Can socialism be non-authoritative, voluntary or libertarian?

[ckaihatsu]

Perhaps there will negotiation between the parties. Its not clear why this arrangement is an improvement.

You're glossing over some main factors of importance, namely these:

[I]n 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.

[O]ne could either work to *bring in* labor credits, or else *pass along* earned labor credits to facilitate the liberated labor of others.

I'll readily agree that my formulation is a novel one, but it's from having hashed out the implications and logistical particulars that result from the communist position.

So, in brief, there's no reason why a liberated world population *shouldn't* negotiate on a person-to-person, small-group-to-small-group, or mass-grouping-to-mass-grouping basis, as long as all assets and resources have been fully collectivized *and* the definitions of 'hour' and 'difficulty and/or hazard' can be standardized in a consistent way.

In a communist context the only economic variable -- also a fundamentally material one -- would be that of a person's (liberated) labor, so that reality is reflected in my 'communist supply & demand' model.

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.

No, 'labor credits' is *not* wages, because 'wages' implies that labor is being treated as a commodity. There is no good reason for labor to continue to be treated as a commodity. Only a *liberated* labor should co-determine how liberated labor is to be exercised, for collective, mass-available, ends.

[Baseball]

You're glossing over some main factors of importance, namely these:







I'll readily agree that my formulation is a novel one, but it's from having hashed out the implications and logistical particulars that result from the communist position.

So, in brief, there's no reason why a liberated world population *shouldn't* negotiate on a person-to-person, small-group-to-small-group, or mass-grouping-to-mass-grouping basis, as long as all assets and resources have been fully collectivized *and* the definitions of 'hour' and 'difficulty and/or hazard' can be standardized in a consistent way.

In a communist context the only economic variable -- also a fundamentally material one -- would be that of a person's (liberated) labor, so that reality is reflected in my 'communist supply & demand' model.





No, 'labor credits' is *not* wages, because 'wages' implies that labor is being treated as a commodity. There is no good reason for labor to continue to be treated as a commodity. Only a *liberated* labor should co-determine how liberated labor is to be exercised, for collective, mass-available, ends.

You throw out the term "negotiate" but you dont describe its content. What is the basis of this negotiation? How do the parties know if they have been successful? What are they trying to do?

Labor is the only variable? Isnt demand also a variable? How about supply?

[ckaihatsu]

You throw out the term "negotiate" but you dont describe its content. What is the basis of this negotiation? How do the parties know if they have been successful? What are they trying to do?

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.

Labor is the only variable? Isnt demand also a variable? How about supply?

Liberated labor would be the only *economic* variable, since it can be quantified according to people's hours of labor. All else would be part of the 'political economy' since it would all be about administrative matters, essentially.

[Baseball]

Liberated labor would be the only *economic* variable, since it can be quantified according to people's hours of labor. All else would be part of the 'political economy' since it would all be about administrative matters, essentially.

Its not the hours worked, but the work done in those hours. Which, even if an adminstive matter, requires rationalizations as to courses of action.

[ckaihatsu]

Its not the hours worked, but the work done in those hours.

Yes, I've noted that the nature of work roles can vary -- that's why my model uses 'difficulty and/or hazard' (per role) as a multiplier onto raw labor hours, to determine the rate of labor credits to be paid per hour.

[T]he definitions of 'hour' and 'difficulty and/or hazard' [should] be standardized in a consistent way.

Which, even if an adminstive matter, requires rationalizations as to courses of action.

If you're returning to the topic of 'What would motivate people in a socialist or communist society', there's a current thread of discussion on that:


Question about labour in a socialist country

http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-l...234/index.html

Since social relations would be utterly different -- a paradigm shift -- we need to compare the differing *contexts* of commodity production vs. that of collective production.

Under capitalism the economics is a closed system overall, constrained by the "ceiling" of the market mechanism. (In capitalism's early years the global economy was still industrializing and expanding, so the market mechanism could have been likened to an "engine", but no more *these* days since economic growth is artificially capped by its inherent contradictions.)

Under capitalism's closed system every worker is essentially on a social hierarchy, utterly dispossessed of official political power, and only ranking as high as monetary savings accumulated, if any. Contrast this reality to that of socialism in which each liberated laborer would have a global-proportionate share of political power, *and* would not be hindered from taking on roles of active participation over societal planning (politics) and broad co-coordination of liberated labor.

This context would be a civilization that is mostly flat-level and top-open, with the collectivized humanity co-determining its own progress and future.

Also:


[8] communist economy diagram

[Baseball]

Yes, I've noted that the nature of work roles can vary -- that's why my model uses 'difficulty and/or hazard' (per role) as a multiplier onto raw labor hours, to determine the rate of labor credits to be ]

However, aside from being arbitrary, places the value of work in the hands of those who do the work, rather than in hands of those whom the work ostensibly for.

[ckaihatsu]

However, aside from being arbitrary,

Aside from *what* being arbitrary?

places the value of work in the hands of those who do the work,

*What* or *who* places the value of work in the hands of those who do the work?

rather than in hands of those whom the work ostensibly for.

"...Rather than in [the] hands of those [who] the work [is] ostensibly [done] for."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

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.

Oh come the fuck on, you should be able to work this out for yourself.

In a society in which goods and services are produced in a collective fashion, why should it take any more energy, materials, and labour to produce something than it absolutely has to?

In a society which produces goods and services on the basis of inherent utility and not exchange-value, what would be the point of planned obsolescence? What would be the point of producing goods of substandard quality which wear out in no time at all?

The answer is obvious. The design goal is simple. Mass production of the highest quality items using as little energy, materials and labour as possible. Items should also be designed to be easily repaired, with interchangeable and standardised components.

[Baseball]

Oh come the fuck on, you should be able to work this out for yourself.

In a society in which goods and services are produced in a collective fashion, why should it take any more energy, materials, and labour to produce something than it absolutely has to?

In a society which produces goods and services on the basis of inherent utility and not exchange-value, what would be the point of planned obsolescence? What would be the point of producing goods of substandard quality which wear out in no time at all?

The answer is obvious. The design goal is simple. Mass production of the highest quality items using as little energy, materials and labour as possible. Items should also be designed to be easily repaired, with interchangeable and standardised components.

Its not a question of doubting an objective of producing needed goods using the fewest resources possible. The question is how do you know you have done so.

[Baseball]

Aside from *what* being arbitrary?

Your numbering system.




*What* or *who* places the value of work in the hands of those who do the work?


I would imagine the "political administration"

[ckaihatsu]

Aside from *what* being arbitrary?

Your numbering system.

*What* or *who* places the value of work in the hands of those who do the work?

I would imagine the "political administration"

- equals -

However, aside from [your numbering system] being arbitrary, [the "political administration"] places the value of work in the hands of those who do the work, rather than in [the] hands of those [who] the [workers] ostensibly [work] for.

By "numbering system" you mean the method of mass-prioritization of a locality's needs and wants:

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.

http://tinyurl.com/ygybheg

Associated material values

consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily

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

Material function

consumption [demand] -- All economic needs and desires are formally recorded as pre-planned consumer orders and are politically prioritized [demand]

---

revolutionary policy *solution* (SOCIALIST SUPPLY & DEMAND)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=275

All that would be needed from each person would be a "shopping list" of political demands and consumer preferences. As the simplest solution, a linear list could work just fine -- the math would be to divide 100 by the ranking of each item to come up with larger numbers for higher-ranked items. So the first item (#1) would be given 100 points, #2 would be 100 / 2, or 50 points, the third would be 100 / 3, or 33-1/3 points, and so on.

By compiling the lists over a certain area -- say by zip code, or whatever -- we would have an automatically generated group list, updated daily, reflecting the ongoing political demands and consumer preferences for thousands of people living near each other. Sorting the cumulative list by points would reveal the overall priorities for the population of that area.

(We could even provide some gray area, geographically, by defining border areas of mixed zip codes, if that was needed -- so everyone might have membership in either one area or one area plus a border area of two neighboring zip codes.)

[17] Prioritization Chart

However, aside from [your numbering system] being arbitrary,

People's needs and wants are no more arbitrary in a possible future socialist or communist society than they are today, or were in the past -- the only difference would be the *method* for how people's top-most concerns on their minds are addressed and fulfilled (or not-fulfilled).

As socialists we're not promising that everyone gets absolutely everything they've ever wanted -- it's more about doing things *better*, without the middleman of capital (valuations), so that *real* needs and wants can be handled directly, instead of secondarily to the motive for profit.

[the "political administration"] places the value of work in the hands of those who do the work, rather than in [the] hands of those [who] the [workers] ostensibly [work] for.

Yes, this is correct -- by using work-role exit surveys as the basis for quantifying 'difficulty and/or hazard', per role, the workers themselves are the ones placing relative material values on the value of different kinds of work.

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.

http://tinyurl.com/ygybheg

Determination of material values

labor [supply] -- Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived

[the "political administration"] places the value of work in the hands of those who do the work, rather than in [the] hands of those [who] the [workers] ostensibly [work] for.

Those who decide to put in liberated labor are working for the larger population, by locality. Since only those who labor get to deal in labor credits, those who *don't* put in labor *don't* have access to labor credits or the assigning of liberated labor in any regard.

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

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Its not a question of doubting an objective of producing needed goods using the fewest resources possible. The question is how do you know you have done so.

By measuring the amount of materials, energy and labour used in production, and then undertaking to reduce those amounts.

Say one is producing tins for storing food. Perhaps the tins can be redesigned to use less materials while retaining their strength? Maybe using recycled materials would be less energy intensive? Or possibly a different shift pattern can improve productivity by spreading the available effort around better?

One thing we won't be short of is ideas.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Its not a question of doubting an objective of producing needed goods using the fewest resources possible. The question is how do you know you have done so.

With production for use, there would be an incentive to satisfy needs and wants with the least amount of effort possible. We would no more "know we've reached maximum potential" any than capitalists know they've reached maximum exchange potential.

In capitalism "consumer" is sort of a false category. Really most of the consumption of the total value of work goes right back into the circits of capitalism, controlled by the capitalists. Worker wages create a popular base of consumption, but most of this also just goes towards maintaining a working class: people have cars to get to jobs, homes and food so they can survive and remain able to work, and (if the economy allows it) entertainment and gadgets to keep people diverted and mentally able to work. Even workers who can save-up still have to put their money into banks which then also becomes invested for the further enrichment of the capitalists.

But a system in which laborers can collectivly decide what to do with the wealth they have collectivly created, then the producers and consumers are unified. Rather than wealth amassing that allows capital to invest in what it wants and so on, wealth would put to things people democratically prioritize. Some structural projects may take a vote, but demand for basic consumer goods can mearly be estimated based on infromation from the local distribution points.

[Baseball]

By measuring the amount of materials, energy and labour used in production, and then undertaking to reduce those amounts.

Say one is producing tins for storing food. Perhaps the tins can be redesigned to use less materials while retaining their strength? Maybe using recycled materials would be less energy intensive? Or possibly a different shift pattern can improve productivity by spreading the available effort around better?

One thing we won't be short of is ideas.

However, such proposals only solve part of the problem. It is not "use the least amount of resources" but rather "use the least amount of resources AS POSSIBLE."

Those recyled materials are somebody else's finished goods. How do wr know its use in tins is its best use? Labor adjustments are, as you say, always a possibility (and always a source of denouncement by socialists when capitalists use it). But how do you know if in fact you have made the proper adjustments?

All compared against other options which may exist.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

However, such proposals only solve part of the problem. It is not "use the least amount of resources" but rather "use the least amount of resources AS POSSIBLE."

Then keep doing it. Keep finding ways to do more with less. Isn't that obvious?

Those recyled materials are somebody else's finished goods. How do wr know its use in tins is its best use?

Because food needs to be stored somehow, and tins have many good things going for them as a food storage option. It's certainly less energy intensive than refrigeration.

Labor adjustments are, as you say, always a possibility (and always a source of denouncement by socialists when capitalists use it).

You should know why that is by now!

But how do you know if in fact you have made the proper adjustments?

All compared against other options which may exist.

Your mistake is in assuming that there is some kind of absolute standard in such matters. If a new method for producing tins uses less materials than the previous method, while not increasing things like leaks and breakages, then that is a definite and measurable improvement.

[Baseball]

Then keep doing it. Keep finding ways to do more with less. Isn't that obvious?


That makes perfect sense. Would that standard also apply to labor.


Because food needs to be stored somehow, and tins have many good things going for them as a food storage option. It's certainly less energy intensive than refrigeration.

Food also has to cooked, which usually is done using implements made of metal...



Your mistake is in assuming that there is some kind of absolute standard in such matters. If a new method for producing tins uses less materials than the previous method, while not increasing things like leaks and breakages, then that is a definite and measurable. improvement.

My expectation is that since socialists like to say their victory will result in a world of milk and honey, they ought be able to explain its nuts and bolts that allows for such a land.

Sp while such an advancement in tin production could be a benefit for the community, you cant know this unless you examine the impact of its costs on the rest of the community.

[Baseball]

With production for use, there would be an incentive to satisfy needs and wants with the least amount of effort possible.

Why? If 10 units are demanded, 10 produced, and 10 delivered, then isnt this production for use?


In capitalism "consumer" is sort of a false category. Really most of the consumption of the total value of work goes right back into the circits of capitalism, controlled by the capitalists. Worker wages create a popular base of consumption, but most of this also just goes towards maintaining a working class: people have cars to get to jobs, homes and food so they can survive and remain able to work, and (if the economy allows it) entertainment and gadgets to keep people diverted and mentally able to work. Even workers who can save-up still have to put their money into banks which then also becomes invested for the further enrichment of the capitalists.


So the "wealth" created in a socialist community will NOT go into housing, food and recreation?

But a system in which laborers can collectivly decide what to do with the wealth they have collectivly created, then the producers and consumers are unified. Rather than wealth amassing that allows capital to invest in what it wants and so on, wealth would put to things people democratically prioritize. Some structural projects may take a vote, but demand for basic consumer goods can mearly be estimated based on infromation from the local distribution points.

How is wealth created in a socialist community? How is it defined? Is the objective of production to create wealth, or is it just a hopefull, happy coincidence should it occur?

[ckaihatsu]

Using the 'communist economy diagram' at post #65 as a guide, I'll posit that various feasibility scenarios, for whatever prioritized project or production run, could be brought forth for public consideration, to be discussed and prioritized, for possible implementation.

These scenarios would take into account the material factors of liberated labor, asset / infrastructure requirements, resource usage, mass demand, and all other relevant logistics.

My 'communist supply & demand' model has a link to a thread that contains a sample scenario along these lines:

‘A world without money,’ at tinyurl.com/ylm3gev

[Jimmie Higgins]

My expectation is that since socialists like to say their victory will result in a world of milk and honey, they ought be able to explain its nuts and bolts that allows for such a land.

No, socialists argue that a worker's victory will result in workers rule of production and therefore society, that is if workers are organized and convinced of the necessity and desirability of this.

Asking for "nuts and bolts" is just impossible. It's like asking someone who is a yeoman farmer who supports free labor and capitalist property rights how widgets will be manufactured. It's like asking a French Revolutionary how a bill will become law and how it will be introduced and who will enact it when the revolutionary is still fighting to uproot a King. Their answers of "supply and demand" or "parliamentary republican processes" are no more or less vague than answers from most socialists. American Revolutionaries didn't have a pre-existing plan for the Constitution - this is not what revolutions are about: they are about a fundamental change in WHO rules, not HOW thing are done. It's not up to us to plan a "democratic future" and that would be a contradiction. People have some ideas and best guesses, but in a socialist society, people will have to argue and put forward the best specific policies for organizing production democratically.

But in general you are asking how these things will be figuted out under the false assumption that in capitalism these concerns are magically handled by
"the market" but what that really means is that PEOPLE make these decisions, but they do so according to the logic of capitalist accumulation. They do not strive for the "best" ways to produce, only the most profitable. Producing for use by the people who are also the full consumers of the wealth produced means that they will make these same decisions, just not on a basis of profit, on the basis of absolute wants and needs.

So the "wealth" created in a socialist community will NOT go into housing, food and recreation?

Yes and some will go back into our productive capabilities or to new factories or new infrastructure - the difference is that democratic processes will set priorities for development.

Wealth is created by the same process: labor. The difference is that workers collectively can choose what to do with the total sum of that wealth, whereas now they create wealth, a fraction of which comes back in wages, but the rest is invested by capitalists and governmnet bureaucrats pretty much however they best deem fit.

How is wealth created in a socialist community? How is it defined? Is the objective of production to create wealth, or is it just a hopefull, happy coincidence should it occur?

As Smith Ricardo and Marx all knew to some extent, wealth comes from labor. This is true of any system, but feudalism and capitalism are types of organizations of society where the laborers has part of the wealth they create taken out of their hands and capitalists and feudal lords can then use that wealth in whatever way they wish: for the capitalist it is re-invested to create amass more profits, for the feudal lord it is spent to further build up his repressive forces as well as to amass luxury and spectral to justify their rule as divine and eternal, to present themselves as truly above the common laborer in every way. In short, wealth is amassed to keep the expropriators of labors wealth in power - in socialism the wealth created by laborers is democratically put to use: if we want more luxuries, then we might prioritize these, if we need more infrastructure, we might put our labor and wealth towards that.

[Baseball]

Labor, used either as a noun or verb, cannot be the source of wealth. The.history of the USSR - a land where unemployment was eliminated and labor used in its entirety- ought to disprove such a claim.

That the proper socialist community is "democratic" doesnt solve the problem. The capitalist widget maket makes his decisions based upon the logic of capitalism. What is th similiar logic for the socialist community? That widget makrt can make an estimate of the wealth (accumulation) his actions have created. How do the workers know this? By simple production- 10 units requested and 10 units produced? Do typewriters and computers create the same wealth as per socialist logic? How about desktops versus touchscreens?

The HOW really needs to be addressed as it would help support how the WHO go about their business and to support their rule.