allowed to say "let the other people go out and do it today." We are the kind of animal that has to place restrictions on ourselves. Just as we need clocks that make noises to force us to wake up, we also need artificial means such as weekly earnings to force ourselves to produce wealth.

Why do you make the assumption that "if people were told "that they could have access to products without having to appear at work for a proportional and measured amount of time", they would not show for work? The whole point of a communist society surely is that it presupposes a quite different outlook in order to be established. We are talking about people being responsible for their own lives and those around them. They would have decided to go for a communist society in the full knowlege that we all depend upon each other for our mutual wellbeing. It is not a question of some elite "telling" us this. We will be aware of this ourselves and with this knowlege comes - dare I say it - the moral imperative to cooperate with others. There is no one else to "blame" if the goods start running out because we are too bone idle to get off our backsides to produce more. If people dont like the fact that goods are running out well then there really is only one solution isnt there? To get off one's backside and do something about it!

So by a reductio ad absurdum argument the problem you raise will resolve itself. Workers having striven to create a communist society are not going to let it collapse around them are they?

Your whole perspective reeks of an apology for capitalistic habits and thought patterns. You say "Just as we need clocks that make noises to force us to wake up, we also need artificial means such as weekly earnings to force ourselves to produce wealth relations". Bullshit. I woke up this morning not to the sound of a friggin alarm clock but because I had things to do some building work on the house. Nobody is paying me to do what I do. I do it because 1) I want to and 2) I need to. As I said before just over half the work that we do in the industriialised countires - more in the developing countries - is completely unpaid This is not just work for oneself or one's immediate family but also outside the famility. In Britiain foir example some 22 million people do volunteer work af all kinds. And this is despite the fact that we live in capitalist society.

If your theory held any water whatsoever, this simply would not be possible. People volunteer to do the most horrendously dangerous and dirty work all the time and in fact there is a lot of empirical research to suggest that the spirit of volunteerism is often compromised and undermined by the existence of pay incentives which you set so much store by.

Besides, your whole approach begs so many question - probably to numerous to be fully answered here. Such as that a huge chunk of the work necessary only to keeping a capitalist society ticking over - from bankers to arms producers - would disappear in a communist meaning we would all have to work much less on average than we do now anyway . Such as that the conditions under which we shall work in a communist society would be completely transfomed without a boss class and that work would become a pleasure not a burden. Such as that the only way we could obtain the esteem and respect of others in a free access communist society would be through ourcontribution to such a society and not what we took out of it. Such as that we would have far more scope in general to automate any work that may be of an inherently unpleasant nature or at least to minimise by sharing it in various ways by sharing the workload

People, you say "would quickly abandon construction, manufacturing and farming after the first month of the novelty of trying them". Rubbish. Please dont assume that because you might like construction, manufacturing and farming others dont either. I know of plenty of indiuviduals who would contradict that claim. Goods thing we are all different.

[ckaihatsu]

The logical way to settle, in a decisive way, the most important questions concerning the gift economy, would be to organize a serious debate. I do not have time to organize such a debate, but I would have time to participate in it and also offer some tips concerning the distinction between serious, constructive debate and the kind of shallow back-and-forth that often dominates many threads.

Hi, Ben, good to see you around RevLeft.

If you'd care to oblige, I was wondering if you might tend to a couple of points:

- How do you conceive of labor and production, particularly industrial-type labor, in a collective gift economy?

- Would you have anything to say about a possible "mixed-mode" arrangement of distribution, based on varying degrees of abundance (ease of production) per item within a post-capitalist collective political economy? (See post #11.)

[Ben Seattle]

Hi there ckaihatsu,

I was wondering if you might tend to a couple of points:

Sure, although, since my time is quite limited and this
is a complex topic with many misconceptions, we may need
to consider a practical approach where I give a few short
answers and then you ask some follow-up questions.

That could get us warmed up as we develop, over time, a
common language.

I should add that I am thrilled that the topic of the gift
economy is beginning to get some of the attention that it
deserves. I have no doubt that it is the fundamental way
forward for humanity. Sooner or later, _everything_ is
leading in this direction.

I will start with the excellent question by Lycanthrope
that kicked off this thread:

What if someone decides that he wants to take every single
Item X in a gift economy.

If the items are MP3's --then they will be able to fill up their hard drive :-)

If the items are something that is in high demand and difficult to produce, then they will be shit out of luck.

What would prevent someone from doing something like that?
and taking everything?

Social disapproval.

And, if necessary, someone's fist in their face. There will
be no professional (ie: paid, uniformed) police in a world
without money. But people will act in self-organized ways
to defend what is right. There will be a large number of
volunteer organizations. People will coordinate their behavior.

You would not allow someone to molest your very young daughter.
Neither would you allow someone to waste or squander some
product or service you worked hard to create.

Should there be a weekly limit?

There will be a hell of a lot of experimentation as millions
and billions of people find out what tends to work and what
does not. Basically, goods and services will be created and
distributed with no strings attached except one: wise
consumption that benefits humanity.

If you have a track record of stupid, thoughtless or shallow
consumption--then you will get less stuff.

Distribution methods are likely to vary by type of industry
and locality and the ideas which are most popular at the time.

Clearly some goods and services will be highly abundant and some
will be the opposite. Distribution methods will clearly be
different in these cases. Music, for example, will be free.
Same with software, etc. Bits are easy to reproduce. Diamond
drill bits are not.

- How do you conceive of labor and production, particularly
industrial-type labor, in a collective gift economy.

Industrial production units (for example creating cars or
airplanes or freeways) will require intense coordination
of a large ecosystem and a fair amount of planning that
is centralized for the production. This is just a way of
saying that if a factory creates a hundred thousand cars
a year--it will need four times as many tires and so forth,
and these will all need to be delivered at the exact right
time (ie: just as takes place under our current system of
commodity production).

There will also need to be competition because, ultimately,
there is no OTHER way to measure how well one production
unit makes wise and effective use of labor, services, parts
and materials--except to COMPARE it to another.

This competition will not, however, be on the basis of
either money or labor hours or any other single quantity.

Factory A and factory B might both produce cars. One
factory might use labor that is more skilled. Another
factory might produce in such a way that workers get more
effective training (ie: a kind of investment in the future).
The factories might use different kinds of materials and
create different kinds of cars. One factory might be more
friendly to the environment. One factory might be more
fun to work in. All of these factors will have weight.

Under capitalism, it is relatively easy to compare the results.
If one factory creates a car for $5,000 and another factory
requires $7,000 to create a car that is similar, then maybe
the first factory is doing something better.

In a moneyless economy, it is more complex. Opinions will
differ. Passions will be involved. A worker may go from
factory A to factory B because he believes that is better.
You may request a car from factory A because that is better.
There will be debates and disputes. Usually these will be
small. Sometimes they will be large.

- Would you have anything to say about a possible "mixed-mode"
arrangement of distribution, based on varying degrees of
abundance (ease of production) per item within a
post-capitalist collective political economy? (See post #11.)

(from post #11):

Perhaps, then, one of the major tasks of a mass collectivized
political economy administrating all of this would be to simply
categorize *all* goods and services according to their abundant
availability, on this sliding scale -- I picture it as a circular
bulls-eye centralized point of (all) production ...

It is important to understand that there is unlikely to be any
kinds of centralized plan covering the entire economy. This is
both unnecessary and impractical. A producing unit may have a
central plan for the 100,000 cars it plans to build that year.
The plan would cover that factory and its suppliers and distributors.

But no scheme would cover _all_ goods.

The economy will be an ecosystem without any need for
the kind of supreme central authority that would be
needed for such a scheme.

Now I would like to make a kind of advertisement:

Please take a look at the three articles I link to:

(1) essay 153
(2) appendix F
(3) the self-organizing moneyless economy (S.O.M.E.)

You don't need to actually read every word.

But, as a practical matter, we will demonstrate greater
respect for the labor of both of us (I believe) if we
make use of these articles. I put an incredible amount
of work into them and believe they are fairly reliable.

[Blackscare]

I see a disturbing lack of emphasis on industrial automation in this thread.


Also, @mike's first post: hoooooooooooooly shit what a gigantic strawman. Jesus.

[ckaihatsu]

Ben,

Appreciate the response -- you outline several good political aspects.

I am mostly in agreement with your general approach to a post-capitalist revolutionary workers' collective society, with a couple of comments, below.

There will be a hell of a lot of experimentation as millions
and billions of people find out what tends to work and what
does not. Basically, goods and services will be created and
distributed with no strings attached except one: wise
consumption that benefits humanity.

I appreciate this "mass-d.i.y." spirit, especially in the formative stages of a revolutionary society, as capitalism's fetters are being ripped away and cast off.

As with using a computer, people shouldn't feel like trying something new is "too dangerous" -- rather the point is to know upfront that the creative process doesn't go in a straight line and that what counts is forging new ground in a positive direction, with mastery of the finer points coming later.

In recent discussions I've noted a distinct difference in a couple of paradigms commonly put forth for a post-capitalist economics -- one is the more fastidious approach to material tracking, using a conventional-type "middle layer" of abstract valuations, or prices, while the one I favor is more along the lines of a mass-politicized "potluck" approach:

I for one have a position that it is not a good idea to juxtapose labor hours against the provision of material goods and services. This only invites the obvious calculations in people's heads and the entire set of politics (and economics) to provide some kind of matching-up from the former component to the latter.

I advocate an approach that is premised on mass human-needs demand being fulfilled with whatever liberated mass collectivized society is able and willing to produce, with liberated labor having "veto power" over the mass demand while also self-organizing its own ranks.

Nonetheless what I advocate is not just a hazy one-big-potluck dream -- there's a model that spells out structural specifics with a mind towards material-based tracking and balancing:


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/

Given that such a post-commodity, mass-collectivized economy would be primarily *political*, this means that *conscious attention* could actually be applied to what-goes-where, and for what reasons.

There will often be disagreement not only concerning which projects are most deserving of resources--but also concerning the distribution of the goods and services created by the gift economy projects. Distribution will generally be free (with exceptions I will discuss below). But where (or to who) should these free goods and services be distributed so that the greatest social good is achieved? Resolution of these (sometimes intense) political and economic disagreements will involve the people who do the work--as well as the masses.

http://struggle.net/ALDS/part_7_F.htm

This dismissing of the *non-conscious* market mechanism for determining society's ongoing direction means that a collectivized society will be able to make the external world *directly reflect* its own internal attitudes and plans over production and the social world. It's essentially a call for the *productive* world to be as diverse in composition and direction as the *social* world has become in recent decades due to the civil rights struggles of previous generations.

There will also need to be competition because, ultimately,
there is no OTHER way to measure how well one production
unit makes wise and effective use of labor, services, parts
and materials--except to COMPARE it to another.

This competition will not, however, be on the basis of
either money or labor hours or any other single quantity.

Factory A and factory B might both produce cars. One
factory might use labor that is more skilled. Another
factory might produce in such a way that workers get more
effective training (ie: a kind of investment in the future).
The factories might use different kinds of materials and
create different kinds of cars. One factory might be more
friendly to the environment. One factory might be more
fun to work in. All of these factors will have weight.

[Instead] of relying on a "Communist" (Stalinist) bureaucratic elite caste to run things, society could be set up to *collectivize* all liberated labor and co-administrative duties. Not everyone would have to do everything, but that would be a guideline-like ideal to aim for. Those who happened to develop more concerns with societal functioning, then as now, would be more involved with political matters, but not in a controlling way since all (liberated) labor would be self-selected and absolutely uncoerced, regardless of work status.

Discussion and debate may also (when passions are sufficiently intense) be backed up by strikes and boycotts of various kinds. Why work for nothing (or close to nothing) on a project which you believe embodies a mistaken attitude toward the environment, education or long-term investment? Why consume goods or services that are created or distributed in a way that sets a negative example? Why support projects which are allied to projects that you oppose?

http://struggle.net/ALDS/part_7_F.htm

If you have a track record of stupid, thoughtless or shallow
consumption--then you will get less stuff.

To be more precise here, it may just be that the workers decide not to produce such stupid, thoughtless, or shallow goods and services in the first place, thus those who may want such things would have to either provide those things for themselves, by their own labors, or else forgo such inclinations in favor of socializing themselves, their tastes, and their efforts to the larger political economy.

Distribution methods are likely to vary by type of industry
and locality and the ideas which are most popular at the time.

I'd welcome an elaboration on this point if you think it would be worthwhile to posit more detail on it....

It's on your more *transitional* aspects that I find myself having some differences with you:

2. Funding levels--will start small

But most of the goods and servives that we need are not based on software or information alone. After the overthrow of bourgeois rule the workers' state will fund numerous experimental projects that create material goods and services.

What will the level of funding for support or subsidy be? My guess is that in the first decade or two it might be somewhere between 5% and 20% of the national budget (ie: the budget of the workers' state--derived from tax revenue). And probably closer, at first, to 5% (or less) because it would be very easy to throw money away on projects that are poorly organized and run by unreliable or incompetent people (or not run by anyone at all because of constant infighting and squabbles). After experience is gained and lessons learned and the majority of the population has seen tangible results (in the form of useful products or services created by the gift economy) popular sentiment may be willing to increase the funding to the 20% level. My guess is that this level of success might take ten years to achieve. (Note: I picked ten years mainly because it is a round number--and because five years seemed too optimistic and twenty years too pessimistic--but this is still nothing but guesswork.)

http://struggle.net/ALDS/part_7_F.htm

How would a transition into a gift economy be removed from commodity production, exactly, and what kind of a quantitatively tracked valuation system are you implying here where there would be money, taxes, and national budgets?

The gift economy would be compelled to engage in commodity production in order to have relations with the commodity economy and to gain positions in all industrial sectors.

But if this is the case, how could the extremely powerful actions of the laws of commodity production be preventing from exacting their revenge and, so to speak, turning this noble effort (ie: to create an economy without exchange) into shit?

The solution (ie: the way to defend against the powerful effects of the laws of commodity production) would be for the gift economy to conduct its relations with the commodity economy in the form of a single, unified entity. From the point of view of the companies in the commodity economy--the gift economsy as a whole--would assume the form of a single giant corporation. So if some project within the gift economy (let's call it "Project Landing Gear") were to produce parts for Boeing--this would be the result of the gift economy as a whole (ie: under the supervision of the masses) negotiating with Boeing and accepting money from Boeing. Boeing would not be able to negotiate directly and privately with Project Landing Gear--nor would Boeing be able pay money directly to it.

http://struggle.net/ALDS/part_7_F.htm

Just as Stalinists in the 20th century posited that socialism had to be preceded by bourgeois national development, you're positing that a Stalinism-type national development has to take place before we can move into full socialism and a gift economy.

This is where I differ with you because we should favor mobilizing the *political* struggle to greater extents so that we *don't* temporize and waste time backtracking to have relations with the existing world economy of commodity production.