Opting out of communism?

[Baseball]

Socialism is not about remunerating people according to their work in any sense whatsoever. IN fact , socialism completely cuts the link between production and consumption in the sense that what you consume is not dependent on your productive input. You have to try to resist the temptation to extrapolate from existing capitalist society and impose the kind of assumptions that are operable in this society on a future socialist society.


Remember also that most of the work that we do today in capitalism - at least in the formal official economy - will no longer be required in a socialist society . This applies to all those job catergories directly tied up with the money system - from cashiers to insurance brokers - as well as the coercive state. That in itself will release vast amounts of human resources and materials for socially useful production and with many more people to share the workload the per capita workload will be significantly reduced. This is to say nothing of the completely transformed conditions under which people will work.

So yes a socialisrt society will reduce the amount of work we need to do but
thius I suggest, is not where the primary emphasis should lie. Rather socialism will be about the transformation of what we call "work" today.


A socialist society will of course be able to identity where and when more is required via its self regulating system of stock control. If there are shortages of particular goods in relation to the flow of demand, the production units would quite easily be able to flag up or signal the need for more labour inputs. I imagine something akin to today's job centres would exist in the socialist communities where volunteers can go to. Or alternatively there might community websites on which production units could register their requirements. The possibilities are endless...

The point is to try engage with the concept of a socialist society imaginatively and with empathy. How do you think a population that had just consciously and democratically brought about a socialist society, would set about operating it? Some of the links I provided earlier go some way to answeriing that question....

The issue isn't so much imagining how a socialist community would organize itself, but rather does its organization seems effective. It has nothing to do with thinking in a "capitalist" way.

So, look at the "stock control" idea-
1. Shortages of a good must mean that not everybody received what they needed at the point of production. A good.was rationed in some fashion. People have been told to wait. Hence, the idea that people would barter amongst themselves for needed goods.
2. A provider of a product(say smartphones) is also a receiver of goods (say glass). Being short a 100 phones mean the cellphone workers need more glass from the glass workers. However, the.glassworkers also provide glass to the windowmakers. Suddenly, the problem hits of where should that glass go- the phone guys or the window guys? Or should the glassworkers just work harder and provide both? But glass production has its own requirements and thus the same problem amongst its suppliers.
Simply issuing orders, which is at the heart of "stock control" does not seem effective at all.
3. A surplus of goods is unlikely and would help further the existence of a capitalist resurgence within the communist community.

[Blake's Baby]

Rationing (I'm in favour of rationing by need when necessary, which can be contrasted with capitalism which is rationing by price, or some forms of syndicalism which advocate rationing by work) is only applicable when we're tyding up after capitalism. If the working class successfully overthrows property relations and takes the world economy under its control, but because of the wreckage caused by the capitalists so much of the economy is damaged that it's not possible to immediately move to universal free access, then yes, rationing by need is better than rationing by work or rationing by price (I think it's better that we give wheelchairs to people who need them rather than the people who built them that don't need them, or the people that can swap small pieces of green paper for them but don't need them either).

[Baseball]

Rationing (I'm in favour of rationing by need when necessary, which can be contrasted with capitalism which is rationing by price, or some forms of syndicalism which advocate rationing by work) is only applicable when we're tyding up after capitalism. If the working class successfully overthrows property relations and takes the world economy under its control, but because of the wreckage caused by the capitalists so much of the economy is damaged that it's not possible to immediately move to universal free access, then yes, rationing by need is better than rationing by work or rationing by price (I think it's better that we give wheelchairs to people who need them rather than the people who built them that don't need them, or the people that can swap small pieces of green paper for them but don't need them either).

The only way "universal free access" can work is if nothing ever changed. Goods and services are produced and consumed in the exact same manner and in the exact same quanity day after day, year after year. Such a society has never existed , and there is no reason to suppose a socialist system would be the first.

[Baseball]

Rationing based upon need would be the obvious socialist response. However, that would require systems, and people monitoring those systems, to measure and evaluate need.
In other words, the cashiers and insurance brokers in the old capitalist system will not be marching into the factories to help increase output in the nrw socialist world.

[Blake's Baby]

The only way "universal free access" can work is if nothing ever changed. Goods and services are produced and consumed in the exact same manner and in the exact same quanity day after day, year after year...

That's a bold assertion that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

... Such a society has never existed , and there is no reason to suppose a socialist system would be the first.

Because nothing that didn't exist previously has ever been created, ever. You're the one arguing that 'nothing ever changes' is a silly concept. And your argument against 'nothing ever changes' is... 'nothing ever changes'?

Rationing based upon need would be the obvious socialist response. However, that would require systems, and people monitoring those systems, to measure and evaluate need.
In other words, the cashiers and insurance brokers in the old capitalist system will not be marching into the factories to help increase output in the nrw socialist world.

Wow, so we'll need literally hundreds of millions of people constantly checking up 'needs' will we? I never thought we would, I just assumed we could put in a request on a computer or ask someone at the depot.

[Spruce]

What if there were something like a universal EBT card that could be used for spending on all different kinds of necessities. It wouldn't really be rationing, as the card owner chooses what they want to spend on, with a guaranteed minimum of funds for things like food, housing, transportation, childcare etc. based on their availability and what has been democratically decided as the minimum acceptable standard of living. Spending on additional luxuries would come out of earned income until the luxuries become abundant and can be included on the guaranteed benefit card. There's an upward creep from the unearned provision of needs being basic things for survival, to eventually include almost everything a person would want in a day, with the exception of services by other people, which will probably always be scarce.

[robbo203]

The issue isn't so much imagining how a socialist community would organize itself, but rather does its organization seems effective. It has nothing to do with thinking in a "capitalist" way.

So, look at the "stock control" idea-
1. Shortages of a good must mean that not everybody received what they needed at the point of production. A good.was rationed in some fashion. People have been told to wait. Hence, the idea that people would barter amongst themselves for needed goods. .

But barter what for what - and why? You dont say I am talking about a situation in which some goods may be scarce in relation to demand (or the take up rate) and that such scarce goods are likely to be of the non essential kind becuase of the way in which the allocation of resources is likely to be skewed in favour of essential goods. It is essential goods to which people will have free access and to an increasing extent also non-essential goods. Rationing is simply a temporary expedient on the way to full blown communism


So first off I would question the status you ascribe to such goods as being "needed" goods. If on the other hand such goods were really needed then why barter them for something else? Either way it doesnt make much sense. You certainly could NOT barter them for things which were generally available on a free access basis so it would have to be one rationed good bartered for another. So already the theoretical possibility of bartering is much diminished in scope. It is of course possible that someone in receipt of a rationed good might allow someone else to take it but I think much more likely than barter this would be done in the spirit of a gift economy

2. A provider of a product(say smartphones) is also a receiver of goods (say glass). Being short a 100 phones mean the cellphone workers need more glass from the glass workers. However, the.glassworkers also provide glass to the windowmakers. Suddenly, the problem hits of where should that glass go- the phone guys or the window guys? Or should the glassworkers just work harder and provide both? But glass production has its own requirements and thus the same problem amongst its suppliers.
Simply issuing orders, which is at the heart of "stock control" does not seem effective at all.

You see what you are doing here is failing to approach this matter with what I call a sense of historical imagination. You are projecting onto socialism the patterns of production and consumption that apply under capitalism. And capitalism's division of labour You talk about cellphone workers and glass workers almost as if they were engaged in running a sort of business operation in a socialist society and that you cannot be both a cell phone worker and a glass worker yourself in a system based entirely on volunteer labour. I have never suggested that a system of self regulating stock control would be effective on its own . There are other institutional aspects of a socialist economy that have to be factored in as well but a stock control system would certainly play a central role

3. A surplus of goods is unlikely and would help further the existence of a capitalist resurgence within the communist community.

No , a capitalist resurgence is simply not possible for the reason explained. In order for that to happen individuals would have to be alienated or dispossed of the commonly owned means of prodction by a minority. From whence would the minority obtain the necessary leverage to do that in a society based on voluntary labour and free access? You fail to explain. Even if your scenario of limited barter had any credence I have to remind you that barter is not the same thing as capitalist exchange which presupposes a unversal medium of exchange - money

[RedBen]

What if there were something like a universal EBT card that could be used for spending on all different kinds of necessities. It wouldn't really be rationing, as the card owner chooses what they want to spend on, with a guaranteed minimum of funds for things like food, housing, transportation, childcare etc. based on their availability and what has been democratically decided as the minimum acceptable standard of living. Spending on additional luxuries would come out of earned income until the luxuries become abundant and can be included on the guaranteed benefit card. There's an upward creep from the unearned provision of needs being basic things for survival, to eventually include almost everything a person would want in a day, with the exception of services by other people, which will probably always be scarce.

monetary systems are inherently corrupt. who would monitor and control these ebt cards? that would be far from communism. how would you determine how much is enough? who would decide who gets how much?

[Baseball]

That's a bold assertion that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.



Because nothing that didn't exist previously has ever been created, ever. You're the one arguing that 'nothing ever changes' is a silly concept. And your argument against 'nothing ever changes' is... 'nothing ever changes.

I guess it would be easier for you to show the societies which never changed.

[Baseball]

Wow, so we'll need literally hundreds of millions of people constantly checking up 'needs' will we? I never thought we would, I just assumed we could put in a request on a computer or ask someone at the depot.

The claim is that goods are distributed according to need.
Simply requesting a good from the depot doesnt verify that that is actually needed by that person ahead of somebody else.

[Baseball]

But barter what for what - and why? You dont say I am talking about a situation in which some goods may be scarce in relation to demand (or the take up rate) and that such scarce goods are likely to be of the non essential kind becuase of the way in which the allocation of resources is likely to be skewed in favour of essential goods. It is essential goods to which people will have free access and to an increasing extent also non-essential goods. Rationing is simply a temporary expedient on the way to full blown communism


So first off I would question the status you ascribe to such goods as being "needed" goods. If on the other hand such goods were really needed then why barter them for something else? Either way it doesnt make much sense. You certainly could NOT barter them for things which were generally available on a free access basis so it would have to be one rationed good bartered for another. So already the theoretical possibility of bartering is much diminished in scope. It is of course possible that someone in receipt of a rationed good might allow someone else to take it but I think much more likely than barter this would be done in the spirit of a

All goods are essential for people who want those goods.
That's the point.

You are trying to judge how others should value goods.

[Baseball]

You see what you are doing here is failing to approach this matter with what I call a sense of historical imagination. You are projecting onto socialism the patterns of production and consumption that apply under capitalism. And capitalism's division of labour You talk about cellphone workers and glass workers almost as if they were engaged in running a sort of business operation in a socialist society and that you cannot be both a cell phone worker and a glass worker yourself in a system based entirely on volunteer labour. I have never suggested that a system of self regulating stock control would be effective on its own . There are other institutional aspects of a socialist economy that have to be factored in as well but a stock control system would certainly play a central role
[/QUOTE]

Well, the worker who sometimes makes glass and sometimes makes cellphones cannot do both at the same time. I am not seeing how this would not be true in the socialist community. As such, i am not seeing how the existence of lesser skilled changes the dynamic of the problem.

[robbo203]

All goods are essential for people who want those goods.
That's the point.

You are trying to judge how others should value goods.

Im not. Im simply saying that people value things differently and will regard some things as essential and other not. It is self evident nonsense that all goods are essential to those who want it. There is a clear distinction between a need and a want. Needs grow in intensity in proportion to the time they remain unfulfilled; with wants the opposite is true. Put yourself in a desert without water and you will soon discover the truth of this. What you claim is essential will turn out to be nothing of the sort. You will happily part with your Rolex watch for a flask of water

But I see youve shifted your ground from "needed goods" to goods that people "want", Presumably you have no answer to the point that if a rationed good was something that you need why would you want to barter it away?

[robbo203]

Well, the worker who sometimes makes glass and sometimes makes cellphones cannot do both at the same time. I am not seeing how this would not be true in the socialist community. As such, i am not seeing how the existence of lesser skilled changes the dynamic of the problem.

of course they cant do both things literally at the same time but thats not the point, is it? The point is as I said - that you are projecting the patterns of production and consumption of a capitalist society onto a future society. I would have thought that was highly pertinent to a discussion of the dynamic of the problem. You need to reassess and reevaluate your own assumptions about how a socialist society would function

[Blake's Baby]

I guess it would be easier for you to show the societies which never changed.

I think societies do change, which is why I think it's possible that new things can happen, which is why I think that capitalism will be brought to a halt.

The claim is that goods are distributed according to need.
Simply requesting a good from the depot doesnt verify that that is actually needed by that person ahead of somebody else.

Oh, now you're positing a shortage of them, are you?

[Baseball]

of course they cant do both things literally at the same time but thats not the point, is it? The point is as I said - that you are projecting the patterns of production and consumption of a capitalist society onto a future society. I would have thought that was highly pertinent to a discussion of the dynamic of the problem. You need to reassess and reevaluate your own assumptions about how a socialist society would function

Actually, that was kind of the point. Your claim that problems of glass workers in producing glass to satisfy an increase in demand for cellphones was non- existent in "stock control" because those glass eorkers are sometimes cellphone workers.

[Baseball]

Im not. Im simply saying that people value things differently and will regard some things as essential and other not. It is self evident nonsense that all goods are essential to those who want it. There is a clear distinction between a need and a want. Needs grow in intensity in proportion to the time they remain unfulfilled; with wants the opposite is true. Put yourself in a desert without water and you will soon discover the truth of this. What you claim is essential will turn out to be nothing of the sort. You will happily part with your Rolex watch for a flask of water

But I see youve shifted your ground from "needed goods" to goods that people "want", Presumably you have no answer to the point that if a rationed good was something that you need why would you want to barter it away?

Yes- people value things differently. Not only that, they value things differently at different times.
So why stress over distinctions between needs and wants? Of what relevence is such a distinction to production and distribution in a socialist community?

[Baseball]

Oh, now you're positing a shortage of them, are you?

I am asking- if distribution in the socialist community is no more complicated than issuing a request for an item and picking it up at the depot, how does the socialist community insure that the good distributed was in fact distributed according to "need."

[robbo203]

Actually, that was kind of the point. Your claim that problems of glass workers in producing glass to satisfy an increase in demand for cellphones was non- existent in "stock control" because those glass eorkers are sometimes cellphone workers.

Yes and in response to which you said they cant be both at the same time which is a banal point and not what I claimed. But in any case this is not peimarily what I was getting at. What I was getting at was that a self regulating system of stock control provides a mechanism by which one might be able to identify and deal with any scarcities that might arise in communism and a means by which spocieties would be able to impose it sense of production priorities via the pattern of resource allocation

[robbo203]

Yes- people value things differently. Not only that, they value things differently at different times.
So why stress over distinctions between needs and wants? Of what relevence is such a distinction to production and distribution in a socialist community?

Because such a distinction exists. Needs and wants are not the same thing