Results 21 to 34 of 34
^^ Hey, I wasn't being sarcastic, I just wrote what I desire to happen. The last smiley is there just because I'm tired to show to capitalism's lovers that a gift economy CAN indeed be superior and more efficient than our current system.
Oh, okay -- thanks for the clarification. Let me know if there's anything I can do....
Incidentally, I had an extended conversation awhile ago with someone on the 'finer points' of a gift economy:
Some sort of control in a Gift Economy?
http://www.revleft.com/vb/some-sort-....html?t=148847
I like your approach to productive and consumptive zones.
So far, I think the best approach is a gift economy, with Robbo203's views.
Decentralized decision-making, with calculation in kind, and helped by a parallel computer network, would be very effective.
Yeah, Robbo is good at delineating how a self-regulating system of stock control would be a key *logistical* component of a post-capitalist political economy (though maybe not in that particular thread that I referenced).
A 'gift economy' is a reliable 'go-to' term to encapsulate what we generally mean, but it also implies a sheerly *voluntary* (no-incentive) basis for everything productive. Cyu's psychological critique notwithstanding, I just find the sheerly voluntary (qualitative) approach to political economy to be too messy in "practice" -- necessitating a possibility of debates over every little logistical concern, and not providing any standard for the formalization of (quantitative) labor hours.
Just f.y.i., here's another past thread, which has an extended discussion about a gift economy and related tangential issues:
A world without money
http://www.revleft.com/vb/world-with...042/index.html
Also I'll note that many are correct in pointing out a lack of precision in what it is we stand for -- the following is from a current thread:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
---
I'll respectfully disagree with your adoption of decentralism, in that a post-capitalist society shouldn't forfeit the benefits of large-scale production that capitalism has built-up for us.
From post #10:
And, from post #14:
---
Thanks -- I think the 'multi-tiered' illustration may be helpful in showing that any number of arbitrary productive and consumptive 'locuses' can be present in any number of arbitrary 'zones' across a geographical area, like a continent. This re-orients us away from the existing bourgeois-founded categories of nation, state, county, city, property, etc. (or whatever).
Please feel free to elaborate, of course.
Also, on a technical note, just wanted to add:
I'm not really sure why ParEcon and PeerConomy aren't just really inefficient planned markets, the PeerConomy being a coordinated barter system that eliminates money for no good reason, resulting in inflexibility.
In any case, Schweickart's critique of ParEcon has convinced me to ditch ParEcon. Unfortunately, that was my only defense against market socialism. Given the other advantages of market socialism, I think it's the only reasonable thing to push for in the next "iteration" of social change.
"This is my test of character. There you have the despotic instinct of men. They do not like the cat because the cat is free, and will never consent to become a slave. He will do nothing to your order, as the other animals do." — Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
"The intellectual and emotional refusal 'to go along' appears neurotic and impotent." — Herbert Marcuse.
"Our blight is ideologies — they are the long-expected Antichrist!" — Carl Gustav Jung
Welcome to the Dark Side.
This isn't a detailed workup, but it's quite a comprehensive framework: http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/
As already noted, comrade Cockshott is a poster here and has posted in this very discussion. Another framework, though more insightful on functional vs. social division of labour rather than Participatory Planning, is Pat Devine's.
"A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)
"A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
Well I think if automation and 3D printing technologies take a big role in the future, the most effective way will be to produce locally, without the need of transportation across the globe some raw materials from Brazil, then a manufactured product from China, then a high tech product from Germany, then a brazilian buys the end product, that's sick.Originally Posted by ckaihatsu
A complete industrial zone near highly populated areas could simplify the whole process, because only raw materials would need to be transported. You see, it is indeed a physically decentralised mode of production, but also it still is mass production.
All industrial processes will be open to anyone, no matter if someone is in USA or Africa.
Of course some very specialised products would be produced only by a handful producers, like climate-depending crops, or some small components not worthy to have a whole production line everywhere.
Besides, raw materials accounting would be easy to measure, I think it fits well the in-natura approach.
I made a post awhile ago basically detailing what I see as the best idea for transition. It pretty long - I'm on my iPod now but I can link it later if you want.
Basically to sum it up though I think things should be done like this:
Take all the things that people need (actually need, as in basic necessities) give them out preferably immediately to those who need them, but when nevessary ration them while simultaneously making it a top priority to making production of these things more efficient both economically and environmentally.
Take all the items that people don't need but want (e.g. a TV) and place them in a new category. If supply exceeds demand an there are no environmental issues with production, let workers take things freely. For everything else, assign a price based on supply vs demand and based on environmental impact. Make it a secondary priority to achieve post-scarcity with these items (and additionally a top priority to make these items sustainable). Give workers (or people incapable of work) a sort of pre-paid debit card with non-transferable funds to buy things on according to the agreed upon price set by economists and environmentalists based on the product's current sustainability and availability (as opposed to having these things sold on a free market). No one receives monetary compensation when people buy things - it just depletes people's funds for arbitrary things that they want and thereby lowers demand to te appropriate level for things that aren't yet post-scarce.
Oh yeah, and workers. I believe that a point system should be used for various jobs. The point value of each job based on a combination of importance and desirability. Everyone should work at jobs that add up to a certain number of points and involve different point levels, thereby ensuring that the undesirable work gets done. The amount of work they have to put in should be hashed out democratically (or by consensus, or some other non-hierarchical decision-making strategy), and be based on ability.
It'd be nice also if these things that are assigned points or value could have some type of agreeable equations worked in so that computers could determine some of these things (not without question of course or recall if the populace feels they've made a mistake) instead of some economists and environmentalists getting together and making ultimately very subjective decisions each time.
I don't think this really fits under anyone's specific, already-existing transitional economic plan. I try to think critically and come up with these ideas myself - call it a DIY of theory if you like. I'm not a huge fan of just picking my favorite from a variety of pre-conceived ideas that may or may not contain the best option and may or may not contain both good and bad ideas.
FKA Chomsssssssky, Skwisgaar, The Employer Destroyer, skybutton
I hear ya -- no disagreement on the wastefulness of current market-price-oriented supply chains.
I'll do you one better here, too -- building materials can now also be 3D printed:
The room with 260 million surfaces: 3D printed architecture is here
http://www.gizmag.com/swiss-architec...-a-room/29299/
Depending on what's needed, though, there may be plenty of uses for conventional mass-production industrial processes -- I don't know enough to give a complete rundown, off-hand, versus the nascent 3D printing method.
I can understand that the more-personal approach can also reduce the *politics* needed around any kind of necessary production / fabrication, too -- but until the technological leapfrogging that you're indicating is fully realized, there *will* be a need for politics around currently existing monolithic production and governmental practices.
Up to this point I'll suggest that your approach is similar to this one:
[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy
tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-concise-communism
While I remain skeptical of any price- or point-based systems, I'd be interested to know how 'importance' and 'desirability' would be derived here.
Ditto -- how would 'ability' be determined?
(I have to note that you're edging onto the terrain of *replacing* human judgment and decision-making with that of algorithms. Please recall the 'GIGO' principle:
Garbage in, garbage out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out
3D printing is indeed a communist revolution, just like mp3 and open-source software; unfortunately capitalists will profit out of it for a long time
Yes, we need politics also to create abundance, an important step from here to there.
3D printing is indeed a communist revolution, just like mp3 and open-source software; unfortunately capitalists will profit out of it for a long time
I don't see how profiteers could benefit from open-source software, and probably not extensively from mp3s since the advent of Napster and peer-to-peer. The Rep-Rap printer can build a copy of itself, though I don't know about the cost of the raw materials it uses.
