Opting out of communism?

[Blake's Baby]

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."

How does it ensure that?

'Issuing a request' implies that someone has been 'requested' - in this case, the commune. The commune would know if one of its members eg needed a wheelchair, and if the request was justified. It would OK the request. If someone requested a wheelchair and they didn't need it, the commune would also know, and (if there was a situation of scarcity) would refuse the request. If there was no shortage of wheelchairs however, there's no reason no to grant the request.

[Baseball]

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

Yes- i said stock control would be an ineffective mechanism, and offered an explanation as to why.

[Baseball]

How does it ensure that?

'Issuing a request' implies that someone has been 'requested' - in this case, the commune. The commune would know if one of its members eg needed a wheelchair, and if the request was justified. It would OK the request. If someone requested a wheelchair and they didn't need it, the commune would also know, and (if there was a situation of scarcity) would refuse the request. If there was no shortage of wheelchairs however, there's no reason no to grant the request.

Ok- so goods requested flow though the commune. If they approve of the request, it goes to the appropriate factories and so on.
Got it.

So in a political sense, all personal property is known and its usage tracked by the commune.

[Baseball]

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

Ok- I say "Every year I NEED free and at point of production a new car."
Of what relevence- in the socialist system- would it be to reply "No, you dont NEED a new car, you WANT a new car"?

[robbo203]

Yes- i said stock control would be an ineffective mechanism, and offered an explanation as to why.

You haven't explained anything at all. What you have done is to presume that all I have offered is the idea of self regulating system of stock control as a means of organising a system of communist production. Thats not the case. Stock control is only part of a larger package that will will effectively deal with the hypothetical problems you cite

[Fat Red Pecker]

Because if you don't need one, then you shouldn't want one, right? Isn't that logical?And if you keep saying you do, well, we'll have to assume you are either insane or mentally challenged and need treatment or special education. Health care and education will be free, so don't worry about that. I mean I'm not saying you are insane or un-intelligent, you just sound like you haven't been radicalized. That's what this place can help you to become.

[robbo203]

Ok- I say "Every year I NEED free and at point of production a new car."
Of what relevence- in the socialist system- would it be to reply "No, you dont NEED a new car, you WANT a new car"?

Well if you were the kind of sad individual who seriously wanted a new car every year then by all means continue wanting such a thing . It doesnt necessarily follow that a new car will be available for you to satisfy your irrational want - certainly not if signficant numbers of people thought like you. But that does not invalidate the distinction between needs and wants. Inevitably -and quite rightly - the allocation of resources is going to be skewed in favour of the production of things that people by and large regard as essential to their wellbeing and not inessential - not to say, frivolous, - wants such as a new car every year!

[Fat Red Pecker]

So in a political sense, all personal property is known and its usage tracked by the commune.

So what? Corporations track all your purchases right now electronically. Even if you pay cash they make the cashiers ask for your name or at least your zip code. So who do you trust more, the bankers and industrialists who control the means of production, or your own comrades in the commune?

[liberlict]

In any kind of commune where allocation of goods was decided democratically at a community meeting, the luxury goods would just go to the people who work the hardest or contribute the most. So you wouldn't have achieved any kind of real equality, you'd just have paralyzed distribution by subjecting it to a democratic process. Democracy is hugely inefficient, despite it's many virtues.

[Fat Red Pecker]

In any kind of commune where allocation of goods was decided democratically at a community meeting, the luxury goods would just go to the people who work the hardest or contribute the most.

Well, yeah, theoretically, but to be honest I don't know how revolution is going to eliminate cronyism and corruption, such as:

"I appreciate your voting to assign me (and not Baseball) an apartment that faces away from the landfill (or the western sun or the slaughterhouse), Comrade Liberlict. If I can ever do anything for you ..."

[robbo203]

In any kind of commune where allocation of goods was decided democratically at a community meeting, the luxury goods would just go to the people who work the hardest or contribute the most. So you wouldn't have achieved any kind of real equality, you'd just have paralyzed distribution by subjecting it to a democratic process. Democracy is hugely inefficient, despite it's many virtues.

I think personally this idea of democratically deciding on the allocation of goods to individuals in a communist society is misleading. Its not the goods themselves that are democratically allocated. Your local community does not decide how many shirts or toothbrushes you should be entitled to. That would be ridiculously burueaucratic. It is only you who decide how many shirts or toothbrushes you need on an "as and when basis"

Where the local community can play a legitmate role is in deciding the structure of production priorities. In short , which end uses broadly speaking should be given priority in the allocation of resources required to produce them. Essential goods would obviously get first priority and this in itself would ensure they would get produced in abundance. Non essential goods may or may not be produced in sufficient quantities to meet the demand for them depending on the available resources left over after the resource requirements of essential goods has been met. If such non essential goods are not sufficient to meet the demand for them then, yes, then the community can step in with some some kind of community approved system of rationing such goods . But you cannot just arbirtrarily declare in advance that non essential goods shall be subject to rationing when it is possible that they might not need to be - that is, if enough has been produced to meet demand. You have to be open and flexible to the changing pattern of supply and demand in a communist society and this is precisely what a self regulating system of stock control allows you to do


Nor do I accept that scarce luxury goods must necessarily be allocated to those who work hardest or contribute most. Who says so? This presupposes the capitalist idea of work as a disutilty for which compensation us due. It buys into the contemporary idea that work is something to be avoided when it is really the nature of work under capitalism that people dislike

I would argue that a far more useful method of rationing those goods that may be scarce - such as luxury goods - would beon the basis of quality of housing stock - the compensation model of ratioining. It is called the compensation model precisely because a communist society will, to begin with, inherit from capitalism considerable inequalities in the quality of housing stock. We cant all immediately live in the best quality houses and some of us might still have to put up with fairly poor quality housing in the short term before a communist society upgrades housing stock all round. So some kind of compensation for want of a better word would be appropriate in these circumstances

This not only accords with a sense of natural justice and reduces social tensions but is in fact eminently practicable and much simpler to operate that any labour voucher scheme that has to differentiate between people according to their labour contributions. The evaluation of housing stock in terms of their basic faciliates and the grading of said stock into bands for the purposes of local taxation is something that has been done in several parts of the world. Except of course in a communist society there wont be any taxation to pay!

[Fat Red Pecker]

We cant all immediately live in the best quality houses and some of us might still have to put up with fairly poor quality housing in the short term before a communist society upgrades housing stock all round.

That's a great idea actually, and that issue has been bothering me for a while. The other thing to deal with though is location, location, location. I guess we could have a lottery or drawing or something to see who gets to live in San Francisco overlooking the bay and who has to live in Hooterville overlooking 2000 acres of soybeans and goatweed. Probably some people will prefer Hooterville.

[robbo203]

That's a great idea actually, and that issue has been bothering me for a while. The other thing to deal with though is location, location, location. I guess we could have a lottery or drawing or something to see who gets to live in San Francisco overlooking the bay and who has to live in Hooterville overlooking 2000 acres of soybeans and goatweed. Probably some people will prefer Hooterville.

Yes , this is why I have been long been arguing for the compensation model of rationing to replace the idea of labour vouchers in what Marx called the lower stage of communism where there was still not yet an abundance of all kinds of goods to make universal free access possible

The problem with labour vouchers are mutiple: How do your measure labour contributions (is 1 hour of work bya doctor equivalent to 1 hour of a janitors work and if not by how much do they differ?). How do you "price" goods in terms of labour hours which you would need to do with a labour voucher scheme. How do you take into account changing patterns of supply and demand? How do you prevent corruption? Etc etc. This is all aside from the enormous bureaucratic apparatus that would be required to implement a labour voucher scheme - from the supervision and monitoring of labour to make sure you have worked the hours you claimed you had to the calculation of the prices of goods in labour time units


Much much simpler and more straitforward is the compensation model of rationing which focuses only on quality of housing stock as the criterion of rationing . This does not mean all goods would be rationed in the early stages of communiusm - only those that would be scarce and these would tend to be of a non essential nature becuase of a built=in bias in the allocation process which would prioritise the flow of resoruces towards the production of essential goods and so ensure their abundance

For non-abundant goods (which would be tend to be non essential goods) these could be rationed according to the compnsation model. Quality of housing is extremely useful as a criterion if only becuase the homes in which we live constitute such an important component of our whole quality of life and, as mentioned before, we cannot all immediately live in the best homes after the revolution. Logistically that would be impossible so we have to acccommodate ourselves to this stark and unpalatable fact somebow.

Accomodating ourselves to this fact requires acknowleging it and compensation those in some way who perforce will be compelled to continue living in relatively poor quality accommodation. The compensation model thus has one huge advantage over the labour voucher scheme in that it recognisies the legacy of inequalities inherited from capitalism and is able to do something about it. It accords with a sense of natural justice in other words and is therefore able to diffuse potentially disruptive social tensions that might otherwise break out and undermine the sense of communal solidarity

The second big advantage is its sheer practicality. It is quite possible to adopt a fairly standardised approach to the evaluation of housing units to enable you to place them in one of several bands, As I said this is something that has been done under capitalism for the purpose of local tax assessment in some parts of the world so it is not as if it has not been attempted. Of course in capitalism it is monetary value of housing stock that is the determinant but underlying that is the physical condition and characteristic of the property in question - how many bathrooms does it have , how much land , what size the bedrooms, is it subject to structural defects, proxmity to faciilities like schools etc etc etc. A simple standardised assessment form can incorporate both qualitative and quantitative forms of evaluation.

Of course it is a "rough and ready" approach but it is above all a workable approach and it provides a workable basis upon which to then construct a system of rationing - perhaps employing some kind of points system based on the banding of housing stock.

I would only add that in any event local communities would still have to assess the quality of their housing stock and this , it seems to me, is a very good way of killing two birds with one stone - doing that and addressing the need for some kind of compensation and an explict acknowlegement of inherited inequalities for the sake of social harmony and communal solidarity

[Baseball]

Well if you were the kind of sad individual who seriously wanted a new car every year then by all means continue wanting such a thing . It doesnt necessarily follow that a new car will be available for you to satisfy your irrational want - certainly not if signficant numbers of people thought like you. But that does not invalidate the distinction between needs and wants. Inevitably -and quite rightly - the allocation of resources is going to be skewed in favour of the production of things that people by and large regard as essential to their wellbeing and not inessential - not to say, frivolous, - wants such as a new car every year!

Well, if significant numbers of people thought that a new car should be available to people on a yearly basis, then in the socialist system, the issue would be in play.

It seems that the distinction between "needs" and "wants" for the socialist system is whatever receives the votes.

BTW, why, in a socialist system, is it "irrational" to say one "needs" or "wants" a new car on a yearly basis? What makes it "irrational"?

[Ultra-Imperialist]

I do not trust any of the people here enough to let the state disappear. I bet, without a police presence, many people ideologically opposed to me would attempt to utilize violence.

Mafia groups do, hard core straight edgers do, skinheads do. Unless you one-hundred percent doubt there is any genetic basis to violent behavior at all, or that violent extremists will organize we will always need military and police forces.

And unless you are engaged in some extreme form of re-defining your way to victory, in which you use the word "State" not in the way of most people, politicians, or even academics but only according to how a certain narrow group of Marxist or Leftist theoreticians do (and cannot even agree on amongst themselves) then you have to admit that we will always need some kind of State.

Rule of Law and a basic level of peace and security requires the presence of some kind of state.

[Baseball]

So what? Corporations track all your purchases right now electronically. Even if you pay cash they make the cashiers ask for your name or at least your zip code. So who do you trust more, the bankers and industrialists who control the means of production, or your own comrades in the commune?

Even if your characterization of the "bankers and industrialists" controlling the means of production was correct, its should be obvious that they would be preferable to the "comrades." The "comrades" would hold the power of veto over the acquisition of goods. Its none of the "comrades" business what goods I desire.

[Baseball]

You haven't explained anything at all. What you have done is to presume that all I have offered is the idea of self regulating system of stock control as a means of organising a system of communist production. Thats not the case. Stock control is only part of a larger package that will will effectively deal with the hypothetical problems you cite

I can only respond to what you write...

[Baseball]

I think personally this idea of democratically deciding on the allocation of goods to individuals in a communist society is misleading. Its not the goods themselves that are democratically allocated. Your local community does not decide how many shirts or toothbrushes you should be entitled to. That would be ridiculously burueaucratic. It is only you who decide how many shirts or toothbrushes you need on an "as and when basis"

Ok-- so you would reject Blake's Baby conception of socialism-- that requests for shirts and toothbrushes would need approval from the commune.

Where the local community can play a legitmate role is in deciding the structure of production priorities.

Now, there is a contrast. If people are acquiring shirts and toothbrush, that is demonstrating "production priorities."
It is also true if they are acquiring cars.

Essential goods would obviously get first priority and this in itself would ensure they would get produced in abundance. Non essential goods may or may not be produced in sufficient quantities to meet the demand for them depending on the available resources left over after the resource

This goes back to he question of the relevence of the terms "need" and "want" in a socialist system.
Essential goods ought be what people acquire. It seems that the socialist system will dictate what are, or ought to be essential goods, and work from there.

If such non essential goods are not sufficient to meet the demand for them then, yes, then the community can step in with some some kind of community approved system of rationing such goods .

Further explanations would be required to demonstrate the soundness of this.

But you cannot just arbirtrarily declare in advance that non essential goods shall be subject to rationing when it is possible that they might not need to be - that is, if enough has been produced to meet demand. You have to be open and flexible to the changing pattern of supply and demand in a communist society and this is precisely what a self regulating system of stock control allows you to do

Would not such determinations require bureacracies?

I would argue that a far more useful method of rationing those goods that may be scarce - such as luxury goods - would beon the basis of quality of housing stock - the compensation model of ratioining

.

I am not understanding why housing alone would be subject to that model.

In any event, hard or beneficial work could be rewarded by opportunities for better housing-- Is this your claim?

[robbo203]

Ok-- so you would reject Blake's Baby conception of socialism-- that requests for shirts and toothbrushes would need approval from the commune.

Im not aware that is what BB is saying. I would have thought community approval would apply to such things as large scale projects. physical infrastructure etc - not consumer good items for individual use

Now, there is a contrast. If people are acquiring shirts and toothbrush, that is demonstrating "production priorities."
It is also true if they are acquiring cars.

No, You haven't understood what is being proposed. "Production prirorities" apply at the point of resource allocation - in the event of resource bottlenecks. It is a sorting procedure determing how a given resource in short supply is distributed between different competing end uses

This goes back to he question of the relevence of the terms "need" and "want" in a socialist system.
Essential goods ought be what people acquire. It seems that the socialist system will dictate what are, or ought to be essential goods, and work from there.

Yes, exactly, and you and me are part of the community determining what is essential and what is not. This is what is meant by production priorities and it is entirely appropriate and sensible to formulate such priorities. It would be pretty dumb not to have some idea of what is important otherwise whats to stop you producing a whole lot of stuff which nobody really needs? These production priorities then impact on the allocation of resources in the manner described above. That does not mean non essential goods dont get to be produced. It just means they get to be in the back of the gueue when resources are allocated. This, in turn, could spur technological innovation - technological substitition - making use of more abundant alternative factors of production to ensure increased supplies

Would not such determinations require bureacracies?

Any kind of system is going to require administration of some sort. Some of the basic components of a socialist/coomunist economy already exist in the shape of calculation in kind and a self regulating system of stock control. Modern supermarkets today of necessity have to practice these things - to physically monitor their stock flows and calculate in physical terms how much they require to replenish stock. However alongside calculation in kind, modern supermarkets also operate a system of financial accounting. In socialism we entirely dispense with the later and retain only calculation in kind. In that sense socialist administration will be vastly simplified and made more streamlined by comparsion with today. It should also be point out that technological development means that to a great extent this can be automated and computerised. At the mere touch of a button we are able to see on a computer screen a complete picture of the disposition of any given stock

In any event, hard or beneficial work could be rewarded by opportunities for better housing-- Is this your claim?

No, not at all. I keep telling you that I do not consider the remuneration or material rewarding of effort to be a practicable proposition in socialism . Thats why I reject the labour voucher scheme Marx proposed for the lower stage of communism. Instead of labour contributions I am saying quality of housing stock should be the basic critierion built into a system of ratiuoning which apply only to goods that are in scarce supply = i.e. non essential goods. Thats does not mean as you have interpreted that you are "rewarded" with bettter quality housing....

Ive explained why I consider housing to be such a useful criterion for a rationing system - becuase it constitutes such a major component of our quality of life and can be treated as a surrogate for everything else. Like it or not, socialism will inherit from capitalism vast differences in the quality of housing stock - even if these differences will undoubtedly diminish over time. That means that in the early stages of socialism some people will still be living in relatively poor quality housing. You cant just wave a magic wand and the quality of housing will improve. That is why the compensation model of rationing would seem most appropriate. It is relatively simple and straightforward to administer and - whats more - there are prototypes of such a system that have already been put into effect. I suggest you read again my explanation as you seem to got hold of the wrong end of the stick entirely

[Baseball]

No, You haven't understood what is being proposed. "Production prirorities" apply at the point of resource allocation - in the event of resource bottlenecks. It is a sorting procedure determing how a given resource in short supply is distributed between different competing end uses

Those "bottlenecks" are always going to exist. Changes in demand for a particular item will have to be responded to accordingly, with trying to figure the impact has upon the production of other goods.

Yes, exactly, and you and me are part of the community determining what is essential and what is not. This is what is meant by production priorities and it is entirely appropriate and sensible to formulate such priorities. It would be pretty dumb not to have some idea of what is important otherwise whats to stop you producing a whole lot of stuff which nobody really needs? These production priorities then impact on the allocation of resources in the manner described above. That does not mean non essential goods dont get to be produced. It just means they get to be in the back of the gueue when resources are allocated.

Well, yes, production for priority goods should take precedence over non-priority goods.
However, you are proposing to dictate where particular goods go into that mix.

Any kind of system is going to require administration of some sort. Some of the basic components of a socialist/coomunist economy already exist in the shape of calculation in kind and a self regulating system of stock control. Modern supermarkets today of necessity have to practice these things - to physically monitor their stock flows and calculate in physical terms how much they require to replenish stock.

Yes, but the supermarket is not the beginning and end of production.
Yet again: The supermarket saying that more tomatoes are needed, requires the farmers to grow more tomatoes. Yet the farmers land is not limitless and have to make choices as to whether to cut back production of other products, which may not be reflected as a result of demand. What sort of information guides such a decision?

At the mere touch of a button we are able to see on a computer screen a complete picture of the disposition of any given stock

But so what? That is not end all of the problem.

Ive explained why I consider housing to be such a useful criterion for a rationing system - becuase it constitutes such a major component of our quality of life and can be treated as a surrogate for everything else. Like it or not, socialism will inherit from capitalism vast differences in the quality of housing stock

I understand the claim for housing as the centerpiece.
But not everyone will be dissatisfied with their pre-revolutionary housing, and once those who are dissatisfied received their upgrade, it no longer becomes essential. So why are we simply limiting these changes to housing only?
People always need to eat, regardless of their happiness with their housing situation, and socialists often are much aggrieved of starvation they place as an unfortunate result of capitalism.