How do we prioritise production under [hp] communism?

[Tim Cornelis]

Resources -- time, labour, and raw materials -- are scarce. We cannot manufacture an unlimited supply of all goods in a limited time, hence the need to prioritise the production of a particular good over another. In a price system, this can easily be done. Consumers choose what they prefer buy purchasing the good. Under higher-phase communism such a price system does not exist. Yet we still need to prioritise. Insisting bread is more important than yachts and that we ought therefore to prioritise the former over the latter is insufficient as there are thousands if not millions of products.

But even assuming there are just the two, it's insufficient. For the sake of argument, let's ridiculously assume that yachts and bread require the exact same resources and are the only two products in society. We have 100 people who want 200 breads and 50 yachts, but we only have enough resources to manufacture either 200 breads or 50 yachts. We can prioritise bread, and therefore produce 200 breads. However, a price system would have revealed that the general equilibrium of consumer preferences would have been attained if there had been 150 breads produced and 25 yachts. There is a diminishing preference when consuming goods, breads are needed but only to an extent. At a certain level, people prefer a TV over bread. So how do we arrange this under higher-phase communism?

So in a 'discussion' of sorts (more like one way traffic) with Michael Albert, I proposed this:

General Framework of Priority. It would consist of 5 (or 10, or 25, or 17) categories of priority (democratically established). The lowest would first get the resources allocated to it necessary to fulfill consumer demand and then category 2, etc. So in a state of plentiful it may look like this:
Category 1: 100% of requested consumer goods produced
Category 2: 100% of requested consumer goods produced
Category 3: 100% of requested consumer goods produced
Category 4: 85% of requested consumer goods produced
Category 5: 10% of requested consumer goods produced
In such a scenario, the absence of general equilibrium would not be very problematic as most needs are satisfied except the most luxurious. But is such a scenario probable? Let's look at another:
Category 1: 100% of requested consumer goods produced
Category 2: 80% of requested consumer goods produced
Category 3: 60% of requested consumer goods produced
Category 4: 50% of requested consumer goods produced
Category 5: 10% of requested consumer goods produced
In such a scenario the lack of general equilibrium is much more problematic as consumer preferences exponentially suffer from it. Either we adopt rationing through labour points in its place, or is there another way of fixing it while retaining free-access? This is an idea I've been toying with, but has its own problems. Say, consumers submit their needs or requests in advance a week or a month, but also reveal they are willing to give up X amount of Y of a lower category if it means they can have access to one Q of a higher category. On an individual basis this would mean that the same resources used for X amount of Y would need to be used in one Q, which is highly unlikely. But collectively, if many people submit this it is much more likely to coincide. But two problems arise, 1) it is still likely there wont be enough resources for all requested goods of the higher category, so some consumers would then have given up goods of the lower category for nothing in return. Perhaps they will have to wait a week or a month (as even category 5 10% of requested goods are produced which would include them). Problem 2) people will give up as less as possible for as much as possible, e.g. I am willing to give up one loaf of bread of category 1 if it means I get one Mercedez of category 4. If everyone does this, then there will still be an immense lack of resources. So is this fixable? Perhaps the rule would be, you only get an equivalent amount of resources back that you have put in, but given that there is no universal common denominator, i.e. price, how would we calculate this? Perhaps 'shadow prices' could be used. All resources or goods are assigned prices based on the average socially necessary labour time and some means of supply and demand (shortage means increase in shadow price, surplus means it'll be lowered). Then, all consumer goods would have a shadow price. A loaf of bread would be 1 (for instance), a Mercedez 100,000. So I would need to give up 100,000 loafs of bread to consumer a Mercedez instead. These shadow prices would merely serve as an inverted barter market for the regulation of consumer preferences. Consumption would not require actual labour points and the general framework of priority would still be in place, but personal consumer changes between categories could be arranged through shadow prices.
Then there is the problem of time. I can't give up 100,000 loafs of bread in one month, so how is this fixed?
I DON'T KNOW, I'm just spitballing here.

Albert said this was infeasible, and perhaps it is, though he didn't specify why. Would you agree? And more importantly, what other means of prioritising could there be under higher-phase communism?

[ckaihatsu]

Resources -- time, labour, and raw materials -- are scarce.

Minor point -- how about 'limited', or 'finite', instead of the politically-loaded 'scarce' -- ?

We cannot manufacture an unlimited supply of all goods in a limited time, hence the need to prioritise the production of a particular good over another. In a price system, this can easily be done. Consumers choose what they prefer buy purchasing the good. Under higher-phase communism such a price system does not exist. Yet we still need to prioritise. Insisting bread is more important than yachts and that we ought therefore to prioritise the former over the latter is insufficient as there are thousands if not millions of products.

But even assuming there are just the two, it's insufficient. For the sake of argument, let's ridiculously assume that yachts and bread require the exact same resources and are the only two products in society. We have 100 people who want 200 breads and 50 yachts, but we only have enough resources to manufacture either 200 breads or 50 yachts. We can prioritise bread, and therefore produce 200 breads. However, a price system would have revealed that the general equilibrium of consumer preferences would have been attained if there had been 150 breads produced and 25 yachts. There is a diminishing preference when consuming goods, breads are needed but only to an extent. At a certain level, people prefer a TV over bread. So how do we arrange this under higher-phase communism?

One aspect is that we wouldn't need to be so 'anal' about small portions of surplus produced -- any 'textbook' example is good for practicing but it also encourages us to think in *very* exacting terms, instead of taking a more-sovereign, overarching view of things.

If there's an unclaimed surplus of 50 loaves and 25 yachts it could simply be an administrative matter, to be rolled into the next time period, either for use as-is, or to be used far-later as biomass or spare parts, respectively.

We shouldn't think that our politics straightjackets us into making highly detailed mathematical proofs that would leave economists at a loss for words.

So in a 'discussion' of sorts (more like one way traffic) with Michael Albert, I proposed this:

General Framework of Priority. It would consist of 5 (or 10, or 25, or 17) categories of priority (democratically established). The lowest would first get the resources allocated to it necessary to fulfill consumer demand and then category 2, etc. So in a state of plentiful it may look like this:
Category 1: 100% of requested consumer goods produced
Category 2: 100% of requested consumer goods produced
Category 3: 100% of requested consumer goods produced
Category 4: 85% of requested consumer goods produced
Category 5: 10% of requested consumer goods produced
In such a scenario, the absence of general equilibrium would not be very problematic as most needs are satisfied except the most luxurious. But is such a scenario probable? Let's look at another:
Category 1: 100% of requested consumer goods produced
Category 2: 80% of requested consumer goods produced
Category 3: 60% of requested consumer goods produced
Category 4: 50% of requested consumer goods produced
Category 5: 10% of requested consumer goods produced
In such a scenario the lack of general equilibrium is much more problematic as consumer preferences exponentially suffer from it.

Why wouldn't these resulting distributions be known in advance? With pre-planning there'd be no 'surprises' the way you're indicating here.

If there's a genuine lack of material availability vs. consumer orders / preferences, then it would be tough shit for the moment and pick something else, with the possibility of re-tooling production to go in that direction to satisfy such preferences at a later time.

Either we adopt rationing through labour points in its place, or is there another way of fixing it while retaining free-access? This is an idea I've been toying with, but has its own problems. Say, consumers submit their needs or requests in advance a week or a month, but also reveal they are willing to give up X amount of Y of a lower category if it means they can have access to one Q of a higher category.

This is a purely abstract formulation, one that may not be logistically realistic, unless the same laborers have universal skills and can readily shift from doing one kind of production to another.

(More realistic is to ask if *both* 'Y' and 'Q' can be easily produced, in sufficient quantities. Consider that with automation production becomes far less labor-intensive.)

On an individual basis this would mean that the same resources used for X amount of Y would need to be used in one Q, which is highly unlikely. But collectively, if many people submit this it is much more likely to coincide. But two problems arise, 1) it is still likely there wont be enough resources for all requested goods of the higher category, so some consumers would then have given up goods of the lower category for nothing in return.

Again, is there planning, or isn't there -- ?

Perhaps they will have to wait a week or a month (as even category 5 10% of requested goods are produced which would include them).

There would have to be a way of prioritizing demand among the individual consumers, in the absence of a price system. (Consider that a venue for a music concert is limited in physical size and capacity.)

Problem 2) people will give up as less as possible for as much as possible, e.g. I am willing to give up one loaf of bread of category 1 if it means I get one Mercedez of category 4. If everyone does this, then there will still be an immense lack of resources. So is this fixable? Perhaps the rule would be, you only get an equivalent amount of resources back that you have put in, but given that there is no universal common denominator, i.e. price, how would we calculate this?

Yes, true.

Perhaps 'shadow prices' could be used.

Pricing of *any* kind inherently invites financialization since people will want to hedge against possible future changes in prices, thereby turning whatever 'currency' into a commodity itself.

All resources or goods are assigned prices based on the average socially necessary labour time

This part sounds intriguing -- you may want to develop it further.

and some means of supply and demand (shortage means increase in shadow price, surplus means it'll be lowered). Then, all consumer goods would have a shadow price. A loaf of bread would be 1 (for instance), a Mercedez 100,000. So I would need to give up 100,000 loafs of bread to consumer a Mercedez instead. These shadow prices would merely serve as an inverted barter market for the regulation of consumer preferences. Consumption would not require actual labour points and the general framework of priority would still be in place, but personal consumer changes between categories could be arranged through shadow prices.
Then there is the problem of time. I can't give up 100,000 loafs of bread in one month, so how is this fixed?
I DON'T KNOW, I'm just spitballing here.

Albert said this was infeasible, and perhaps it is, though he didn't specify why. Would you agree?

Negating the market system means we have to have a feasible alternative in mind that can readily supplant it without inherent logistical complications and bother.

If an alternate 'point' system is introduced the question would then be what its unit value would be based on, or mean -- the point system would have to enjoy ongoing solid political support and not be seen as needlessly arbitrary or biased. Generally this kind of economics is associated with a regime of bureaucratic collectivism, or statism, for authority.

And more importantly, what other means of prioritising could there be under higher-phase communism?

I'll return to this. (You may have already seen my position elaborated elsewhere here at RevLeft.)

[subcp]

Everything free with no accounting; with free access to all means of production.

It's not a matter of just 'using what capitalism has built'- the ability to create a world of abundance of consumer goods and services for free, but also doing away with the idea that we have to account for every good or service because of an anxiety that it must be put to the right use every time.

People will develop new ways of producing and living and socializing. I don't think we can know what it will look specifically, and attempts to create an accounting system will lead back to capital accumulation before people (free of class society) would have the opportunity to build and form these new ways of living, producing and socializing.

[Tim Cornelis]

Minor point -- how about 'limited', or 'finite', instead of the politically-loaded 'scarce' -- ?

One aspect is that we wouldn't need to be so 'anal' about small portions of surplus produced -- any 'textbook' example is good for practicing but it also encourages us to think in *very* exacting terms, instead of taking a more-sovereign, overarching view of things.

If there's an unclaimed surplus of 50 loaves and 25 yachts it could simply be an administrative matter, to be rolled into the next time period, either for use as-is, or to be used far-later as biomass or spare parts, respectively.

The problem I mentioned concerns the lack of resources to produce enough to satisfy all consumer wants, let alone produce a surplus.

We shouldn't think that our politics straightjackets us into making highly detailed mathematical proofs that would leave economists at a loss for words.

Why wouldn't these resulting distributions be known in advance? With pre-planning there'd be no 'surprises' the way you're indicating here.

What do you mean "pre-planning"? Consumers indicate the number of goods they want, but there is a lack of resources to produce all.

If there's a genuine lack of material availability vs. consumer orders / preferences, then it would be tough shit for the moment and pick something else, with the possibility of re-tooling production to go in that direction to satisfy such preferences at a later time.

"The moment"? This assumes that generally there is enough resources to produce goods of all kinds, at all times. The problem is, such resources are not widely available.

This is a purely abstract formulation, one that may not be logistically realistic, unless the same laborers have universal skills and can readily shift from doing one kind of production to another.

No it's not. It doesn't presuppose workers shifting work. Workers in A produce good Q, workers in B produce good Z. Only the amount of raw materials allocated to A and B will change.

(More realistic is to ask if *both* 'Y' and 'Q' can be easily produced, in sufficient quantities. Consider that with automation production becomes far less labor-intensive.)

Automation does not enhance raw materials.

Again, is there planning, or isn't there -- ?

What do you mean by that?

There would have to be a way of prioritizing demand among the individual consumers, in the absence of a price system. (Consider that a venue for a music concert is limited in physical size and capacity.)

Yes, true.

Pricing of *any* kind inherently invites financialization since people will want to hedge against possible future changes in prices, thereby turning whatever 'currency' into a commodity itself.

No, because these are shadow prices. Consumption does not actually require purchasing, and no currency exists.

This part sounds intriguing -- you may want to develop it further.

Negating the market system means we have to have a feasible alternative in mind that can readily supplant it without inherent logistical complications and bother.

If an alternate 'point' system is introduced the question would then be what its unit value would be based on, or mean -- the point system would have to enjoy ongoing solid political support and not be seen as needlessly arbitrary or biased. Generally this kind of economics is associated with a regime of bureaucratic collectivism, or statism, for authority.

I suppose.

Everything free with no accounting; with free access to all means of production.

It's not a matter of just 'using what capitalism has built'- the ability to create a world of abundance of consumer goods and services for free, but also doing away with the idea that we have to account for every good or service because of an anxiety that it must be put to the right use every time.

People will develop new ways of producing and living and socializing. I don't think we can know what it will look specifically, and attempts to create an accounting system will lead back to capital accumulation before people (free of class society) would have the opportunity to build and form these new ways of living, producing and socializing.

This is beyond utopian. No accounting at all?

Abundance of consumer goods? Do you think we have the resources to manufacture three TVs per person, and a million other goods for each person, including luxurious goods? "Must be put to right use," that isn't the issue at all.

[ckaihatsu]

Everything free with no accounting; with free access to all means of production.

It's not a matter of just 'using what capitalism has built'- the ability to create a world of abundance of consumer goods and services for free, but also doing away with the idea that we have to account for every good or service because of an anxiety that it must be put to the right use every time.

People will develop new ways of producing and living and socializing. I don't think we can know what it will look specifically, and attempts to create an accounting system will lead back to capital accumulation before people (free of class society) would have the opportunity to build and form these new ways of living, producing and socializing.

I agree with this in principle, of course, but have two minds about possible approaches / implementations to it. One recent post happens to speak to this aspect quite well:


Question about Communism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...2&postcount=12

[ckaihatsu]

The problem I mentioned concerns the lack of resources to produce enough to satisfy all consumer wants, let alone produce a surplus.

Yeah -- I'll explicitly note that I have an issue with this conception as a starting point since it's both unrealistic, given a post-capitalist collectivist mass production, and it plays into right-wing scare tactics of an assumed blanket "scarcity" under anything except capitalism.

What do you mean "pre-planning"? Consumers indicate the number of goods they want, but there is a lack of resources to produce all.

Okay, never mind -- that was from my tangential interpretation of your scenario.

If there's a genuine lack of material availability vs. consumer orders / preferences, then it would be tough shit for the moment and pick something else, with the possibility of re-tooling production to go in that direction to satisfy such preferences at a later time.

"The moment"? This assumes that generally there is enough resources to produce goods of all kinds, at all times. The problem is, such resources are not widely available.

Well, you're being vague about which resources and their per-item likelihood of being sufficiently produced, post-capitalism.

I take exception to this topic being brought forth as though all resources are the same in ease of accessibility, or procurement -- obviously, even post-markets, some materials would be easier to get to and/or make, while others would be more difficult, and thus more 'scarce'.

Either we adopt rationing through labour points in its place, or is there another way of fixing it while retaining free-access? This is an idea I've been toying with, but has its own problems. Say, consumers submit their needs or requests in advance a week or a month, but also reveal they are willing to give up X amount of Y of a lower category if it means they can have access to one Q of a higher category.

This is a purely abstract formulation, one that may not be logistically realistic, unless the same laborers have universal skills and can readily shift from doing one kind of production to another.

No it's not. It doesn't presuppose workers shifting work. Workers in A produce good Q, workers in B produce good Z. Only the amount of raw materials allocated to A and B will change.

If you're saying that it's apples-and-oranges regarding the labor for 'Y' or 'Q' (or 'Z'), then the same holds true for the resources required -- would loaves really be competing with yachts for raw materials, for example -- ?

Automation does not enhance raw materials.

Yes it does, in relation to (liberated) labor inputs -- water and chemical flavorings can be turned into soft drinks without the need for workers to handle each individual bottle or can.

On an individual basis this would mean that the same resources used for X amount of Y would need to be used in one Q, which is highly unlikely. But collectively, if many people submit this it is much more likely to coincide. But two problems arise, 1) it is still likely there wont be enough resources for all requested goods of the higher category, so some consumers would then have given up goods of the lower category for nothing in return.

Again, is there planning, or isn't there -- ?

What do you mean by that?

I mean that you're implying that consumers would be taking a gamble in placing their orders -- that there would be some kind of uncertainty in the period between the ordering and the production / fulfillment.

I ask if such logistical matters couldn't be organized and handled properly in advance, so that there's no uncertainty about who receives what -- there would have to be some method for prioritizing consumer demand among those who want to be consumers of a particular item that may not be deliverable to all who order it.

Pricing of *any* kind inherently invites financialization since people will want to hedge against possible future changes in prices, thereby turning whatever 'currency' into a commodity itself.

No, because these are shadow prices. Consumption does not actually require purchasing, and no currency exists.

Negating the market system means we have to have a feasible alternative in mind that can readily supplant it without inherent logistical complications and bother.

If an alternate 'point' system is introduced the question would then be what its unit value would be based on, or mean -- the point system would have to enjoy ongoing solid political support and not be seen as needlessly arbitrary or biased. Generally this kind of economics is associated with a regime of bureaucratic collectivism, or statism, for authority.

I suppose.

Then I have to ask what the 'shadow prices' are based on, and indicate, exactly -- if a society's bulk 'socially necessary labor time' can be arrived-at, and broken-down into individually proportionate portions, would 'shadow prices' be nominal fractions of the 1/1 of the 'average socially necessary labor time' -- ?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I don't quite understand this. Under actual Communism there will be no more forms of exchange. US Labor Productivity has increased 90% since 1979 while average worker's wage is in fact less than it was in 1973. With 3D-printing and biorobotic technology the relatively-soon future of material production (and, through the advance of biorobotic technology, even service work) will not have a lot of need for Human Labor. The Production and Distribution of socially produced goods will be run collectively by society itself, today relatively easy through computer technology.

[ckaihatsu]

[A]ttempts to create an accounting system will lead back to capital accumulation before people (free of class society) would have the opportunity to build and form these new ways of living, producing and socializing.

I say that I have two minds about this approach because, while I think / know that it's politically and logistically *possible*, I don't think it would be the *best* approach to the topic of a post-capitalist economics.

Here's a formulation that's almost 'number-free':


Rotation system of work roles




The downside is that this model is highly locality-specific and would probably depend on consistent physical proximities among the participants. It would necessarily be too communal-like, and wouldn't fulfill the promise of a communism that *supersedes* capitalism, in overall quality.

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't quite understand this. Under actual Communism there will be no more forms of exchange. US Labor Productivity has increased 90% since 1979 while average worker's wage is in fact less than it was in 1973. With 3D-printing and biorobotic technology the relatively-soon future of material production (and, through the advance of biorobotic technology, even service work) will not have a lot of need for Human Labor. The Production and Distribution of socially produced goods will be run collectively by society itself, today relatively easy through computer technology.

I forgot about 3D printers. In any case, "productivity" is measured in the amount of money earned in a period, not actual physical output. Moreover, increased productivity tends to mean increased consumption, so that doesn't solve it.

Without 3D printers though, my question still applies.

[JPSartre12]

Production is orientated under higher-phase communism based upon a need-be basis. Of course, we're also assuming that the means of production are sophisticated enough to overcome scarcity at this point, so the concept of "need" under communism is out-of-place.

[Tim Cornelis]

Production is orientated under higher-phase communism based upon a need-be basis. Of course, we're also assuming that the means of production are sophisticated enough to overcome scarcity at this point, so the concept of "need" under communism is out-of-place.

Then the question is, is that realistic? No "scarcity," being able to manufacture millions of types of productions for billions of people.

[JPSartre12]

Then the question is, is that realistic? No "scarcity," being able to manufacture millions of types of productions for billions of people.

Yes, it is realistic. We already have the means to overcome much of the world's scarcity, we just lack the planning system to allocate and distribute production effectively.

[Red Nightmare]

We don't really know since communism hasn't happened yet but I imagine that production will be prioritized on the basis of need and scientific planning.

[ckaihatsu]

I forgot about 3D printers.

Without 3D printers though, my question still applies.

While we should be pro-industrialization and pro-technology, we shouldn't fall into the trap of an arbitrary technological determinism -- just because 3D printers come around doesn't mean that the conventional industrial (assembly-line) process will be immediately and entirely supplanted.

We could also add-in the existing issue of armaments production under capitalism -- like energy sourcing -- where conventional methods for production are also the most robust and lucrative.

Production is orientated under higher-phase communism based upon a need-be basis. Of course, we're also assuming that the means of production are sophisticated enough to overcome scarcity at this point, so the concept of "need" under communism is out-of-place.

The concept of 'need', or want, would probably be *far more* elastic and subjective in a higher-phase communism, since people would be liberated to live as they like, with egalitarian access to material resources.

[Crixus]

Graphs and charts or it didnt happen I'd say food, housing and infrastructure first. Leisure and entertainment last. I also think leisure and entertainment would take different form under communism. It would be more community orientated, as in festivals, movies shown in parks at night, pick-nicks, BBQ's etc. Not that these things don't take place now it just seems under capitalism we have a fetish for muti colored nick-knacks, gold plated shoes and arriving at red carpet events in helicopters.

+ YouTube Video

+ YouTube Video

[subcp]

This is beyond utopian. No accounting at all?

Abundance of consumer goods? Do you think we have the resources to manufacture three TVs per person, and a million other goods for each person, including luxurious goods? "Must be put to right use," that isn't the issue at all.

This is assuming that the type of life led by the average Westerner will be the standard by which production will be oriented so that all the people of Earth can have an SUV and a car, a house big enough for 10 people for every 2 people, etc. If we accept communism as a material necessity and not an ideal, capitalist crisis will force people to find new ways to live and produce.

What do you think needs to be accounted for? Everything? (TV's, all types of automobiles, etc.). The organizations which do the accounting and the social mechanism's that come with accounting (rationing of resources- which requires an expansive organization and authority), which can include currency (and things like labor vouchers), probably also means organs to coerce the order of the accounting- to stop factory workers from 'smuggling', to stop people from informally trading (creating a de facto black market)- sound a lot like what already exists.

[ckaihatsu]

Everything free with no accounting; with free access to all means of production.

It's not a matter of just 'using what capitalism has built'- the ability to create a world of abundance of consumer goods and services for free, but also doing away with the idea that we have to account for every good or service because of an anxiety that it must be put to the right use every time.

People will develop new ways of producing and living and socializing. I don't think we can know what it will look specifically, and attempts to create an accounting system will lead back to capital accumulation before people (free of class society) would have the opportunity to build and form these new ways of living, producing and socializing.

This is assuming that the type of life led by the average Westerner will be the standard by which production will be oriented so that all the people of Earth can have an SUV and a car, a house big enough for 10 people for every 2 people, etc. If we accept communism as a material necessity and not an ideal, capitalist crisis will force people to find new ways to live and produce.

What do you think needs to be accounted for? Everything? (TV's, all types of automobiles, etc.). The organizations which do the accounting and the social mechanism's that come with accounting (rationing of resources- which requires an expansive organization and authority), which can include currency (and things like labor vouchers), probably also means organs to coerce the order of the accounting- to stop factory workers from 'smuggling', to stop people from informally trading (creating a de facto black market)- sound a lot like what already exists.

If such a society decides to eschew white-collar / administrative / authoritative structures we might have a world very much like primitive communism, but with open-access to the remnants of the capitalist era. Arguably this may even be what many or most people consciously or subconsciously have in mind when struggling for an end to class rule.

If "a world of abundance of consumer goods and services for free" is to be the case, though, then the sheer logistics of the supply chains involved in making complex production possible would definitely necessitate formal record-keeping, and also an administrative accounting of some sort. It wouldn't necessarily have to be authoritarian or even contain the potential for a reversion to capital -- as long as such a civilization had the cohesion and ongoing political support (and participation) for such a society.

Most to the point, I think, is figuring out what the 'economics' of a post-capitalist political economy could feasibly be, at various extents of science, research, innovation, culture, recreation, sophistication, and/or lifestyles.

It's always tempting to just leave off at the (important) defeat of capitalist relations, but I think we'd be better off to make tentative plans as early as possible.

[subcp]

I tend to think of it as: a Russian or Polish peasant in the 18th or early 19th century could probably not fathom the way of life that would supplant what was 'reality' for centuries and would remain so for the foreseeable and distant future in a few short years- far from primitivism or technocracy, it's likely the infrastructure, technology and productive-distributive-consumptive apparatus of capital will develop at a rapid pace away from commodity production in the direction of meeting all human needs and wants (and continue to develop after the higher phase of communism has been realized)- but it'd be such a thorough transformation of everything about human society that it's probably the same as a Roman slave or Polish peasant trying to contemplate 'free labor' and consumerism of post-war Western capitalism- in their own time.

It's always tempting to just leave off at the (important) defeat of capitalist relations, but I think we'd be better off to make tentative plans as early as possible.

It seems reasonable, maybe even especially during the dictatorship of the proletariat or even the lower phase of communism- but in the higher phase, everything is supposed to have been already transformed (and the arguments against even reasonable seeming planning theories like syndicalism, IOPS or 'The Fundamentals of Communist Production and Distribution' are compelling).

[ckaihatsu]

I tend to think of it as: a Russian or Polish peasant in the 18th or early 19th century could probably not fathom the way of life that would supplant what was 'reality' for centuries and would remain so for the foreseeable and distant future in a few short years- far from primitivism or technocracy, it's likely the infrastructure, technology and productive-distributive-consumptive apparatus of capital will develop at a rapid pace away from commodity production in the direction of meeting all human needs and wants (and continue to develop after the higher phase of communism has been realized)- but it'd be such a thorough transformation of everything about human society that it's probably the same as a Roman slave or Polish peasant trying to contemplate 'free labor' and consumerism of post-war Western capitalism- in their own time.

It's always tempting to just leave off at the (important) defeat of capitalist relations, but I think we'd be better off to make tentative plans as early as possible.

It seems reasonable, maybe even especially during the dictatorship of the proletariat or even the lower phase of communism- but in the higher phase, everything is supposed to have been already transformed (and the arguments against even reasonable seeming planning theories like syndicalism, IOPS or 'The Fundamentals of Communist Production and Distribution' are compelling).

I tend to think that a good part of revolutionary politics should speak to the question of how social production *could* be done, beyond the exploitation and oppression of capital-based relations.

[A]ttempts to create an accounting system will lead back to capital accumulation before people (free of class society) would have the opportunity to build and form these new ways of living, producing and socializing.

How do we prioritise production under [hypothetical] communism?

If the question boils down to a humane form of societal organization that can *supersede* capitalism in both productivity for actual human need, and in complexity / sophistication, then those requirements would remain the same during and after a socialist revolution as they do today -- this gives us a foundation for reasoning that can provide explanatory power, at very least.

I noted at another thread that commodity-production relations affect the individual at the social-context level, overlapping-with, and in-addition-to labor-exploitation 'alienation':

[A] personage-centric [formulation] implicitly politically commodifies the individual, bringing the absurdity of elitism (royalty, nobility, celebrity) down to the common-person level.

Instead of democratically characterizing individuals and their 'deserving-ness' we should strive for a *distribution* model that looks to *flood* everyone with automation-produced goods and services so that reaching out for choice tangible objects is as simple as installing free software is today, in the *digital* domain.

This is basically a call for a *production*-centric orientation, away from political or economic representation that's concentrated into individual personages, as we are all-too-familiar with from the pages of history.

[ckaihatsu]

All resources or goods are assigned prices based on the average socially necessary labour time

[I]f a society's bulk 'socially necessary labor time' can be arrived-at, and broken-down into individually proportionate portions, would 'shadow prices' be nominal fractions of the 1/1 of the 'average socially necessary labor time' -- ?

While noting that I don't agree with the concept or practice of 'shadow prices' -- or any prices for that matter -- the following chapter in the text that subcp referenced contains a good layout of a process based on 'average social production time':

The fact that the individual productive establishments have determined the average labour-time necessary for their product does not mean that the Marxist concept of a social average has been attained. To achieve this, all productive establishments operating in the same sector of production must enter into cooperation with one another. In our example, for instance, all shoe factories must determine the total average out of all the various individual factory averages. Where one factory arrives at an average of 3 hours per pair of shoes, another at 3.25 hours and yet another at 3.5, then the average labour-time would lie at 3.25. (This is, of course, only an approximation; for the accurate formulation, see Chapter 9 of this work).

Thus we can see that the need to calculate the average social labour-time is already leading to a horizontal coordination of productive establishments. This however is not being carried out by a bureaucratic apparatus controlled by the state, but grows out of the factories themselves from below. The whys and wherefores of the system are completely clear and understandable for every worker, whilst at the same time the necessity for open book-keeping brings everything under public control.

What we see here, therefore, is a system of regulation within the production group, and indeed one which has been brought into operation by the productive establishments themselves. It is not a mode of regulation which depends upon "mutual aid" but, on the contrary, is an exact method of calculation. The productivity of a particular productive establishment can be determined accurately, and by this act the limits are exactly fixed within which the losses and surpluses must lie. Productivity thus becomes an exact factor and can be expressed in a single cipher, the Productivity Factor. This factor defines accurately just how large or small the plus or minus figures of a given productive establishment will be.

'The Fundamentals of Communist Production and Distribution'

Group of International Communists

Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution
1930

CHAPTER 4
Average Social Production Time as the Basis of Production

http://www.marxists.org/subject/left...ik/1930/04.htm