Results 81 to 100 of 102
Consider human existence *before* civilization (living domestically, in urban areas, in static locations) -- all labor was hand-to-mouth since the natural environment was bountiful and there was hardly any need for implements.
From what, then, did the first neolithic sites, buildings, etc., come from -- ? People's labor.
You may want to make your argument regarding this, since it's not apparent.
Actually, it does. As socialists we're saying that the process of democracy should extend beyond political representation / substitutionism, to economic and material matters themselves, directly.
The logic of mass political demands and consumer-type orders.
If you like. An accumulation of usable tools could be considered societal 'wealth' -- or 'surplus'.
I've addressed the area of 'how', with the model I've put forth. You can feel free to address particulars within that method, or in general, if you like.
I'll take exception to your 'the WHO go about their business and to support their rule', since you're implying an elitism of some sort -- a post-capitalist order would *not* require any kind of specialization, as you're indicating.
Socialism in the Marxist and anarchist sense (not the Maoists or MLs) is the people controlling society through direct democracy. How is this authoritarian?
Segui il tuo corso e lascia dir le genti.
Socialism resides entirely in the revolutionary negation of the capitalist ENTERPRISE, not in granting the enterprise to the factory workers.
- Bordiga
Consider human existence *before* civilization (living domestically, in urban areas, in static locations) -- all labor was hand-to-mouth since the natural environment was bountiful and there was hardly any need for implements.
From what, then, did the first neolithic sites, buildings, etc., come from -- ? People's labor.
People's demand.
Actually, it does. As socialists we're saying that the process of democracy should extend beyond political representation / substitutionism, to economic and material matters themselves, directly.
Once you have made such decisions in such a manner, the community still needs to figure out how to make such production in the best way possible.
The logic of mass political demands and consumer-type orders.
All things at once? Doubtful.
If you like. An accumulation of usable tools could be considered societal 'wealth' -- or 'surplus'.
I did not ask me, I asked you. Would such an accumulation be an objective of a socialist community?
I've addressed the area of 'how', with the model I've put forth. You can feel free to address particulars within that method, or in general, if you like.
No. The models do not do so. I did ask about what does "gain" and "loss" mean in that context.
I'll take exception to your 'the WHO go about their business and to support their rule', since you're implying an elitism of some sort -- a post-capitalist order would *not* require any kind of specialization, as you're indicating.
No, i am implying people will go about their lives making decisions based upon those various charts. However, the support for those systems comes about in what supports- the content of their votes.
*"People's demand"* physically built the first neolithic sites, dwellings, etc. -- ???
You're suggesting that such a method would be more complicated than it actually would be -- I've already mentioned that people could make demands and indicate routine (or different) requests by listing those things according to priority, each day.
Those demands that receive higher prioritizations on the whole would be publicly seen as such and would support more-formalized efforts at refining those demands into actual policy proposals:
---
No, it wouldn't -- the advantage of a fully collectively conscious pre-planned method of mass production would be that overproduction could be done away with. All production would be intentional, and not based on financial speculation.
Yes, I responded to that in post #58:
I'm positing that the daily aggregated prioritizations, by locality and beyond, would *preclude* the need for any kind of voting, for any kind of personage-based political representation / substitutionism, or for any kind of specialization, as into careerist work positions.
Mass prioritized demands would refine into political advocacy for concrete policy proposal packages, and then mass-prioritization for one proposal over others that address the same demand. Sub-proposals, in the direction of decision-making, could address concrete specifics like timetables and labor budgeting, which could likewise be mass-prioritized, to finality.
So, in other words, people used their labor to create the kinds of wealth both possible and desired: "demand".
Markets and profits played no part in this. So why is it then that suddenly if people organized this way now, it's "impossible" according to you?
You suggest that it's "too complicated" to organize production based on actual demand by worker/consumers but people make these decisions TODAY. The market is not magic, it's mearly the relationship of people and specifically of capitalists making decisions about what to produce or not - but their decsions are based not on absolute demand, but profitability. So things in high demand are not produced when it's not profitable, things with little demand but high profit margins will be produced sometimes. People make these decisions in capitalism, it's just through market relations. Managers and so on all owe their positions to those above them in the chain and ultimately on their ability to keep the company producing things in the most profitable way possible.
Essentially we propose to reverse this arrangement. If economic power is held democratically than rather than a hierarchy where everyone serves the small centralized major holders of capital and all managers and even executives are accontable to that power (i.e. bringing returns for banks and major investors and so on) then power flows up in society rather than hierarchically down as it does now. If people need positions of "management" or teams or induviduals who can represent (for example) the Steel workers in X shop in negotiating with the Auto-worker's representatives, then those positions would be accontable to workers. I don't think anyone can dictate the specific form of how workers would handle democratic positions or decision-making, but there are pleanty of possible ideas about maintaining power from the bottom up: from rotating positions, to mandating average worker wages (assuming that wages would still exist in the immediate period after a revolution) for representatives of workplaces or industries, to instant rep recall and so on.
"People's demand"* physically built the first neolithic sites, dwellings, etc. -- ???
Why else build it?
You're suggesting that such a method would be more complicated than it actually would be -- I've already mentioned that people could make demands and indicate routine (or different) requests by listing those things according to priority, each day.
Ok. So each day, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of people will be sending requests... Where? To whom?
Those demands that receive higher prioritizations on the whole would be publicly seen as such and would support more-formalized efforts at refining those demands into actual policy proposals:
That isnt enough. It also has to be played off against other products people want as well.
Simply determining an average and basing production on that leaves out the costs- somebody may want chicken ahead of meat, but if the cost of that means less corn is available, that change is not accounted for.
No, it wouldn't -- the advantage of a fully collectively conscious pre-planned method of mass production would be that overproduction could be done away with. All production would be intentional, and not based on financial speculation.
The world is not a stationary place. It never has been and there is no reason to think it evet will be. True, your flowcharts "flow" better if nothing changed, but that is not a realistic
I'm positing that the daily aggregated prioritizations, by locality and beyond, would *preclude* the need for any kind of voting, for any kind of personage-based political representation / substitutionism, or for any kind of specialization, as into careerist work positions.
Why wouldn't a socialist community want workers with skills developed and mastered over years of work in that particular field?
Mass prioritized demands would refine into political advocacy for concrete policy proposal packages, and then mass-prioritization for one proposal over others that address the same demand. Sub-proposals, in the direction of decision-making, could address concrete specifics like timetables and labor budgeting, which could likewise be mass-prioritized, to finality.
Why build a railroad ahead of a highway? What kind of arguments could partisans on both side of issue make? What are the relevent facts the partisans can use to advance their cause?
What rationalizes the actions taken?
What do you think?
If it takes an average of 3 hours of labour to produce 60 widgets, over a previous number of 6 hours for 40 widgets, then assuming that all widgets produced are the same quality (i.e. there is an actual improvement in productive speeds, not just sloppier work done in a shorter time), that is an additional 3 hours of labour that can be put to use, either producing additional widgets if that is needed, or to do something else.
Metal that would have been otherwise wasted in inefficient packing methods. Yes.
It will only seem like a "land of milk and honey" because resources are no longer being controlled by a tiny minority of the population.
We already know what the "costs" in tin production are - metal used for one purpose cannot simultaneously be used for other purposes, smelting tin produces pollution that will have to be taken into account, and so on and so forth.
Stop talking as if this kind of knowledge was some kind of esoteric mystery that can only be unveiled by the Invisible Hand, when in fact it's called "engineering".
So diamonds cut themselves? Crops are planted, tended and harvested without any human input at any stage whatsoever? How do you think steel comes into existence?
Without labour, nothing fucking happens.
It doesn't, because you don't understand economics nor history.
Why not? If 10 units are needed, why produce more?
Desktop computers are far more flexible devices than typewriters, we've been over this before, idiot. That flexibility gives desktop computers more inherent use-value than typewriters.
We've already addressed it, but you're being stubbornly obtuse. As usual.
The Human Progress Group
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker - Mikhail Bakunin
Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains - Karl Marx
Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value - R. Buckminster Fuller
The important thing is not to be human but to be humane - Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
Check out my speculative fiction project: NOVA MUNDI
You're obviously trying to sidestep the fact that buildings don't build themselves, and, since animals don't build buildings, the only possibility left is that *people* had to put in *labor* to make any and all aspects of 'civilization', up through today.
Since a proletarian revolution would take control of mass (industrial) production out of the hands of capital, the control of that machinery would have to be reorganized on a different basis. The revolutionary struggle for control of those industrial implements would yield a societal physical arrangement centered around those factories -- *more* geographically focused than the relatively-more-chaotic physical arrangement of workers around their workplaces is today, through the jobs market.
The factories themselves would be the core physical locations (of mass production) on which a liberated society could arrange itself. In my model I posit the 'locality' as the most basic -- and local -- social unit, which would comprise one or more factories under local liberated workers' control. Political forms of liberated production could extend outward and upward from the locality, and also downward, to the smaller scale of households and similar entities, for the purposes of consumption.
Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy
At any given scale of production-based societal order there would have to be some kind of workers' government, or administration, to facilitate routine administrative tasks that would be vital to that locality's (and society's) social organization. The administration could be staffed in a sheerly egalitarian way by the liberated workers themselves, perhaps on a system of rotation, so that participation in administrative duties is done as a routine civil / civic responsibility.
This mass administration would be the body that handles the thousands, or tens of thousands, of regular daily inputs of prioritized demands from each and every person in the locality, with possibilities for *larger-scale*, like administrations built up out of the coordination of several localities over a broader geographic area in common. The thousands, tens of thousands, millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, or billions, of daily prioritized lists could be readily received, processed, and aggregated by existing computer technology, over the Internet, and published to various websites, as we're used to seeing done today with stock market data.
Okay, so you're highlighting the discrepancy that can exist between people's demands and the material *availability* for the same -- this is a valid point, always.
As I noted earlier:
Ultimately the logistics for making chicken or beef (or whatever) available would fall on the shoulders of liberated labor, so if it turned out that a given locality could produce beef more easily than chicken, that information would be relayed back to the public of that locality, for further political consideration.
(Perhaps the locality might reach out to neighboring localities, to generalize their liberated labor and productive capabilities in common, then being able to satisfy local demand for chicken. Or perhaps the locality would prioritize expansion of its own corn production and further develop its chicken farming, so as to expand local capacity for chicken production, to satisfy the locality's demand for it.)
My 'communist supply & demand' is *not* a flowchart -- it posits a *daily* routine of aggregating prioritized demands over a given productive area. It does not assume that the world is a stationary place.
It would certainly be possible, but it would not have to *be* that way -- the aim would always be to *disseminate*, *generalize*, and *automate* all information, knowledge, and skills as much as possible, so as to politically empower everyone and prevent the formation of specialized, privileged groups and their claims to 'turf' over certain abilities and productive processes.
As before, Baseball, I can't address a scenario in the abstract, since there is no real-world context existing for it. You could build-out the scenario more, if you like, to include the illustration of a particular political dynamic, or you could reference a concrete historical example.
Buildings were built because they were needed--- not because there were people who enjoyed building buildings.
Why?
You have yet to explain its better to have unskilled and partially skilled people doing this administration? Would it not be far better to have well trained and experienced workers deployed to this vital task?
So who accesses the websites and for what purpose? The factories?
Not entirely-- more like cost. Does the car continue to be your first priority, if the cost of it is some other priority? That is something you cannot know when submitting your requests.
Those are changes in consumption which your models do not seem to anticipate.
Those indeed could be options. It is options and choices which capitalists face every day. However, the capitalist uses knowledge such as risk, cost, profit in guiding his or her decision. So the capitalist might be willing to expand corn production as a solution. But that might come at the cost of wheat production, or land to build new housing ect.
I have yet to see an explanation as to what what guides the community in the socialist community.
Agreed -- that's labor.
I just addressed the aspect of 'why'.
The routine administrative tasks per my model would not *require* special skills, training, or abilities -- they would mostly be oversight of the fully computerized database functions for the work-role mass exit surveys, the daily mass-demands prioritization lists, and the labor credits in circulation.
Again, specialization -- especially concerning these routine societal administrative tasks -- should be *avoided*, for the sake of an egalitarian post-capitalist politics.
The data published to the websites would result from the administrative functions. Their origination would vary according to the nature of the data, of course, and would be appropriate to their usage.
I've already described the nature and purpose of the data.
It would ultimately be up to the liberated laborers available to decide which mass-prioritized demands / requests are addressed and/or fulfilled, and which are not.
There would have to be sufficient *political* initiatives made -- through detailed policy proposals, including overall project administration, and funding of sufficient labor credits from those within the locality's population requesting the participation of liberated labor. Liberated labor -- on both an individual and collective basis -- would be free to accept or refuse whatever policy proposals are mass-prioritized.
In the absence / transcending of capital-based valuations such as price, decisions of prioritization (of demands) would be based on available qualitative and quantitative information, discussed politically. Fundamental material trade-offs, as you're indicating, would undoubtedly be a part of the considerations.
Yes. Producing goods and services which people need.
Demand.
WHO uses the data? These people administrating this data are working, they are doing a job. Supposedly, their labor is of benefit to the community.
STILL, not an answer. I am asking about changes in priorities when other priorities cant be met because of other priorities.
You are creating a stationary community- regardless of whether you admit or not.
In the absence / transcending of capital-based valuations such as price, decisions of prioritization (of demands) would be based on available qualitative and quantitative information, discussed politically. Fundamental material trade-offs, as you're indicating, would undoubtedly be a part of the considerations.
And how are tradeoffs measured? How do people argue the point in the socialist community? What information do they use?
No. I am suggesting that such arrangement need to be described.
Can't turn a profit without meeting need.
I understand that you reject the claim that profit meets "true need" but as above, you would need to explain how a factory would not it has met "true need?" Distributing all its goods? But that doesn't show whether it did so in the best way possible, using the fewest resources possible.
Once you have described an organisation, you need to describe how it might function. There is nothing "uncapitalist" about what you wrote above. But presumably you would not expect the workers in an auto factory to base their production upon what capitalism views as logical, in an otherwise declared socialist community. The types of deisions made, the reasoning behind it, the objectives to be achieved are all expected to be different in the socialist rather then the capitalist community.
So the frequent answer to these types of questions of "nobody knows" can't be an answer, since the answer can tell us whether the model proposed is feasible.
'Demand-driven physical (and/or cognitive and/or emotional) labor, done by people, to provide goods and services'
All data -- since it would derive from communist-type ('open-source') common property -- would automatically be in the public domain, as on websites. Excuse my vagueness, but it would be used as situationally appropriate -- you can imagine your own scenarios here.
Yes.
No, I'm not -- changes in priorities, for reasons of labor, reasons of material, or otherwise, would be handled by simply "spinning-off" variations of otherwise-popularly-supported proposals and policy packages.
So, for example, let's say that there's an overwhelming mass-priority demand for expanded chicken production, but not enough available liberated laborers from that locality want to do the actual work required to make that happen, for the bulk amount of labor credits offered by that locality's mass demand.
Given that information those supporting the demand could *alter* their demand by [1] dropping the demand altogether, [2] reducing their demand for chicken to something more easily doable, [3] calling for *different* liberated laborers, from further afield, to do the requisite labor at the rates of labor credits being supported, [4] calling for more people from that locality's population to 'step-up' and provide their liberated labor, at the labor credits being supported, for the good of the locality, [5] increasing the labor credits being offered to make it more amenable to available liberated labor.
Spin-off proposals covering all five of these possibilities could be put forth for the locality's public consideration, for further discussion and debate, and for more variations and iterations from there on each. Each day the locality's population would mass-prioritize *those* variations, along with everything else going on.
They would use whatever information is available, from all sources of liberated mass production (factories), from liberated laborers themselves, from available journalistic efforts, etc.
'Needed goods and services.
Do you really need to know if your of next door neighbor needs a pair of tweezers?
Except that your production is already set and planned. Not so "simple" IF to remain true to the claim of being a more efficient and less wasteful system.
But that STILL doesn't deal with what I asked.
Are you sure you want to continue?:OK
The situation you are describing is workers refusing to work for the pay being offered. That's fine. It happens in capitalism. Its usually condemned by socialists as exploitive, so the question has to be asked whether this is one of those "work or starve" situations?
The other options again can be options used.
But they are being based upon resources available ie "labor credits" which is otherwise known as money.
Basically what you are arguing is that workers will decide whether the value of the finished goods exceed its costs. This is otherwise known as "profit."
Your socialist community will be basing its production on profit considerations.
Nothing to be embarrassed about here-- its the only rational way a community can organise its production.
The socialist community will gravitate toward actions that would gain it profit, and avoid those which cause loss.
'Demand-driven physical and/or cognitive and/or emotional labor, done by people, to provide needed and desired goods and services'
Let's put it this way, for the sake of sticking to this model -- if someone needed tweezers they might prioritize it to their #1 slot on their day's list of personal demands. Chances are there might be a handful of others in the locality of tens of thousands who have also prioritized tweezers fairly high up on *their* individual personal lists, for the same day.
In the aggregate this might be enough for 'tweezers' to actually show up on the *locality's* list for that day, probably way down, though, toward the trailing end of it. As public information this list would be accessible to everyone in the locality, and someone could see 'tweezers' on it and then respond appropriately in some forum of discussion indexed to that 'tweezers' item for the day. They might respond, in a Craigslist kind of way, and say "Yeah, I just saw some extras at the locality's commons public warehouse down at so-and-so, you may want to try there." Or they may say, "I have extras at the house left over, incidentally -- I could sterilize one and leave that for you at the locality's commons drop-off facility, under mailbox #123456."
Or, if the 'tweezers' item *didn't* show up on the locality's aggregate list, the person might have to undertake further efforts and maybe *publicize* this request / demand to the locality's population, as on a public forum discussion board. They might then find out that there is actually a *dearth* of available tweezers, and may then either look farther afield, as to adjacent localities, for the same, or may go 'political' with it and step it up to a policy initiative for a renewed mass production run within the locality to produce a fresh batch of them, for the good of the locality.
No, not until a request / demand becomes a proposal, then a policy package initiative, enjoying specific political backing, general mass support, and a finalization that covers all details including labor credit budgeting and acceptance of the same by available liberated labor.
It *would* be more efficient and less wasteful *because* of these pre-planning, pre-planned steps that aim to find agreement between the locality's population's mass demand, and that of available liberated labor, with available open-source productive assets (infrastructure) and resources.
You'll have to specify what it is that you find unclear or unaddressed.
Yup.
There's a distinct difference here, though, since labor credits -- past labor hours worked -times- a multiplier of hazard and/or difficulty -- are *not* the same as today's cash.
To put it in narrative form, it's like saying "We of this locality have done 'x' amount of work in the past, and we have these 'y' amounts of labor credits among us to prove it. We are right now willing to put up 'z' amount of those amassed labor credits, from people 'A', 'B', and 'C', so that liberated laborers 'D', 'E', and 'F' will undertake the requisite efforts to produce 'Project #123' -- (maybe a simple production run) -- for the good of the locality's people 'A' through 'C', and 'G' through 'Z', who have specifically and formally requested the products of 'Project #123'. Since liberated laborers 'D', 'E', and 'F' would be doing the actual work, they would of course be able to retain whatever products of their own labor result, as a priority."
"Unfortunately liberated laborers 'D', 'E', and 'F' are refusing to work for the 'z' amount of labor credits currently being supported. We're unsure why they're refusing, but we hope to hear from them soon on this matter. In the meantime we've been discussing this development among ourselves, 'A' through 'C', and 'G' through 'Z', and we've come up with a couple of possible options, in the hopes of making 'Project #123' a reality: We now have 'Proposal #123.02', which says that people 'G' through 'Z' will be willing to put up equivalent amounts of labor credits, individually proportionate to what's currently being offered by people 'A', 'B', and 'C' in 'Proposal #123.01', either themselves, or at a debt to the locality as a whole."
"Since the locality is comprised only of 26 people, 'A' through 'Z', we would effectively need available liberated laborers 'D', 'E', and 'F' to both agree to this offered budget of (z / 3) * 23 labor credits, *and* to politically agree, as denizens of this locality, for the locality as a whole to assume the debt required for 'Project #123', if any."
"'Project #123' is *very* important -- it is a life-or-death matter, actually -- so we are going to be organized, persistent, and creative in finding ways to mobilize the necessary liberated labor to make it happen."
No, labor credits are *not* money -- they can better be thought of as past liberated-labor put in, so as to mobilize the liberated services of available liberated labor, going forward, for requested, pre-planned production for the greater good of the locality.
No, your analogies to existing capital-based valuations are *not* valid. The process is entirely different.
Available liberated labor, either on an individual and/or collective basis, would be making value judgments as to whether a locality is 'paying forward' sufficient liberated labor, in the form of labor credits, to effect their participation and labor cooperation with that locality.
This provides a wide degree of flexibility over liberated labor provisioning, from within labor's own ranks, while keeping overall planning open and customizable, from the locality as a whole, in realtime.
Nope, not true.
No, you may want to make sure that you fully understand the fundamentals presented here before discussing further.
I am not seeing why such an arduous distribution, and production process, is far better for anyone.
It sounds much simpler for a capitalist, in the pursuit of profits, to produce and sell the tweezers.
Yes. And then priorities for that individual change...
Yes.
Agreement. Cooperation. Working together.
It still needs to be described.
It seems to be serving the same purpose.
Yep. those workers are willing to put up their "labor credits" for a project.
In other words, they are placing up their capital for an investment.
Yep, A,B, and C propose to hire D, E and F...
Why would A thru C put at risk their accumulated labor credits, while D thru F (who risk nothing) garner all the reward?
A thru C promise to put at risk more of their accumulated labor credit in order to entice D thru F to work on the project. Most likely, D thru F's action are predicated upon the theory that their labor is worth more than the original proposal of A thru C. Perhaps it is. But at some point, A thru C will say it isn't. Then there has to be a "meeting of the minds" and some mutually agreement as to what that labor is worth. Otherwise A thru C may withdraw their proposal, or maybe D thru F continue to refuse to work, whereupon A thru C may look to see if L, M and N will work for less than D thru F.
The only way A thru C can make these determinations is if the labor credits received from the project is greater than its costs (the gain/loss column on that spreadsheet of yours of a few notes back.). Which is nothing more than a reckoning of profit.
What would need to be explained, however, is what was asked above: Why would A thru C bother to shoulder all the risk, while D thru F enjoy all the benefit?
But again, this would only be true if it could be demonstrated that the locality would benefit from the proposal. IOW, that the Labor credits received would exceed the debt the labor credits they may accrue-- IOW again, that the proposal turns a profit for the community. IOW again the III-- production for profit.
As the project is a matter of life and death, why would community choose exploit A thru C when the latter risks their labor credit, but not permit them to enjoy the benefits should the their risk wind up benefitting the community as a whole? Why would A thru C choose to be so shabbily treated?
And if the project is not a matter of life and death-- lets say regarding the production of tweezers? How would things be different?
And that value judgement... That the labor credits accrued are greater than the labor credits cost.
Profit.
Last edited by Baseball; 24th March 2013 at 01:04.
Well, I'm not expecting your *agreement* here, obviously, and, as a matter of automation, such mass administration over production and all things material would actually *not* be arduous at all, nor exploitative.
Just *with*, and also somewhat *because-of*, current technologies, the world is *overripe* for a smoother system of cooperation -- one that is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism and its middleman of capital-based valuations.
Well, that's *life* -- I'm not promising a system of *perfection* here, but rather one that can harmonize disparate fundamental material interests fairly well in a post-capitalist context.
I've described all of these steps rather well in the context of the model. If you need further definition you may want to consult a dictionary.
Even so -- filling a similar function -- that doesn't make it *identical* to the role of cash, regardless of what you may *want* it to be like.
No, that's more wishful thinking on your part -- here's the actual definition, again:
---
Or, more accurately, 'A', 'B', and 'C', because of the work they've done in the past, are *enabled* to select whoever they want for the purpose of doing liberated labor, at the request of people in the locality, as long as the liberated labor they've selected are agreeable to the work plan.
Spoken like a true capitalist.
Again, it would help for you to accept the framework and elements I've provided, as given. You can *pretend* that labor credits are commodity cash, but then we're just talking about two different, separate things here.
There's no 'risk' and 'reward' in the sense of 'financial profit', as you're getting-at, here -- rather the 'risk' and 'reward' would be about the sound use of resources, including one's own political efforts, for the rational benefit of the locality (and beyond).
No, to clarify, it's that 'G' through 'Z' are formally *guaranteeing* their own *economic* participation, by potentially putting-up labor credits in like amounts to those already put forth by 'A', 'B', and 'C', even if it means that the locality as a whole will incur an overall debt of labor credits.
Yes, in the sense that they feel they 'deserve' more, in the form of labor credits, for the work they're being asked to undertake. (It's not about *financial* valuations, since everyone's *material* needs and desires would by definition have to be *political demands*, and go through a *political* process to be realized.)
Yes, exactly -- this shows that the 'negotiating' aspect *would* be similar to that under capitalism.
No -- again this is an incorrect understanding, since the goal is *not* profit, since financial valuations do *not* exist.
Rather, labor credits are meant to be *spent*, *always*, to effect liberated labor for whatever projects and/or production runs. The completion of such does *not* garner *incoming* labor credits *whatsoever*. At the end of the project or production run those who have put in the labor take the labor credits that were allocated to them, and they go off (or stick around) for subsequent projects and liberated labor that *they* may want to fund with their newly acquired labor credits, or they may not.
No.
No financial 'risk' -- just a 'paying forward' of liberated labor, for the sake of ongoing cooperation.
Yes, that would be the entire point of the politics of such a post-capitalist society. Material uncertainties would continue to objectively exist.
Nope.
There's no financial risk -- 'A', 'B', and 'C' are *not* being exploited because they received their labor credits for past work done on agreeable terms, and are offering those labor credits for the sake of a new project, going forward.
There is no private ownership so there is no exploitation possible. Basic human needs are aggregated in common into political demands and are treated as such in common.
'A', 'B', and 'C' *would* be able to be part of the group from the locality making the request for whatever production, if they happened to want to partake of the output as well, or they may have just their liberated-labor-funding interest in it, only.
The process would remain exactly the same, no matter what the subject matter at hand happened to be.
No labor credits accrued by the locality as a whole -- labor credits only circulate among those individuals actually participating in the (liberated) labor process, in whatever project contexts -- no profits, no financial valuations, no private property.
Last edited by ckaihatsu; 24th March 2013 at 04:48. Reason: misspelling
Socialism is probably going to look very authoritarian from the point of view of the overthrown bourgeoisie. To try to suggest that capitalism is somehow less inherently authoritarian, though, is an exercise in futility. The state is systematized violence used to protect the property of certain classes. There is no property other than what is defined by violence. But where socialism, in its design, is meant to allow for the withering away of the state, the point at which political administration becomes obsolete, capitalism merely perpetuates the state. Private property and free enterprise cannot exist without government; "freedom isn't free," so to speak.
By dressing up U.S. imperialism in clothing that appealed to the sartorial preferences of the non-Communist left, the overt hand of U.S. imperialism was concealed behind honeyed phrases. Social democrats didn’t see imperialism; they saw humanitarian intervention, democracy promotion and the responsibility to protect vulnerable populations. Anarchists and Trotskyites didn’t see U.S. efforts to dominate other countries on Wall Street’s behalf; they saw the fight against tyrants, dictators and Stalinists.
Stephen Gowans, "U.S. imperialism: hidden in plain sight." what's left.
One would think that the "sound use" of labor credits would be demonstrated by having, at the end of production "more" of them than at the beginning.
What is the relevence of debt? What harm (if any) does it bring to the community?
What, then, is the purpose of labor credits?
Does an absence of labor credits cause the community any difficulties?
However, in capitalism, such negotiations occur because both parties agree that "money" means something.
What is the benefit to D, E or F to demand a greater amount of labor credits to do a particular job? What is the benefit to A, B, or C to offer a lower amount of labor credit to do the same job?
However, as you have agreed earlier, "life" happens-- yours is not a perfect system. Is it not risk to use labor credits to produce "A" when perhaps the community changes its desires and wishes product "B"?
It is not clear why A, B, and C would not be "exploiting" D, E, and F while demanding that they work for less credits than D, E, and F themselves wish.
Sure -- from an individualistic point of view one certainly *could* make this their aim. One could work and accumulate labor credits to no end, and decide *not* to pass them along for their intended purpose of funding further liberated labor, for projects.
This would effectively be the forfeiting of liberated-labor-brokering political power, since others passed along their labor credits to enable *your* work, but you're not making use of the political power in the labor credits *you* earned -- you're taking them out of circulation and indirectly encouraging a like amount of the labor you've just done, to be done *again*, so as to get that number of labor credits back into circulation.
One can see here that, from the *locality's* point of view, it's not the most beneficial mode of operation -- for the sake of simplicity, let's say it's "Day 1" and you were the first person to perform liberated labor. It would necessarily be at the cost of a debt to the locality -- you complete the work, as pre-planned, and receive your labor credits. You sit on them, leaving the locality with material work done, benefitting everyone in the locality (presumably), but with a debt and no labor credits in circulation to effect new liberated labor. The locality would have to *increase* its debt to get more work going, to pay others (or you), so that it would have some labor credits among its people, presumably in circulation.
If this happened routinely -- that you simply work for the sake of stockpiling 'souvenir' labor credits -- it would be noted by those liberated laborers who were pro-actively involved in labor provisioning and *did* pass along their labor credits, thereby taking part in the liberated-labor-brokering *political* aspect -- you would be considered to be outside the circles of 'regular liberated labor business', so to speak. While other liberated laborers might be neutral, at best, on this behavior, it would definitely not be seen favorably by the locality as a whole since the *collective* interest is to keep labor credits circulating and to not have to accrue debt for the sake of someone's personal stockpiling.
Certainly. Since a post-capitalist 'economics' would *not* be respected as an entity of its own, as it is now, under capitalism, all economic measurements -- as with a locality's outstanding debt of labor credits -- would be seen *relatively*, as compared with others' empirical economic states of being.
So if the people of a locality agreed to incur a debt of labor credits in the locality's name (through the regular process of political prioritizing), it would be part of the public record, immutably. I can't provide a value judgment on this "empirical fact", since such a debt would be *relative* to the material-economic conditions of other localities, and to more-generalized forms of communist-type social organization, or 'higher levels'.
If, after the revolution, not much rebuilding of infrastructure was required, and the implements of mass production were mostly intact, such a system of labor credits and use of debt would merely be a formality and things could proceed on an even keel. If a locality wanted to erase their debt they would either [1] have to have enough of their own liberated laborers *donate* that amount of labor credits, for the sake of the whole locality, [2] the locality would have to bring in that amount of labor credits from *outside* their environs, as with the participation of greater numbers of liberated-laborer-funders for particularly enticing mass projects, or [3] the locality would have to send enough of its own people outside, to other localities, to earn that amount of labor credits, to bring back to the locality.
Here's from one of the links provided in the model:
(See above.)
Yes, it is generally thought-of as the means of exchange for goods and services, in the real economy, while it can also be 'fictitious capital' in the financial realm.
The function of post-capitalist labor credits would have a different, non-commodity function, as described above.
Besides the obvious social acknowledgment that goes with that formal action, the 'D', 'E', and 'F' liberated laborers may be more pro-active participants in the ongoing active circles of liberated labor organizing, and they may want to add to their abilities to do more of the same, going forward. If they can get better rates of labor credits -- presumably at a variation of the formally stated labor role, though such would be under regulation -- then they can garner increased liberated-labor-brokering political power, proportionally, for the work they would do.
Since 'A', 'B', and 'C' are not *active* liberated laborers in this scenario, and are willing *funders* of new efforts on behalf of the locality, they have an interest in effecting *as much* liberated labor going forward while retaining *as much* of their remaining labor credits as possible, and/or preventing the locality from going into debt and/or preventing the locality from going into *too much* debt. It should be apparent that 'A', 'B', and 'C' are political *backers*, and would probably be the formal proponents of 'Project #123'.
Yes, the *material* aspects of (social) life will be unending, like the dynamics of physics -- note that the 'political balance sheet' from post #56 has a portion for the *qualitative* data of 'conclusion / fulfillment (observed / actual reward, or none)', as well as the *quantitative* data of 'gain / loss in labor credits'.
Technically speaking, 'A', 'B', and 'C' would not be 'demanding' *anything* from 'D', 'E', and 'F' -- liberated laborers have sovereignty over their own labor, as the term 'liberated laborer' denotes.
Also, proposals and policy packages would specify particular *labor roles*, but it would be up to those holding actual labor credits to effect the participation of *specific* liberated laborers, based on whatever various factors like availability, geography, rates, etc.
Recall this:
