Economic calculation problem

[Baseball]

It's my understanding that in his system, people could decide to increase the labor credits allocated to those workers. If people don't like those jobs, they probably have valid reasons for it. Everybody wants to join my blueberry collective, obviously, but somebody has to work in the steel mill. I don't think ckaihatsu's system is so inflexible that they wouldn't. Also keep in mind that workplaces would be designed and structured to take into account the needs of the workers, making them safer and more pleasant.

Yes, people would be paid more to work in industries which are more valuable, where there are shortages ect. This also means people would be paid less for work in areas less valuable, where labor is not needed ect.

People would work where they wished to work, under those terms which they agree to work.

HOWEVER, people will be employed to work under terms as defined by those doing the employing.

Nothing has changed. Because now a market (in labor) has been created, using prices (ie pay) to distribute labor amongst the various industries (hell ckhaiatsu has even suggested that jobs could be exported if the local market does not support the prices (pay) sought by liberated labor there, to a locale that would support that pay).
A market cannot just exist in the area of labor.

[Radical Rambler]

My response to this stuff is that the "economic calculation" problem assumes the axioms of NeoClassical economics itself. There is no reason to assume consumers maximize their 'utility' by buying whatever it is they actually buy. In fact, the mere existence of consumer advocacy organizations pretty much refutes this idea.

The "economic calculation problem" asks Marxists to assume that the axioms NeoClassical economics are true. They are actually false, and admittedly so by most economists. Hence, there is no basis to proceed with a discussion.

[Baseball]

Speaking of Paul Cockshott's power optimization example, this kind of optimization and calculation is going on all the time in capitalism. Check out https://www.truthdig.com/report/item...upply_20131209

This is not calculating in kind. Wind power presents a difficulty in producing electricity. As such, coal remains far more effective in producing electricity. Its better to invest resources in coal to provide electricity.

The article explains that the problems of windpower may be solved. At which case, should it come to pass, calculations would need to be made whether those problems have been sufficiently solved.

[argeiphontes]

This is not calculating in kind. Wind power presents a difficulty in producing electricity. As such, coal remains far more effective in producing electricity. Its better to invest resources in coal to provide electricity.

The article explains that the problems of windpower may be solved. At which case, should it come to pass, calculations would need to be made whether those problems have been sufficiently solved.

Yeah, fair enough, bad example.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Damn, y'all seem pretty concerned with maintaining mass industrial production of consumer goods. Maybe I'm hella backward, but when I think of the "problems" of communist economics, "But how will we know how many iPods to produce?!" doesn't really enter the equation. It seems to me a reflection of bourgeois ideology to imagine "the good life" as premised on a "post-scarcity" economy in which there is no scarcity of consumer goods rather than, I dunno, bioregionally specific autonomous community production.

Since the whole "calculation problem" is predicated on scarcity, I don't know why you're talking about post-scarcity. Your "bioregionally specific autonomous community production" would have to solve the same problem. Even if they're not churning out advanced electronics by the ton or whatever, they might still have need of say, mineral deposits of iron ore that don't require too much energy to recover. Or at least enough energy spare to be able to recycle their scrap, assuming they have enough of it in the first place

On the other hand, a continental system of recycling and extraction would be in a much better position to organise and distribute iron so that surpluses in some subdivisions are used to make up for shortfalls in others. Assuming of course that its operation is not being distorted by a price system.

[ckaihatsu]

You're over-reaching here -- you're using boogeyman tactics to proffer a supposed "threat" to the sovereignty of a post-capitalist liberated labor, as though such workers would become *wholly subservient* to a mob-like popular will.

I'll assert as an alternative that at any scale of production it will be those who do the actual work of mass production who ultimately have 'veto-power' over their own liberated labor, combined with the use of the collectivized machinery.

What else would be the point of "liberated-labor" performing labor if not to be subservient popular will?

Exactly.

The whole *point* of revolution, workers control, etc., is to bring the workers of the world *beyond* the point where their labor participation can just be *assumed*, as it is today.

The reason I use the term *liberated* laborers is because their material / political status would indeed be changed -- there would be nothing anyone could do to *coerce* liberated laborers into providing work effort, if they didn't *inherently* want to do it themselves.

Infrastructure / overhead

labor [supply] -- All workers will be entirely liberated from all coercion and threats related to basic human living needs, regardless of work status -- any labor roles will be entirely self-selected and open to collective labor organizing efforts on the basis of accumulated labor credits

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

However, that said, the mass public would not be *dependent* for production on any one worker, or group of workers. Since liberated labor would always be a subset of the broader public, the sentiment of mass demand could always find *alternatives*, or detours, around any given liberated-labor holdup, such as bringing forth new workers for whatever the task-at-hand happens to be.

Sounds like that you are agreeing that liberated labor freely declining to labor on needed activities could pose a problem to the community. So how would the community find new "liberated labor" to do the work that old "liberated labor" refused to do? Why would the new folks be anymore desirous to be subservient than the old folks?

No guarantees -- just saying that there are more fish in the sea, so-to-speak.

It's my understanding that in his system, people could decide to increase the labor credits allocated to those workers.

Yes, if that group of people ('locality') had *already* put in sufficient liberated labor themselves to *possess* that increased number of labor credits -- else they'd have to go into a *debt* of labor credits, meaning that they're resorting to direct exploitation, which would be publicly displayed.

If people don't like those jobs, they probably have valid reasons for it. Everybody wants to join my blueberry collective, obviously, but somebody has to work in the steel mill. I don't think ckaihatsu's system is so inflexible that they wouldn't. Also keep in mind that workplaces would be designed and structured to take into account the needs of the workers, making them safer and more pleasant.

Yes -- and, since all designs and structures can only result from labor efforts, anyway, what you're effectively saying is that liberated laborers would have full *control* over how their own workplaces are designed and structured.

Yes, people would be paid more to work in industries which are more valuable, where there are shortages ect. This also means people would be paid less for work in areas less valuable, where labor is not needed ect.

People would work where they wished to work, under those terms which they agree to work.

Good so far....

HOWEVER, people will be employed to work under terms as defined by those doing the employing.

No -- there would be no 'employment' since that term implies 'wages' and 'necessity to earn wages'.

[W]hat you're not accepting is that all assets and resources -- the means of mass production -- would be socialized, or in the public domain.

The production of goods would be *collectively* decided on -- no more commodities -- so that leaves liberated labor as the final variable, since nothing could happen without its 'services'. Hence labor credits, which only represent labor effort. No 'pay', no 'job', no 'prices'.

Infrastructure / overhead

communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

Nothing has changed. Because now a market (in labor) has been created, using prices (ie pay)

Nope -- no commodities, thus no labor-commodity, thus no markets or prices or pay.

to distribute labor amongst the various industries (hell ckhaiatsu has even suggested that jobs could be exported if the local market does not support the prices (pay) sought by liberated labor there, to a locale that would support that pay).
A market cannot just exist in the area of labor.

Nice try, again, but you're attempting to assert an independence for market-pricing-of-labor when none exists within the framework you're addressing -- and then you're trying to use that erroneous assertion as a base from which to edge over into asserting a *blanket* commodification (which doesn't exist either).

The reason it's not a market -- though rates of labor credits for labor hours *may* vary from the index somewhat -- is because there's no *independence* for abstract pricing outside of the political economy itself. Any and every divergence (or not) from the indexed rates could only result from a process of collective *political* deliberation, to create an *alternative* policy package (that specifies an alternative rate of pre-existing labor credits).

[Baseball]

[

The whole *point* of revolution, workers control, etc., is to bring the workers of the world *beyond* the point where their labor participation can just be *assumed*, as it is today.

The reason I use the term *liberated* laborers is because their material / political status would indeed be changed -- there would be nothing anyone could do to *coerce* liberated laborers into providing work effort, if they didn't *inherently* want to do it themselves.

Doesn't the latter paragraph depend upon assuming working would wish to do certain tasks?

No guarantees -- just saying that there are more fish in the sea, so-to-speak.

"assuming"

Yes, if that group of people ('locality') had *already* put in sufficient liberated labor themselves to *possess* that increased number of labor credits -- else they'd have to go into a *debt* of labor credits, meaning that they're resorting to direct exploitation, which would be publicly displayed.

And...?

Good so far....

No -- there would be no 'employment' since that term implies 'wages' and 'necessity to earn wages'.

Nope -- no commodities, thus no labor-commodity, thus no markets or prices or pay.

If "liberated labor" has the right to refuse work, because, in their estimation the labor credits accrued them are not worth their efforts, the community must have the same right. They must be be able to refuse to contract with liberated labor if, in their estimation, the work needed is not worth the credits being demanded by liberated labor.
The result will seem to be that labor will be distributed, not as per need (or at least how socialists tend to define need) but according to who can bring the most labor credits to bear.
Its a market.

The reason it's not a market -- though rates of labor credits for labor hours *may* vary from the index somewhat -- is because there's no *independence* for abstract pricing outside of the political economy itself. Any and every divergence (or not) from the indexed rates could only result from a process of collective *political* deliberation, to create an *alternative* policy package (that specifies an alternative rate of pre-existing labor credits).

This sounds like nothing more than 'wage controls'-- labor credits accrued/spent are being tightly controlled.


Which leads to this:
1. Why should "liberated labor" be told how much labor credits can be accrued? It seems rather unliberating.
2. What organization tells, and enforces, such rules on "liberated labor"?

[ckaihatsu]

The whole *point* of revolution, workers control, etc., is to bring the workers of the world *beyond* the point where their labor participation can just be *assumed*, as it is today.

The reason I use the term *liberated* laborers is because their material / political status would indeed be changed -- there would be nothing anyone could do to *coerce* liberated laborers into providing work effort, if they didn't *inherently* want to do it themselves.

[

Doesn't the latter paragraph depend upon assuming working would wish to do certain tasks?

Sure -- I'll grant that there's the assumption that such a political economy would have a basic, general sense of 'social responsibility', including for certain socially necessary tasks. But even if there *wasn't*, it would be possible to address outstanding / unfulfilled social needs through a labor-credit system, for example.

Sounds like that you are agreeing that liberated labor freely declining to labor on needed activities could pose a problem to the community. So how would the community find new "liberated labor" to do the work that old "liberated labor" refused to do? Why would the new folks be anymore desirous to be subservient than the old folks?

No guarantees -- just saying that there are more fish in the sea, so-to-speak.

[

"assuming"

Well, just with today's *existing* technology, a communist-type society would not have any difficulties in taking care of everyone's basic humane needs, with a minimum of labor participation. And, without the constraints of national borders there could be even *more* labor availability, for areas that required it.

I don't know how to address this 'variable' any more definitively since we're necessarily at a loss for specifics, but let's just say that the conditions are favorable for such a worldwide political overhaul.

It's my understanding that in his system, people could decide to increase the labor credits allocated to those workers.

Yes, if that group of people ('locality') had *already* put in sufficient liberated labor themselves to *possess* that increased number of labor credits -- else they'd have to go into a *debt* of labor credits, meaning that they're resorting to direct exploitation, which would be publicly displayed.

[

And...?

And what -- ?

If you mean "What might the implications of that be?", there are two answers....

Either localities in debt would have to find projects elsewhere to work at, to bring back sufficient amounts of labor credits to erase the debt, or else, if localities' debt problems were very commonplace, it would indicate that there isn't enough economic activity going on to make reciprocity possible, commonly.

The concern from a revolutionary point of view would be bad-enough material conditions that would encourage a lapse of economics back into the inferior market-based system -- "black markets".

It occurred to me that the model [...] provides for a kind of 'internal' black market of sorts, should historical material conditions go less-than-smoothly -- which could forestall *actual* black markets from becoming necessary and reappearing.

Since [...] labor credits only account-for work effort on a labor-hours -times- hazard/difficulty basis, *and* allows groups of people (a 'locality') to go into simple (non-financial) debt for the same, this could be considered a 'black market' kind of mechanism should scarcity prevail under such social conditions -- *many* localities could conceivably issue ongoing 'IOUs' (debt-based labor credits), because of difficult conditions.

In other words, if conditions of general material privation prevailed, there might not be any point in attempting to reconcile an overwhelming number of localities' labor-credit debts since not enough liberated-labor might be required on an ongoing reciprocal basis. Yet we could still maintain a collectivized social order without sliding back to exchange-based (black) markets.

[

If "liberated labor" has the right to refuse work, because, in their estimation the labor credits accrued them are not worth their efforts, the community must have the same right. They must be be able to refuse to contract with liberated labor if, in their estimation, the work needed is not worth the credits being demanded by liberated labor.

Agreed.

[

The result will seem to be that labor will be distributed, not as per need (or at least how socialists tend to define need) but according to who can bring the most labor credits to bear.
Its a market.

No, it's *not* a market, because more labor credits doesn't confer more 'purchasing power'. Goods are received according to mass demands -- with the backing of sufficient labor credits, for the necessary liberated-labor for production -- *not* on any given person's "ability to pay".

Sure, there could very well be population subsets of 'workaholics' who tend to look for projects to do, and they may also look for better rates of labor credits, but they wouldn't gain *material* rewards from such dedication -- they would gain the *political* reward of having a greater say in who would be brought on board for projects, going forward, due to their possession of greater numbers of labor credits, compared to the average person.

The reason it's not a market -- though rates of labor credits for labor hours *may* vary from the index somewhat -- is because there's no *independence* for abstract pricing outside of the political economy itself. Any and every divergence (or not) from the indexed rates could only result from a process of collective *political* deliberation, to create an *alternative* policy package (that specifies an alternative rate of pre-existing labor credits).

[

This sounds like nothing more than 'wage controls'-- labor credits accrued/spent are being tightly controlled.

No, no 'wage controls', and no limits on the flows of labor credits -- nothing of the sort is specified or implied.

The index of work-role multipliers (onto each and every labor-hour) would be derived from exit surveys from all work roles, as noted in the model.

[

Which leads to this:
1. Why should "liberated labor" be told how much labor credits can be accrued? It seems rather unliberating.
2. What organization tells, and enforces, such rules on "liberated labor"?

1. No, no limits on how many labor credits an individual can accrue -- keep in mind that labor credits are *non-financial*, and so they directly, proportionately represent the actual *past work* that someone has done. As a person's lifetime is finite, so would be the number of labor credits that they could possibly possess.

2. There would not need to be much in the way of societal oversight -- just enough to keep an eye on the computerized (automated) database processes that underlie the functions of the 'communist supply & demand' framework:

[W]ith contemporary computer technology all of the computational processes required -- for conducting the exit surveys, the sorting and mass-prioritizing of cumulative demands, the tracking of labor credits in circulation, the maintaining of informational wikis about each factory and workplace, the rank-and-file discussions and decision-making, etc. -- could be fully transparent from the source code onward, enabling full public oversight of all of society's political mechanics in realtime.

The 'central authority', or mass co-administration, could realistically be synonymous with full public oversight of these computational processes, thus relieving society of any ambiguities over political procedure.

[liberlict]

robbo203 believes in a society based on 'self determined needs'. Read his treatise.

[ckaihatsu]

Quick note -- just wanted to extend my apologies to argeiphontes, and mitigate my embarrassment, regarding my taking him / you to task over 'terminology', in post #63.

I just came across the following use of the term 'capital goods' and realized *my* understanding of the term was incorrect.

Since the private sector has been unwilling to undertake investment in capital goods like technology, machinery and buildings to generate jobs and increase output, households continue to face unemployment and stagnant incomes.

http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/912.php

[Mrcapitalist]

We do not need prices. We can do our calculations based on labor-time.

No price?That's stupid how am I supposed buy things then?

[Ledur]

No price?That's stupid how am I supposed buy things then?

There's a difference between price and value. You can assign a "value tag" instead of a "price tag" to a good....

Nonetheless, if you don't have a MARKET, then you don't need to do economic calculation the way markets do. Alternatives to the unidimensional value/price system (calculation in kind for example) can eliminate that need. In this thread (and others) you can find some details.