Coordination in an economically fragmented world

[ckaihatsu]

My assumption is that when people want and need things that they be available.



My assumption is that if if an objective of production is for "pre-planned surplus" of certain goods, that comes at a cost, which would carried by not producing goods that needed then and now.



Yes-- however the principle would be the same across these billions of different resources.



There are always "bottlenecks" in production. A bottleneck can occur in the production of wine because the glass for the bottles was distributed to the window makers so as to create a "pre-planned surplus" of windows.

Your "concern" here turns out to just be anxiety-mongering since *no one* can talk about specifics in a society that doesn't yet exist.

We both know that bottlenecks are potentially *possible*, but you're trying to get leverage out of this generic scenario to conjure-up yet another nightmare narrative for any attempted revolutionary order.

[liberlict]

Its laughable that some people here still invoke the utterly discredited Misesian Calculation Argument.

It's amusing to me that socialists always say the ECP has been refuted, yet none of you can agree on why it's wrong. Oh and for what it's worth, your proposal of as society where everybody determines their own needs is one of the most naive that I have read.

[liberlict]

Robbo's brilliant demolition of the ECP.

http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm

[liberlict]

Thanks everybody for the replies to this thread. I don't have anything to add, but it's all been good food for though.

[ckaihatsu]

Robbo's brilliant demolition of the ECP.

http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm

How might these priorities be determined? Here Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” springs very much to mind as a guide to action. It would seem reasonable to suppose that needs that were most pressing and upon which the satisfaction of others needs were contingent, would take priority over those other needs. We are talking here about our basic physiological needs for food, water, adequate sanitation and housing and so on. This would be reflected in the allocation of resources: high priority end goals would take precedence over low priority end goals where resources common to both are revealed (via the self regulating system of stock control) to be in short supply (that is, where the multifarious demands for such resources exceeds the supply of them). Buick and Crump speculate, not unreasonably, that some kind of “points system” might be used31 with which to evaluate a range of different projects facing such a society. This will certainly provide useful information to guide decision makers in resource allocation where choices have to be made between competing end uses. But the precise mechanism(s) to be used is something that will have to be decided upon by a socialist society itself.

My standing critique, though, is that a 'points system' doesn't go far enough because the question of how points are issued in the first place is intractable:

How would points be assigned to individuals in the first place -- ?

If it's on a strictly across-the-board consistent basis -- say 100 points per person per month -- that would be very egalitarian, but it would be an overall (societal) *disincentive* towards new efforts at greater social coordination and experimental / speculative advancements in research and development.

And, conversely, if *increasing* rates of points could be obtained for increased amounts of work effort, *that* would be tantamount to the commodification of labor, since labor would be directly exchangeable for material rewards -- too close to a capitalistic market economy, in other words.

Part of the reason for using RevLeft so much is precisely for this question of a feasible political-logistical approach to a post-capitalist political economy, and why I've developed my own 'solution' for such, at my blog entry, blah blah blah....

[liberlict]

My standing critique, though, is that a 'points system' doesn't go far enough because the question of how points are issued in the first place is intractable:

A points system is just a stand in for monetary calculation. "Points', in Robbo's vision have the same function as money. So he hasn't solved anything, he's just renamed "money" to "points".

And the whole section on Veblen is wrong. Veblen was wrong. Workers don't emulate the upper class. People on the whole just like leisure. It's not particularly complicated.

[ckaihatsu]

A points system is just a stand in for monetary calculation. "Points', in Robbo's vision have the same function as money. So he hasn't solved anything, he's just renamed "money" to "points".

Given that argeiphontes has thanked you without replying, I never thought *I'd* be making the arguments of a market socialist *for* him, but here we are....

The idea of any post-capitalist 'points' system is to introduce a society-wide *oversight* into economic matters, by having a central-planning apparatus adjust the point-values in a deliberate way, according to material realities.

This is far more than just a "stand in for monetary calculation" that you've characterized it as.

My critique stands, though, that we could do even *better* than market socialism and 'points', in favor of a political economy that is truly free-access, needs-driven, and that liberates labor.

The model that I developed, and advocate, is here:

communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://tinyurl.com/ygybheg

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

[liberlict]

Given that argeiphontes has thanked you without replying, I never thought *I'd* be making the arguments of a market socialist *for* him, but here we are....

The idea of any post-capitalist 'points' system is to introduce a society-wide *oversight* into economic matters, by having a central-planning apparatus adjust the point-values in a deliberate way, according to material realities.

This is far more than just a "stand in for monetary calculation" that you've characterized it as.

Yeah, but it's still monetary calculation, albeit tightly controlled by the state. Something akin to 'price-fixing' as we call it on planet earth.

The model that I developed, and advocate, is here:

I shall check it out and get back to you.

[ckaihatsu]

Yeah, but it's still monetary calculation, albeit tightly controlled by the state. Something akin to 'price-fixing' as we call on planet earth.

Well, since you're to the right of *any* kind of socialism, I'll take this on....

'Price-fixing' -- like 'money laundering' -- is a valid term only in the context of capitalism, wherein the market is looked-to as being the *standard*, around which all else, like regulation, is seen to revolve.

A post-*revolution* social order *could* possibly feature market socialism (or better), in which case it would be the *political economy* that's seen as the valid paradigm -- there'd be no 'monetary calculation', 'state', or 'price-fixing', since there would be no market mechanism independent of worker-collectivist oversight and control.

I have to state, again, that I don't advocate for market socialism, since it would be less-than-desirable from the standpoint of a *full* collectivist approach to the question of political economy.

[liberlict]

Well, since you're to the right of *any* kind of socialism, I'll take this on....

'Price-fixing' -- like 'money laundering' -- is a valid term only in the context of capitalism, wherein the market is looked-to as being the *standard*, around which all else, like regulation, is seen to revolve.

'Laundering' could happen in points-based calculation. Criminals would just have to steal things and swap them for points. It wouldn't be money-laundering, it would just be laundering. As with 'money' and 'points', giving something a different name doesn't make it different.

A post-*revolution* social order *could* possibly feature market socialism (or better), in which case it would be the *political economy* that's seen as the valid paradigm -- there'd be no 'monetary calculation', 'state', or 'price-fixing', since there would be no market mechanism independent of worker-collectivist oversight and control.

As I said in the OP, worker collectives would have to be isolated (unless you believe communism will be a global commune). Therefore, individual communes will have to decide for themselves what their produce is worth in relation to the communes around them. That's a market. There is simply no scenario in which the problems you want to escape will not apply. That's the problem with reality. It's quite stubborn and unforgiving.

I have to state, again, that I don't advocate for market socialism, since it would be less-than-desirable from the standpoint of a *full* collectivist approach to the question of political economy.

K

[liberlict]

OK, I'm still trying to work out how all these things come together. But it seems that labour credits are the unit of accounting? I can't work out how this doesn't clash with what you said:

And, conversely, if *increasing* rates of points could be obtained for increased amounts of work effort, *that* would be tantamount to the commodification of labor, since labor would be directly exchangeable for material rewards -- too close to a capitalistic market economy, in other words.

It seems to me that accounting with labour credits would create a labour credit market, commodification, etc..

I don't understand what the advantage of using labor credits over Robbo's points system is.

[ckaihatsu]

'Laundering' could happen in points-based calculation. Criminals would just have to steal things and swap them for points. It wouldn't be money-laundering, it would just be laundering. As with 'money' and 'points', giving something a different name doesn't make it different.

The overall idea -- which you don't subscribe to, obviously -- is that there would be no social basis for underhandedness within socialism / communism because there wouldn't be any material deprivation or lack of access to developmental possibilities, due to liberated labor's common control of society's implements.

'Stealing' can only take place within conditions of scarcity, as we know all-too-well under *current* conditions of elitist wealth ownership and control, that produce *artificial* scarcity for the world's vast majority.

*Any* kind of socialism -- even a market-socialist points-based one -- would value the overall egalitarian social order, and its collective administration over material production and distribution, over any petty individualistic or small-group opportunism that may be attempted within. (Note how the Maduro administration of today doesn't tolerate disruptive actions from members of the opposition.)

As I said in the OP, worker collectives would have to be isolated (unless you believe communism will be a global commune). Therefore, individual communes will have to decide for themselves what their produce is worth in relation to the communes around them. That's a market.

Well, I happen to agree with your analysis here, and that's why I'm *not* a market socialist -- yes, socialism / communism *does* have to be worldwide, for the same reason.

[ckaihatsu]

OK, I'm still trying to work out how all these things come together. But it seems that labour credits are the unit of accounting? I can't work out how this doesn't clash with what you said:

And, conversely, if *increasing* rates of points could be obtained for increased amounts of work effort, *that* would be tantamount to the commodification of labor, since labor would be directly exchangeable for material rewards -- too close to a capitalistic market economy, in other words.

It seems to me that accounting with labour credits would create a labour credit market, commodification, etc..

I don't understand what the advantage of using labor credits over Robbo's points system is.

Sure -- no prob.

The quote / critique of mine there stands as-is, because *all* approaches to a post-capitalist economics that I've seen -- like the 'points' method -- use some kind of system of *exchangeability* between liberated labor and material rewards.

I mean to emphasize that this general approach is *inherently problematic* because it can't adequately resolve the question of how points are derived and assigned in the first place.

Here's the same quote, again, in full:

How would points be assigned to individuals in the first place -- ?

If it's on a strictly across-the-board consistent basis -- say 100 points per person per month -- that would be very egalitarian, but it would be an overall (societal) *disincentive* towards new efforts at greater social coordination and experimental / speculative advancements in research and development.

And, conversely, if *increasing* rates of points could be obtained for increased amounts of work effort, *that* would be tantamount to the commodification of labor, since labor would be directly exchangeable for material rewards -- too close to a capitalistic market economy, in other words.

Part of the reason for using RevLeft so much is precisely for this question of a feasible political-logistical approach to a post-capitalist political economy, and why I've developed my own 'solution' for such, at my blog entry, blah blah blah....

It seems to me that accounting with labour credits would create a labour credit market, commodification, etc..

I don't understand what the advantage of using labor credits over Robbo's points system is.

Here are relevant excerpts from my blog entry, which speak to this issue:

A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits

To clarify and simplify, the labor credits system is like a cash-only economy that only works for *services* (labor), while the world of material implements, resources, and products is open-access and non-abstractable. (No financial valuations.)

I'll contend that I have developed a model that [...] uses a system of *circulating* labor credits that are *not* exchangeable for material items of any kind. In accordance with communism being synonymous with 'free-access', all material implements, resources, and products would be freely available and *not* quantifiable according to any abstract valuations. The labor credits would represent past labor hours completed, multiplied by the difficulty or hazard of the work role performed. The difficulty/hazard multiplier would be determined by a mass survey of all work roles, compiled into an index.

In this way all concerns for labor, large and small, could be reduced to the ready transfer of labor-hour credits. The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession, and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673

[Baseball]

The overall idea -- which you don't subscribe to, obviously -- is that there would be no social basis for underhandedness within socialism / communism because there wouldn't be any material deprivation or lack of access to developmental possibilities, due to liberated labor's common control of society's implements.

It seems this moves in a circle-- the points system guides production, but there is no fear of "underandedness" because socialist production automatically produces enough for all.

[argeiphontes]

Given that argeiphontes has thanked you without replying, I never thought *I'd* be making the arguments of a market socialist *for* him, but here we are....

*Any* kind of socialism -- even a market-socialist points-based one --

The market socialism I advocate uses money, not points, and semi-free markets in commodity production and distribution, like exist today. Prices are allowed to float in the market like they do today, there is little market interference apart from setting different ground rules (socialist vs. capitalist relations of production). This causes different pressures and creates better outcomes. Benjamin Tucker would like it.

[argeiphontes]

Well, I happen to agree with your analysis here, and that's why I'm *not* a market socialist -- yes, socialism / communism *does* have to be worldwide, for the same reason.

I don't get it. I think you should disagree with liberlict rather than reach that conclusion. Communism has to be worldwide because of hostility of foreign bourgeoisie and lack of access to certain resources, was my impression.

The nature of the market or calculation problem doesn't change if you increase the number of production units you have to calculate for.

[argeiphontes]

It seems this moves in a circle-- the points system guides production, but there is no fear of "underandedness" because socialist production automatically produces enough for all.

He said there would be no "social basis" for underhandedness. Somebody is going to regret not ordering a commodity, and will buy, trade, or commit a crime to get it. That's not the same as, for example, systemic inequality that favors a high crime rate. It's more like forgetting to budget for a computer printer and then having to wait until you get paid again (your points are replenished) to be able to buy it.

[ckaihatsu]

It seems this moves in a circle-- the points system guides production, but there is no fear of "underandedness" because socialist production automatically produces enough for all.

Sure, I suppose it's a 'circle', if you like.... (Not to mean endorsement of any points system, though.)

I'd say the correct framework to keep in mind here is a three-pointed one (triangular), wherein we have to find a resolution of the interests of (liberated) labor, with that of consumption, and that of mass administration.

From the blog....

What's called-for is a system that can match liberated-labor organizing ability, over mass-collectivized assets and resources, to the mass demand from below for collective production. If *liberated-labor* is too empowered it would probably lead to materialistic factionalism -- like a bad syndicalism -- and back into separatist claims of private property.

If *mass demand* is too empowered it would probably lead back to a clever system of exploitation, wherein labor would cease to retain control over the implements of mass production.

And, if the *administration* of it all is too specialized and detached we would have the phenomenon of Stalinism, or bureaucratic elitism and party favoritism.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673

---

It seems this moves in a circle-- the points system guides production, but there is no fear of "underandedness" because socialist production automatically produces enough for all.

But you mean to say that you perceive a "contradiction" between the stated goal of material abundance, with a necessarily-"rationing" process of consumption-curtailing points.

I don't think it's problematic in that way at all, if that's what you're getting at -- so, to defend the points system for the sake of argument, the 'points' *could* beneficially serve within a system that doesn't pretend to promise everyone 100% of everything imaginable, plus unicorns. Rather, the idea of the points is to gauge public economic sentiment, as towards more-customized shorter-run productions, and on-the-horizon production goals within a panoply of many other similarly-distant possibilities, all *within* a mass-production environment that more-than-sufficiently produces everyone's basics for them, without exception.

In short, any approaches or methodologies here on the political-logistical question would be dealing with any extents that can't simply be covered by a liberated-labor-led gift economy.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't get it. I think you should disagree with liberlict rather than reach that conclusion.

I *was* gonna use cuss words.... (grin)

Communism has to be worldwide because of hostility of foreign bourgeoisie and lack of access to certain resources, was my impression.

What you *really* want here is the link to a YouTube video of me touching my knee to the ground....

The nature of the market or calculation problem doesn't change if you increase the number of production units you have to calculate for.

(Yawn.... The misguided top-down 'blueprint' approach once more....) (Why I'm not a market socialist.)

[liberlict]

I'll contend that I have developed a model that [...] uses a system of *circulating* labor credits that are *not* exchangeable for material items of any kind.

It's an interesting idea. My first thought is that it would be very difficult to implement. You say that these labour credits wouldn't be allowed to be swapped for material items, but what's stopping people doing this? Say I've earned 9000 credits, what's stopping me trading them in for a plasma TV, as opposed to using them to hire labour?

Also I think giving all labour the same value raises a lot of problems. What about people who don't have any skills in demand? There's going to be an unemployment problem (though admittedly this is a problem in capitalism too).