Results 41 to 60 of 102
Its the same context- the wheel ought not be reinvented every year in the socialist community. You are making a claim as to hoe the community migjt finction. It has to be examined in that light.
No, it's not. Again:
Now you're speaking abstractly, off-topic, and from outside the political interest of collectivist production.
Again you're outside of the collectivist political interest so you have no position to make critiques that are internal-sounding. If you have a clear argument regarding collectivist production in general you should make it.
They will use projections, they will gather information from what distribution sites need and so on just like people do today. But rather than determining priorities and actions with that information based on what will yield the best profits, how this will help them against competition etc, regional or smaller councils involved will vote for people or make decisions based on what they democratically decide is wanted and needed.
The same things happen now, it's just restricted because power is held by a few and the rewards are privately heald. The process has to be undemocratic and top down, because the reward and power goes to the top. Workers wouldn't vote to increase their workload and fire half of them just to enrich the people at the top. But if things are democratically run and the fruits of our labor go to community needs and wants, then there is no reason for an undemocratic approach because decisions made by the people working there would go for everyone's beniftit. If less work was needed, then they can open new areas of things to do and shift some personnel to do even more things that before were not possible because labor was going towards, bridge-building or something. Ultimately as we get better at producing we can reduce the amount of work that's needed altogether. Jobs could become vaslty more volutnatry and interest-based and needed but boring or simple tasks could turn into something that's more like to have full access to non-essential thing your community (entertainment, personal enrichment facilities and education) able-bodied people have to work one month a year in a block or spread out.
Even under capitalism people accomplish tasks outside of the market using such methods - though informally most of the time and on a smaller scale.
Producing for exchange is the "odd logic" historically speaking. Most of the time for most of human history, people produced out of fulfilling needs and wants. Even pre-capitalist exploitation was generally just people making for use value and then some warlord coming in and taking a cut out of custom or for protection.
They will use projections, they will gather information from what distribution sites need and so on just like people do today. But rather than determining priorities and actions with that information based on what will yield the best profits, how this will help them against competition etc, regional or smaller councils involved will vote for people or make decisions based on what they democratically decide is wanted and needed.
YES- PEOPLE WILL VOTE ON WHICH NEIGHBOR IS IN GREATER NEED OF THE REQUESTED RADIO, OR TOE NAIL CLIPPER, OR CARRIBRSN CRUISE. HE WHO DEMONSTRATES GREATER NEED, IS PRIORITIZED OVER THE OTHER. I AM CURIOUS HOW YOU THINK SUCH ARRANGEMENTS BE STRUCTURED. PLEASE DONT SAT DEMOCRATICALLY, SINCE THAT REQUIRES CERTAIN INFORMATION FOR PEOPLE TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.
Certainly you do not claim that in a socialist community the decision by the majority on a course of action is proof that that action is correct and will be successful? If not, then you must explain what sources and types of information partisans on the issues will need to convince a majority that they are correct.
I think this is a ridiculous formulation, because it is personage-centric -- it implicitly politically commodifies the individual, bringing the absurdity of elitism (royalty, nobility, celebrity) down to the common-person level.
Instead of democratically characterizing individuals and their 'deserving-ness' we should strive for a *distribution* model that looks to *flood* everyone with automation-produced goods and services so that reaching out for choice tangible objects is as simple as installing free software is today, in the *digital* domain.
Yes, *initially*, I'll agree, during the period of upheaval when such a method would start to become viable -- but later on, as things even out, the approach should then be a simple first-come-first-served procedure, leaving 'greater need' to be defined solely as 'greater preference', as is spelled-out in my model:
Information about ongoing mass production works, in various geographical locations, and the projects that contain them, should / would all be a matter of public record, as on wiki pages for each and all of it.
think this is a ridiculous formulation, because it is personage-centric -- it implicitly politically commodifies the individual, bringing the absurdity of elitism (royalty, nobility, celebrity) down to the common-person level.
Instead of democratically characterizing individuals and their 'deserving-ness' we should strive for a *distribution* model that looks to *flood* everyone with automation-produced goods and services so that reaching out for choice tangible objects is as simple as installing free software is today, in the *digital* domain.
LOOK- PEOPLE CAN ONLY PRODUCE SO MUCH DURING THE COURSE OF A DAY. THE COMMUNITY HAS TO BE ABLE TO PRORITISE PRODUCING MORE NEEDED GOODS AHEAD OF LESSER NEEDED GOODS. FLOODING THE COMMUNITY WITH GOODS AD HOC IS EXTREMELY WASTEFUL AND COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.
Yes, *initially*, I'll agree, during the period of upheaval when such a method would start to become viable -- but later on, as things even out, the approach should then be a simple first-come-first-served procedure, leaving 'greater need' to be defined solely as 'greater preference', as is spelled-out in my model:
YOUR PREFERENCE ISNT ENOUGH. IT HAS TO BE BALANCED AGAINST HOW OTHERS ALSO WANT THAT PRODUCT.
Information about ongoing mass production works, in various geographical locations, and the projects that contain them, should / would all be a matter of public record, as on wiki pages for each and all of it.
YEP- AN COMMUNITY WILL HAVE NEED OF INFORMATION AS TO ALL YOUR POSSESIONS, AND WILL BE IN A POSITION OF AUTHORITY TO DETETMINE WHETHER YOU NEED MORE A REPLACEMENT ECT.
Okay, here's a refinement and clarification of my position:
[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy
(Consider that without the market mechanism all productive material activity could / would be pre-planned, so 'flooding with goods' could just mean everyone who puts in a request receives their requested goods, plus one unit left over.)
Your (economic) assumption is one of scarcity, or only limited fulfillment possible -- everyone's request for a good may actually *not* be a problem if enough production, as with automation, is done so that all requests are fulfilled.
Of course I wouldn't expect your political buy-in, but even this issue, too, can be addressed:
There's usually a caps-lock button above the shift key in case you're having trouble locating it.
Ok, to give a simplified stab at it:
So there are community distribution sites like restaurants and various stores. So on a regional basis or more one on one, they would have information about how much things are used at that site, as well as probably access to information about shopping patterns or changes in local demographics and population numbers. They would coordinate with representatives of shipping and various production centers. If supply was too high, then the production side would have an incentive to reduce the supply just to avoid too much wasted labor and materials - if it was too low, then they wouldn't be fulling their obligations and would need to bring in more materials or labor to meet the need. But if there wasn't enough labor or materials then this is where prioritization and democratic decision making on a larger scale would have to come in. If it was vital to do this production, then they may decide to move resources from other areas to be able to reinforce the slagging area.
Again, all these decisions are essentially made today, but on the basis of how to accomplish production in a way that maximizes profits. Sometimes this means overproducing (bubbles) and sometimes this means sitting on capital despite demand because it wouldn't be profitable to produce at that moment (busts), but it's always for the sake of accumulation not absolute popular need and want.
Lol, just like water meters are used today to keep tabs on how often you take baths.
If your computer was old and malfuctioning, then you'd probably just place an order for a new one just like when your cup gets empty you go to the tap and pour a new glass. Watch-out, you are drinking socialized fluids!
Ok, to give a simplified stab at it:
So there are community distribution sites like restaurants and various stores. So on a regional basis or more one on one, they would have information about how much things are used at that site, as well as probably access to information about shopping patterns or changes in local demographics and population numbers. They would coordinate with representatives of shipping and various production centers. If supply was too high, then the production side would have an incentive to reduce the supply just to avoid too much wasted labor and materials - if it was too low, then they wouldn't be fulling their obligations and would need to bring in more materials or labor to meet the need. But if there wasn't enough labor or materials then this is where prioritization and democratic decision making on a larger scale would have to come in. If it was vital to do this production, then they may decide to move resources from other areas to be able to reinforce the slagging .
Define "coordination, in a socialist context.
Why, in socialist context, is reduction of waste an incentive to reduce production in a case of overproduction.
How does the socialist community determine that resources are wasted versus them being used in a proper way.
How is labor allocated to a slagging, yet needed industry, from a less needed industry.
Lol, just like water meters are used today to keep tabs on how often you take baths.
If your computer was old and malfuctioning, then you'd probably just place an order for a new one just like when your cup gets empty you go to the tap and pour a new glass. Watch-out, you are drinking socialized fluids!
How do the computer workers determine that your priority in replacing an aging computer is greater than your neighbors who might have the same need?
Coordination means to coordinate: to order, to negotiate, to figure out how to accomplish a common task. Capitalists coordinate production and distribution and so on to maximize profits. Workers would coordinate the same things to meet their needs and wants.
Because if you are producing to satisfy needs rather than maximize profits, then extra labor means you are making yourself do busy work. Why don't most people wash their car the day after washing it the first time if they kept it inside in-between? Did the profit motive tell them not to do that? No, because it would be waste.
Capitalism overproduces because you can make money in a bubble and if you don't you will be pushed out of the market. So people invest right up until a crash, then they sit on money... supply and demand in the absolute sense haven't changed - only supply and demand in relation to what is a profitable investment at a given time.
Capitalist "efficiency" again just means maximizing profits. How efficient is it it in the abstract for Apple to put out new formats all the time and make old tech obsolete? It's not efficient at all except for trying to capture a chunk of the market and to create planned obsolescence.
So again, use-value efficiency is just different: did we accomplish meeting our needs and wants without wasting time and energy and materials. This is speculation, but I think people would have an interest in maximizing the quality and value of their labor. They wouldn't want to do something half-assed and cheap if they have the option of spending a similar amount of labor and materials (or even slightly more) on something that will last a long time and hold up. They would also want quality when materially possible since the line between consumer and producer would be blurred.
Again, people would estimate what they think demand will be. If actual demand exceeds this, then just like in Capitalism where you have to wait a month for the new iPad because they didn't make enough, some people may have to be put on a waiting list if the stocks are low. If there is a more objective shortage, like in raw materials or something, then workers will have to prioritize and figure out if they should invest more time and resources into an alternative way of producing or any number of other options.
How does the community know that they are using too much labor to produce a product? Determining by output alone? What tells them they are wasting resources ad opposrd to using them in a sound manner? How do they define waste and proper use? I am asking this from a socialism, not a capitalism, angle.
Are needs met or not? Workers at a store will have information about demand which they will coordinate with various production sources to meet those demands. If production can not meet demand, then people will need to democratically prioritize things on a larger scale, but otherwise, production will be geared towards meeting the demands and estimating projected demands. It is no difference from capitalism on a basic level, execpt that in capitalism, absolute demand is second to profitability.
Its not enough. Once the decision has been made, the community still has the problem of determining the most effective way to produce that good. "Coordination" needs to be described.
a strike of workers is allready disruptive, workers organizing is disruptive, workers fighting for their rights is disrupting and bad behaviour by capitalist standarts. just saying.
All i want is a Marxist Hunk.
It is true that labor produces for the rich wonderful things – but for the worker it produces privation. It produces palaces – but for the worker, hovels. It produces beauty – but for the worker, deformity. It replaces labor by machines, but it throws one section of the workers back into barbarous types of labor and it turns the other section into a machine. It produces intelligence – but for the worker, stupidity, cretinism.
Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten!
This is why Marxists call for a *centralization* of revolutionary political administration -- first for revolution, to usurp bourgeois rule, and afterwards to provide the broadest coordination of material activity possible.
Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms
[5] communist supply & demand -- political balance sheet
I shudder at the thought of that spreadsheet being utilized in production...This is why Marxists call for a *centralization* of revolutionary political administration -- first for revolution, to usurp bourgeois rule, and afterwards to provide the broadest coordination of material activity possible.
Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms
[5] communist supply & demand -- political balance sheet
BTW, what is the relevence of recording "gains" & "loss"? Do either mattet?
Remember this -- ?
The point of the 'political balance sheet' is to illustrate that labor itself -- even a post-capitalist liberated labor -- is always something of an inherent risk, since one is expending part of their life-limited time and effort for some endeavor.
The difference between today's monetary wages, and my proposed 'labor credits' is that -- since commodity production and abstract monetary valuations would no longer exist -- the labor credits would function as a liberated-labor-*organizing* tool, like shares of liberated-labor brokering power.
While the larger society would set the overall social context of direction and demands, the *logistics* for fulfilling such -- as you've been inquiring about -- would necessarily be within the domain of (liberated) labor. The circulation of labor credits would enable particular "hiring" forever going-forward, but only to the extent that one has put in proportionate labor time -times- effort oneself, for those labor credits in possession.
In other words, in a world of fully collectivized assets and resources, with no private ownership, *everything* of material worth would have to be measured in terms of (liberated) 'service' -- *not* material commodity (monetary) valuations. The liberated laborer would have to individually assess whether or not to participate in available (mass) projects, and, if so, for what rates of future-liberated-labor-brokering power, as realized in earned labor credits -- hence the 'gains' and 'loss' aspect of the 'political balance sheet', since one could either work to *bring in* labor credits, or else *pass along* earned labor credits to facilitate the liberated labor of others.
All you are saying, in your last paragraph, is that in socialist community workers will be free to choose to work at a wage established by the employer. Naturally, the wage offered would have to worth it. Perhaps there will negotiation between the parties. Its not clear why this arrangement is an improvement.
anyway, since i was almost 7 month not online here its interesting that baseball is still here, didnt you had discussions like this several times? doesnt this get boring after a while? i mean leftists get bored with revleft or have other reasons to leave, why do you, a libertarian, stay and discuss the undiscussible?
All i want is a Marxist Hunk.
It is true that labor produces for the rich wonderful things – but for the worker it produces privation. It produces palaces – but for the worker, hovels. It produces beauty – but for the worker, deformity. It replaces labor by machines, but it throws one section of the workers back into barbarous types of labor and it turns the other section into a machine. It produces intelligence – but for the worker, stupidity, cretinism.
Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten!
