Coordination in an economically fragmented world

[Baseball]

You assume that there are no natural mechanisms to manage this. On the contrary there are. Again supply and demand do not cease to exist. They simply become democratized.

How does it continue to exist? As Ckaihatsu as stated, should the workers of the widget factories do not wish to adequately supply to people their demand of widgets, they don't need to. Where is supply and demand? What does it mean to say it has become "democratized?'

[ckaihatsu]

How does it continue to exist? As Ckaihatsu as stated, should the workers of the widget factories do not wish to adequately supply to people their demand of widgets, they don't need to. Where is supply and demand? What does it mean to say it has become "democratized?'

LL is "empirically" correct, due to fundamental realities of demand, labor, and materials, and your use of yet another negative scenario doesn't change that.

(And, to take on your negative scenario, if *some* workers don't agree with producing widgets, that doesn't mean that *everyone* doesn't want to produce widgets. 'Some workers' =/= 'everyone on the planet'.)

[Baseball]

LL is "empirically" correct, due to fundamental realities of demand, labor, and materials, and your use of yet another negative scenario doesn't change that.

(And, to take on your negative scenario, if *some* workers don't agree with producing widgets, that doesn't mean that *everyone* doesn't want to produce widgets. 'Some workers' =/= 'everyone on the planet'.)

It was not my negative scenario, but rather yours (Note #96)- albeit without the product called widgets.

Yes, not all workers would wish to work making widgets. Nor would all workers be expected to.
But widget workers are choosing to work making widgets. It is not then unreasonable to expect that they work in a fashion to satisfy the demands of the widget wanting world.

It is unreasonable for those widget workers to tell the widget wanting world that they will get their widgets according to the scheduling and priorities of the widget workers.

[ckaihatsu]

It was not my negative scenario, but rather yours (Note #96)- albeit without the product called widgets.

Yes, not all workers would wish to work making widgets. Nor would all workers be expected to.
But widget workers are choosing to work making widgets. It is not then unreasonable to expect that they work in a fashion to satisfy the demands of the widget wanting world.

The particulars of any given post-capitalist scenario would depend on actual realities at the time, of course -- that said, what we can say *in general* is that we want the overall system to be generally *conducive* to a resolution between somewhat divergent interests -- those of the consumer for more-and-better products, versus those of liberated labor for more control over production and less work time.

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 is unreasonable for those widget workers to tell the widget wanting world that they will get their widgets according to the scheduling and priorities of the widget workers.

I roundly disagree here since the whole premise of a proletarian revolution is to seize control of social production, for the workers themselves. I conceptualize this as an axiomatic 'principle', without which the whole project of socialism would be askew, and meaningless.

Now -- *that* said, I do realize that any group of workers' efforts do take place within a larger social context, and that's the 'demand' aspect of the equation.

I'd imagine there'd be a push-and-pull, or mild tug-of-war, between these two fundamental interests of liberated labor and consumers -- and triangularly, with the interests of an extra-local pan-administration included (always-looking to *generalize* production over greater expanses and scales).

Since all laborers would be liberated and would have individual discretion over participation on any given project, there would be workers who *would* consent to produce widgets under certain parameters and there would be workers who *wouldn't* consent to produce widgets under those same parameters, as you've just acknowledged.

The issue then becomes what *are* those parameters, and is there a sufficient supply of available willing liberated labor to satisfy expressed demand -- ?

I'll refer you back to this portion from post #80:

Over time and successive iterations the 'raw' demands would be *refined* to indicate a favoring of one or another proposal or policy package that's currently active, so that there would be an ongoing dynamic interaction between demands and proposals. Successive mass rankings of these proposals-in-play would show which one (or more) are more favored than others, for final implementation by willing liberated labor, which would undoubtedly also be a part of the proposal-refining process.

See 'A world without money' for a sample scenario:

tinyurl.com/ylm3gev

[argeiphontes]

I mean to say that your concern with the 'solidness' of a money's valuation (relative to its face-value) belies / indicates your inclination towards the *capitalist* side of things -- a more-leftist stance wouldn't give a *shit* about underlying monetary valuations.

I don't understand what you're accusing me of. I expect the value of money to float like it does today. It's not tied to anything unnatural. You'll have to be more specific, otherwise I don't understand why I'm a "monetarist" nor do I understand what "monetarists" want the currency to do. I expect it to be a piece of paper that buys X amount of Y for Z pieces of paper, as determined by market forces and the actions of the central bank.

Okay, acknowledged, but even with a localist worker ownership all of the market-type *financial* functions, like a firm's issuing of bonds, and/or the extension of credit to individuals, would still be at hand, correct -- ? This means that the market-type economics would take on a life of its own, as it does today. People could spend more than their share of the firm's revenue, and firms could be forcibly taken over financially, etc.

Again you're ignoring the very-real potential and possibility for this "market socialism" to lose the 'socialism' aspect altogether because of its allowing of financial operations -- so while the good-behavior workers would dutifully put their wages into the *public* banking system there'd also be -- per your acknowledgement -- wealthy individuals who could very well *out-compete* the public banking system through their greater market capitalizations. They'd be able to make capital available, as for business expansion, at much better rates than what the relatively under-capitalized public banking system could manage to offer.

Okay, again acknowledged, but the financial realm remains intact -- as co-owners the localist 'workers' are no longer workers with a common class interest, but rather are more like shareholders who each have an individual stake in the company's profitability.

This structure would lend itself to a dotcom / tech company -like process and dynamic of *over-valuation*, since that's what would matter in this landscape, moreso than actual labor done or tangible revenues brought in -- again, *nothing similar* to socialism whatsoever.

Syndicalism at best, and shareholders at worst.

No, this is all a straw man. If something is incompatible with socialism, it won't be allowed. There is no reason for firms to issue bonds, for example. You'll have to explain how individuals could out-finance a public finance system that draws its capitalization from taxation of firms' capital stock. That's like saying that an individual firm could outcompete the federal government. Even in capitalism it's impossible, let alone in market socialism.

You also have to understand that this is a democracy. If something isn't working, it can be tweaked. The government can always "outcompete" a private firm by democratic process.

[argeiphontes]

LL is "empirically" correct, due to fundamental realities of demand, labor, and materials, and your use of yet another negative scenario doesn't change that.

It would benefit everyone on this board to add Baseball to their "ignore" lists.

[Loony Le Fist]

It was not my negative scenario, but rather yours (Note #96)- albeit without the product called widgets.

Yes, not all workers would wish to work making widgets. Nor would all workers be expected to.
But widget workers are choosing to work making widgets. It is not then unreasonable to expect that they work in a fashion to satisfy the demands of the widget wanting world.

It is unreasonable for those widget workers to tell the widget wanting world that they will get their widgets according to the scheduling and priorities of the widget workers.

What stops a factory owner from doing the same thing? If you say profit, you're on the right track.

Now what stops a collective of workers from not making widgets? Their paychecks. Same thing.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't understand what you're accusing me of. I expect the value of money to float like it does today. It's not tied to anything unnatural. You'll have to be more specific, otherwise I don't understand why I'm a "monetarist" nor do I understand what "monetarists" want the currency to do. I expect it to be a piece of paper that buys X amount of Y for Z pieces of paper, as determined by market forces and the actions of the central bank.

Okay -- it's the 'actions of the central bank' that I mean to speak to.

My critique here echoes the one I have of any post-capitalism 'points' system -- namely, how are the points (or monies) allocated in the first place -- ?

And, going further, by what policy is your market-socialism money supply governed by -- ?

[Monetarism] argues that excessive expansion of the money supply is inherently inflationary, and that monetary authorities should focus solely on maintaining price stability.

The book attributed inflation to excess money supply generated by a central bank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism

So, the 'monetarist' label is used as a synonym for 'anti-Keynesianism' -- as socialists we're not nearly as sympathetic, if at all, with those who have substantial *savings* in the system, in the form of money (or whatever), as we are with those who have *debts* in the system.

So, between the two economic factions of [1] 'savers' -- who want strong-value, monetarist money policies -- and that of [2] debtors / investors, who favor Keynesianist, more-liquidity policies, leftists would be more on the side of [2], for increasing the money supply, especially if the newly created money were then put directly into workers' hands, through a cutting of taxes on wages, or a universal increase in wages and benefits -- which never happens, of course.

No, this is all a straw man. If something is incompatible with socialism, it won't be allowed. There is no reason for firms to issue bonds, for example.

Okay, no equities and now no bonds -- what, then, if a firm is looking to expand its operations, and it goes to the public banks and is *denied* financing, probably for a political reason of some sort -- ? Those involved re-invent libertarianism and whine about their treatment all the way to the pockets of private concerns, who then pony up the funds -- in some sort of makeshift financial form -- and, as a group put up their middle finger to the government.

In which direction would this market-socialist government lean, then -- more towards the *relaxation* of regulations, to then relent and provide funding to this firm, or more towards the *enforcement* of its political policies, physically repressing all opposition to its decisions -- ?

You'll have to explain how individuals could out-finance a public finance system that draws its capitalization from taxation of firms' capital stock. That's like saying that an individual firm could outcompete the federal government. Even in capitalism it's impossible, let alone in market socialism.

I think your conception here once again belies your inclination towards viewing an economic system as being somehow 'neutral' and apolitical, when in fact the real world is actually far more complex and messy.

The goal of any given firm is often to *attract financing* -- and it may not always be on the best terms, but at least it will be expedient, hopefully. I mean that the point of economic activity is not necessarily to 'beat the government', but rather to *make profits*. In your market socialism the public finance system would *not* have a monopoly on finance, as you're making it out to be. Consider:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carry_(investment)

You also have to understand that this is a democracy. If something isn't working, it can be tweaked. The government can always "outcompete" a private firm by democratic process.

Yet the government's overall monetary policy and case-by-case financing decisions are what would be at stake here -- the problem with advocating market socialism is that you're then caught in the position of being a fencesitter regarding these dynamics: Would the market socialist government more-favor *property rights* in any given circumstances, as for the untrammeled flow of capital, or would it more-favor the *human rights* (workers' rights) in any given situation, as for the building of mass infrastructure that may not be economic-returns-oriented -- ?

[Baseball]

The particulars of any given post-capitalist scenario would depend on actual realities at the time, of course -- that said, what we can say *in general* is that we want the overall system to be generally *conducive* to a resolution between somewhat divergent interests -- those of the consumer for more-and-better products, versus those of liberated labor for more control over production and less work time.


I roundly disagree here since the whole premise of a proletarian revolution is to seize control of social production, for the workers themselves. I conceptualize this as an axiomatic 'principle', without which the whole project of socialism would be askew, and meaningless.

Now -- *that* said, I do realize that any group of workers' efforts do take place within a larger social context, and that's the 'demand' aspect of the equation.

I'd imagine there'd be a push-and-pull, or mild tug-of-war, between these two fundamental interests of liberated labor and consumers -- and triangularly, with the interests of an extra-local pan-administration included (always-looking to *generalize* production over greater expanses and scales).

Since all laborers would be liberated and would have individual discretion over participation on any given project, there would be workers who *would* consent to produce widgets under certain parameters and there would be workers who *wouldn't* consent to produce widgets under those same parameters, as you've just acknowledged.

The issue then becomes what *are* those parameters, and is there a sufficient supply of available willing liberated labor to satisfy expressed demand -- ?

I'll refer you back to this portion from post #80:

The complaint against capitalism, on this score, is that this "tug of war" that exists between a producer and consumer is the result of capitalist activities. It is not, as you point out. Its the result of economic activity. Socialism needs to account for it in the course of normal everyday production.

Now, as agreed, the objective is find labor who is willing and able to work within the parameters presented. Those parameters can only be that which will satisfy those needs. Otherwise, production won't meet demand, and the objective is not met.
And it is certainly true that not all labor will wish to work to under the necessary parameters. So those workers will need to work somewhere else, and systems need to be in place to insure this.
AND/OR systems need to be in place so as to change those parameters. Which means ways by which labor (call 'em "liberated" if you wish) needs to be able to work to change those parameters-- quitting, withholding labor ect.

But this is nothing more than labor unrest- which socialism is supposed to have ended.

Your note at #80 remains incomplete. Its not enough to rank that somebody wants widgets ahead of sprockets. Production has to know whether this remains true if the production of widgets come at the cost of not producing sufficient sprockets.
Moreover, since widgets and sprockets are made of cogs, both the widget and sprocket workers are not merely producers of widgets and cogs, but they are also consumers of cogs.
The prioritization lists cannot be one level deep. It has no where to go when the inevitable tug of war develops all up and down the line of production.

[Baseball]

What stops a factory owner from doing the same thing? If you say profit, you're on the right track.

Now what stops a collective of workers from not making widgets? Their paychecks. Same thing.

Not all socialists are of the "libertarian" bent.

Should the loss of a paycheck inspire the widget workers to cease producing widgets, in the libertarian socialist community, good for them. All this means is that they have drawn the conclusion that that which they receive is not worth their effort.
They are producing for the same reason as production exists in the socialist community-- for a profit.

[ckaihatsu]

The complaint against capitalism, on this score, is that this "tug of war" that exists between a producer and consumer is the result of capitalist activities. It is not, as you point out. Its the result of economic activity. Socialism needs to account for it in the course of normal everyday production.

Now, as agreed, the objective is find labor who is willing and able to work within the parameters presented. Those parameters can only be that which will satisfy those needs. Otherwise, production won't meet demand, and the objective is not met.

Not so fast -- any given "objective" of satisfying expressed demand may *or* may not be that crucial to human well-being. (I take it as a given that people would tend to more-agree / mass-agree on the *basics* of life and living, thus collectively mass-prioritizing 'food', 'shelter', 'sanitation', 'health', etc.)

You're being rather mechanical here in validating *any* and all demand as being socially necessary 'objectives' -- regardless of their numerical positions on the cumulative mass-prioritized list of rankings.

We might call this gap -- in matching demand (of various magnitudes) to available willing liberated labor -- an 'interface' of sorts, one that does *not necessarily* have to be fulfilled.

So, for example, if someone happens to have a specialty interest in 17th century widgets, and they (and even some of their fellow collectors) express a demand for these historical widgets to be re-created from scratch to look like the originals, that doesn't automatically necessitate it being an 'objective' for the larger society.

Perhaps this specialty demand catches on and becomes in-vogue with thousands and millions of others -- that would only help its case of realizing production of the widgets. But perhaps the demand stays relatively constrained to this initial small group -- then the parameters would most likely have to be adjusted, to cater to the terms of an interested liberated labor, for full production. It's either that or d.i.y.

And it is certainly true that not all labor will wish to work to under the necessary parameters. So those workers will need to work somewhere else, and systems need to be in place to insure this.

Here you're positing "employment" as being socially necessary in a post-capitalist society, when it could very well *not* be, depending on the factors of relative automation of production, and general societal expectations / desires for goods and services.

AND/OR systems need to be in place so as to change those parameters. Which means ways by which labor (call 'em "liberated" if you wish) needs to be able to work to change those parameters-- quitting, withholding labor ect.

Yup. See above, at this post, or the content at post #80.

But this is nothing more than labor unrest- which socialism is supposed to have ended.

In a society of material equals there would be no "labor unrest" -- either a liberated laborer would be willing to participate in a project or production run, or they would not. Their own personal well-being would be unaffected by the decision either way (no coercion), so this serves to demonstrate both that they have proportionate political control over the means of collective social production, and that they are truly equals in the political economy.

Your note at #80 remains incomplete. Its not enough to rank that somebody wants widgets ahead of sprockets. Production has to know whether this remains true if the production of widgets come at the cost of not producing sufficient sprockets.
Moreover, since widgets and sprockets are made of cogs, both the widget and sprocket workers are not merely producers of widgets and cogs, but they are also consumers of cogs.
The prioritization lists cannot be one level deep. It has no where to go when the inevitable tug of war develops all up and down the line of production.

There's nothing "inevitable" about a fierce and dramatic tug-of-war over contended resources -- it's always a *possibility*, depending on actual real-world circumstances, but is not automatically a given, like one of your proffered nightmare scenarios.

The 'communist supply & demand' model, and the content at post #80, *are* sufficient to address your argument here -- certainly any and all proposals would take existing material realities, as regarding 'cogs', into account, and would consciously address matters of such supplies and supply chains.

[Baseball]

Not so fast -- any given "objective" of satisfying expressed demand may *or* may not be that crucial to human well-being.

It doesn't matter. It is whatever people want.

(I take it as a given that people would tend to more-agree / mass-agree on the *basics* of life and living, thus collectively mass-prioritizing 'food', 'shelter', 'sanitation', 'health', etc.)

No doubt. Thus my comment of a few weeks ago-- here's some food. eat it. There's a house- live there.

Production should be more than that.

You're being rather mechanical here in validating *any* and all demand as being socially necessary 'objectives' -- regardless of their numerical positions on the cumulative mass-prioritized list of rankings.

Well, if the ranking are subject to being ignored, you opening a can of worms here, so to speak...

We might call this gap -- in matching demand (of various magnitudes) to available willing liberated labor -- an 'interface' of sorts, one that does *not necessarily* have to be fulfilled.

Why? People do not need to eat corn because the farmers have chosen to grow spinach instead?

So, for example, if someone happens to have a specialty interest in 17th century widgets, and they (and even some of their fellow collectors) express a demand for these historical widgets to be re-created from scratch to look like the originals, that doesn't automatically necessitate it being an 'objective' for the larger society.

No. It does not.

Perhaps this specialty demand catches on and becomes in-vogue with thousands and millions of others -- that would only help its case of realizing production of the widgets. But perhaps the demand stays relatively constrained to this initial small group -- then the parameters would most likely have to be adjusted, to cater to the terms of an interested liberated labor, for full production. It's either that or d.i.y.

Basically what this means is that work exists so long as its worthwhile to the community. You judge the worthwhile of that good as to whether someone actually wishes to produce it-- which tends to negate the former.

Here you're positing "employment" as being socially necessary in a post-capitalist society, when it could very well *not* be, depending on the factors of relative automation of production, and general societal expectations / desires for goods and services.

I am suggesting it as the only rational way of the community securing corn.

In a society of material equals there would be no "labor unrest" -- either a liberated laborer would be willing to participate in a project or production run, or they would not. Their own personal well-being would be unaffected by the decision either way (no coercion)

It actually would, though admittedly it would not be so apparent.
The worker who spends his time making widgets that nobody wants, because he enjoys making widgets, is wasting those resources as well as not working on things people want. Such a decision does impact his personal wellbeing as no doubt he is not unique in the world in this regard. And since he is working where he wants to work, he is behaving logically as per the system. Even if he can't find toilet paper because few workers have any desire to work manufacturing toilet paper.

There's nothing "inevitable" about a fierce and dramatic tug-of-war over contended resources -

It doesn't have to be fierce at all-- it can be benign. It simply an observation that this relationship is not created by capitalism, but rather is a feature of production.

The 'communist supply & demand' model, and the content at post #80, *are* sufficient to address your argument here -- certainly any and all proposals would take existing material realities, as regarding 'cogs', into account, and would consciously address matters of such supplies and supply chains.

Only if people wish to make cogs, in sufficient numbers, to supply sufficient numbers of widgets.
But yes, there may not be enough material to make sufficient cogs to make sufficient widgets. And there goes the prioritization lists...

[ckaihatsu]

Not so fast -- any given "objective" of satisfying expressed demand may *or* may not be that crucial to human well-being.

It doesn't matter. It is whatever people want.

I mean to take issue with the term you're using, 'objective', and its implications -- I'm saying that not every expressed demand is automatically a societal 'objective' / socially necessary.

I agree that people's 'wants' would be on a sliding scale along with 'needs', depending on the results of the cumulative mass-prioritization.

(I take it as a given that people would tend to more-agree / mass-agree on the *basics* of life and living, thus collectively mass-prioritizing 'food', 'shelter', 'sanitation', 'health', etc.)

No doubt. Thus my comment of a few weeks ago-- here's some food. eat it. There's a house- live there.

Production should be more than that.

I'm thoroughly surprised at this line of yours here, and I don't know *what* politics you mean to represent with it -- I wholly *disagree* that production and distribution should look anything like this description of yours.

Instead, the more world-communal-type of approach would be 'What kinds of food does everyone want, and who wants to make it?', or 'Who wants which houses, and who wants new dwellings, and who would be willing to build them?'

My system that uses the labor credits is simply a "middleware" mechanism that would serve to facilitate the above.

You're being rather mechanical here in validating *any* and all demand as being socially necessary 'objectives' -- regardless of their numerical positions on the cumulative mass-prioritized list of rankings.

Well, if the ranking are subject to being ignored, you opening a can of worms here, so to speak...

The mass-rankings -- along with all related discussions around them -- would be the *prime* economic information in the post-capitalist political economy, like what the stock markets are today.

The higher that demands happened to be on the rankings, the more *socially necessary* they would be, by definition. And since there would be no dichotomy between liberated laborers and consumers (and co-administrators), the population as a whole would essentially be facing a mirror in viewing the mass rankings.

We might call this gap -- in matching demand (of various magnitudes) to available willing liberated labor -- an 'interface' of sorts, one that does *not necessarily* have to be fulfilled.

Why? People do not need to eat corn because the farmers have chosen to grow spinach instead?

Well, I'll take this negative scenario of yours seriously, and say, 'yes', there *could* be a situation in which the discretion of the farmers -- since they're workers -- would *override* a consumer preference for corn.

As ever much would depend on the actual details.

So, for example, if someone happens to have a specialty interest in 17th century widgets, and they (and even some of their fellow collectors) express a demand for these historical widgets to be re-created from scratch to look like the originals, that doesn't automatically necessitate it being an 'objective' for the larger society.

No. It does not.

Okay, so, then, for the record, you are in agreement here that some demands *would* be on the 'outskirts', or 'fringes', of mainstream post-capitalist economic activity, and would not be generally seen as societal 'objectives' for production.

Perhaps this specialty demand catches on and becomes in-vogue with thousands and millions of others -- that would only help its case of realizing production of the widgets. But perhaps the demand stays relatively constrained to this initial small group -- then the parameters would most likely have to be adjusted, to cater to the terms of an interested liberated labor, for full production. It's either that or d.i.y.

Basically what this means is that work exists so long as its worthwhile to the community. You judge the worthwhile of that good as to whether someone actually wishes to produce it-- which tends to negate the former.

I appreciate your consideration here -- I'll point out, though, that your inclination, or attitude, is, unfortunately, a *negative* one, since one could just as validly view this societal composition in a more *positive* light, and say that 'whether someone actually wishes to produce it' could *support* and *reinforce* the 'work [that is] [...] worthwhile to the community'.

Once again we're relegated to the sidelines by virtue of not actually being *in* such a society, so it's difficult to say just *how* cooperative and productive it could be. I'll stay with the 'glass-half-full' camp regarding it, though.

Here you're positing "employment" as being socially necessary in a post-capitalist society, when it could very well *not* be, depending on the factors of relative automation of production, and general societal expectations / desires for goods and services.

I am suggesting it as the only rational way of the community securing corn.

Okay.... Again, it boils down to real-world circumstances and details.

In a society of material equals there would be no "labor unrest" -- either a liberated laborer would be willing to participate in a project or production run, or they would not. Their own personal well-being would be unaffected by the decision either way (no coercion), so this serves to demonstrate both that they have proportionate political control over the means of collective social production, and that they are truly equals in the political economy.

It actually would, though admittedly it would not be so apparent.
The worker who spends his time making widgets that nobody wants, because he enjoys making widgets, is wasting those resources as well as not working on things people want. Such a decision does impact his personal wellbeing as no doubt he is not unique in the world in this regard. And since he is working where he wants to work, he is behaving logically as per the system. Even if he can't find toilet paper because few workers have any desire to work manufacturing toilet paper.

Okay, it's a valid point -- if everyone opts to be a sheerly individualistic hobbyist hermit then there will *be* no collective-ness, and everyone would have to fend for themselves without actual mass production.

I can only say that this would be highly unlikely, especially in the context of a historical collectivist revolution that dispenses with individualistic private-property concerns as its founding.

There's nothing "inevitable" about a fierce and dramatic tug-of-war over contended resources -- it's always a *possibility*, depending on actual real-world circumstances, but is not automatically a given, like one of your proffered nightmare scenarios.

It doesn't have to be fierce at all-- it can be benign. It simply an observation that this relationship is not created by capitalism, but rather is a feature of production.

Again I have to point out our differences in attitudes -- I can't take it as a given that social dissonance would be inherent to a collectivist-based mode of production.

There could very well be a sunshine-y, hand-holding, wide-smiling kind of social cooperation that pervades the social order for all of eternity -- it's just as possible as what you're espousing.

The 'communist supply & demand' model, and the content at post #80, *are* sufficient to address your argument here -- certainly any and all proposals would take existing material realities, as regarding 'cogs', into account, and would consciously address matters of such supplies and supply chains.

Only if people wish to make cogs, in sufficient numbers, to supply sufficient numbers of widgets.
But yes, there may not be enough material to make sufficient cogs to make sufficient widgets. And there goes the prioritization lists...

Details, details, and your penchant for the glass-half-empty....

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=ckaihatsu;2730092]I mean to take issue with the term you're using, 'objective', and its implications -- I'm saying that not every expressed demand is automatically a societal 'objective' / socially necessary.

I agree that people's 'wants' would be on a sliding scale along with 'needs', depending on the results of the cumulative mass-prioritization.

Okay, so, then, for the record, you are in agreement here that some demands *would* be on the 'outskirts', or 'fringes', of mainstream post-capitalist economic activity, and would not be generally seen as societal 'objectives' for production.

This is true of production in a capitalist community as well.

I appreciate your consideration here -- I'll point out, though, that your inclination, or attitude, is, unfortunately, a *negative* one, since one could just as validly view this societal composition in a more *positive* light, and say that 'whether someone actually wishes to produce it' could *support* and *reinforce* the 'work [that is] [...] worthwhile to the community'.

I could. But when dealing with production by millions for millions "could" isn't enough.

Okay, it's a valid point -- if everyone opts to be a sheerly individualistic hobbyist hermit then there will *be* no collective-ness, and everyone would have to fend for themselves without actual mass production.

I can only say that this would be highly unlikely, especially in the context of a historical collectivist revolution that dispenses with individualistic private-property concerns as its founding.

Its not really a question of being sheerly individualistic. Its whether the system validates such incorrect inactions.
So when the society needs 1000 cogs, the system has to assure that those cogs are made.
But that itself isn't even enough. It still has to assure that those 1000 cogs are in fact needed at all, that its construction does in fact benefit the community, even if the community says it does on a prioritization list.

Nothing in your proposals do this.

Again I have to point out our differences in attitudes -- I can't take it as a given that social dissonance would be inherent to a collectivist-based mode of production.

There could very well be a sunshine-y, hand-holding, wide-smiling kind of social cooperation that pervades the social order for all of eternity -- it's just as possible as what you're espousing.

I said it is inherent in production-- which would include collectivist base.
Moreover, I did not deny it could indeed be all sunshine-y. However, as there is no glue between production and consumption in your proposals, it is highly unlikely sunshine-y is the outcome.

[ckaihatsu]

I appreciate your consideration here -- I'll point out, though, that your inclination, or attitude, is, unfortunately, a *negative* one, since one could just as validly view this societal composition in a more *positive* light, and say that 'whether someone actually wishes to produce it' could *support* and *reinforce* the 'work [that is] [...] worthwhile to the community'.

I could. But when dealing with production by millions for millions "could" isn't enough.

I don't know what kind of reassurance you're looking for, then -- the model itself, being automated (based in present-day information communications technology) does a fine job of ascertaining the various strengths of consumer preferences / demands, on a relative scale, and also cumulatively over any given locality or combination of localities.

Likewise the same ranking system can use the same function to reflect the mass-support for various proposals that are out there, particularly concerning matters of mass production and labor-credit budgets for the same.

Simply being a contrarian doesn't add anything to the topic or conversation.

Okay, it's a valid point -- if everyone opts to be a sheerly individualistic hobbyist hermit then there will *be* no collective-ness, and everyone would have to fend for themselves without actual mass production.

I can only say that this would be highly unlikely, especially in the context of a historical collectivist revolution that dispenses with individualistic private-property concerns as its founding.

Its not really a question of being sheerly individualistic. Its whether the system validates such incorrect inactions.

Since the labor credits *do* circulate, the system (model) doesn't even have any inherent inclination towards *mass production* -- people could simply provide one-off services to each other, if that's what they really wanted. The system itself is social-value-neutral.

So when the society needs 1000 cogs, the system has to assure that those cogs are made.
But that itself isn't even enough. It still has to assure that those 1000 cogs are in fact needed at all, that its construction does in fact benefit the community, even if the community says it does on a prioritization list.

Nothing in your proposals do this.

You're being contradictory here: If the community reflects a need for 1000 cogs on a cumulative mass-prioritized list, then that's what's at play -- that's the scenario.

Liberated labor could / would serve as a checks-and-balances in this scenario, because if *no one* could be found *anywhere* who would be willing to be a part of making those 1000 cogs, then that would mean those 1000 cogs *didn't* actually need to be made, as you're indicating.

[A tug-of-war over contended resources] doesn't have to be fierce at all-- it can be benign. It simply an observation that this relationship is not created by capitalism, but rather is a feature of production.

Again I have to point out our differences in attitudes -- I can't take it as a given that social dissonance would be inherent to a collectivist-based mode of production.

There could very well be a sunshine-y, hand-holding, wide-smiling kind of social cooperation that pervades the social order for all of eternity -- it's just as possible as what you're espousing.

I said it is inherent in production-- which would include collectivist base.
Moreover, I did not deny it could indeed be all sunshine-y. However, as there is no glue between production and consumption in your proposals, it is highly unlikely sunshine-y is the outcome.

This is another one of your vacuous assertions, where you think that saying something makes it so. If you don't provide any kind of reasoning for what you say then there is nothing to discuss since we fundamentally disagree on the potentials.

[Baseball]

You're being contradictory here: If the community reflects a need for 1000 cogs on a cumulative mass-prioritized list, then that's what's at play -- that's the scenario.

Liberated labor could / would serve as a checks-and-balances in this scenario, because if *no one* could be found *anywhere* who would be willing to be a part of making those 1000 cogs, then that would mean those 1000 cogs *didn't* actually need to be made, as you're indicating.

How do you figure that? People like to eat meat; i doesn't mean they wish to work in a slaughterhouse.

[ckaihatsu]

How do you figure that? People like to eat meat; i doesn't mean they wish to work in a slaughterhouse.

Okay, I understand -- you're talking about consumers' "objective" needs versus liberated-labor's "subjective" requirements regarding work conditions -- and therein is the rift, once again, over which of the two is favored more.

Btw, I explained this very point myself, which is at this post at this thread:


Ideal currency in Socialism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...9&postcount=38


So who, then, should "win" -- those who want to eat meat or those who don't ever want to work in a slaughterhouse -- ?

As with the cogs example, too, I think the real world is complex enough to solve both of these supply-issue matters -- I would say the answer to either / both is 'emergent', and that you're too much of a naysayer and/or ideological to relent.

[argeiphontes]

Okay -- it's the 'actions of the central bank' that I mean to speak to.

My critique here echoes the one I have of any post-capitalism 'points' system -- namely, how are the points (or monies) allocated in the first place -- ?

And, going further, by what policy is your market-socialism money supply governed by -- ?

These will go by whatever policies the representatives of the people want.

as socialists we're not nearly as sympathetic, if at all, with those who have substantial *savings* in the system, in the form of money (or whatever), as we are with those who have *debts* in the system.

In market socialism, both will be the same people since there is no alienated form of property relation. That is, there is nothing like a "corporation" that has savings or something like that; it's the firms themselves or the people saving for their retirements or whatever. Both are people.

through a cutting of taxes on wages, or a universal increase in wages and benefits -- which never happens, of course.

There are no taxes other than a tax on capital assets. There are no wages or benefits.

Okay, no equities and now no bonds -- what, then, if a firm is looking to expand its operations, and it goes to the public banks and is *denied* financing, probably for a political reason of some sort -- ?

That's too bad. It happens all the time in your vision of socialism, though. So there is little difference.

I think your conception here once again belies your inclination towards viewing an economic system as being somehow 'neutral' and apolitical, when in fact the real world is actually far more complex and messy.

Not at all. I just think that in the absence of capitalism, i.e. capitalist social relations, the sociopoilitical system would equilibrate differently. If you don't think so, then it calls into question the entire project of communism.

[ckaihatsu]

Btw, before I start into a response here, I'm wondering if you can point me in the direction of a piece or article of some sort that describes the totality of what you're espousing.

It seems strange to have to have this piecemeal back-and-forth over any given detail -- a summarization is certainly needed.


---

Okay -- it's the 'actions of the central bank' that I mean to speak to.

My critique here echoes the one I have of any post-capitalism 'points' system -- namely, how are the points (or monies) allocated in the first place -- ?

And, going further, by what policy is your market-socialism money supply governed by -- ?

These will go by whatever policies the representatives of the people want.

Okay, it *is* fair to defer policy-making to those at the time who are in a position to do it, but then this also puts you in the camp of those say 'We can't / won't try to envision how socialism could be implemented because it would be premature.' This camp would definitely *not* include market socialists since that's far too detailed a proposal right now while the world remains pre-revolutionary, under capitalism.

[A]s socialists we're not nearly as sympathetic, if at all, with those who have substantial *savings* in the system, in the form of money (or whatever), as we are with those who have *debts* in the system.

In market socialism, both will be the same people since there is no alienated form of property relation. That is, there is nothing like a "corporation" that has savings or something like that; it's the firms themselves or the people saving for their retirements or whatever. Both are people.

So, to clarify, there *would* be quantitative 'savings', and such quantities would be held in a network of public *banks* -- ? Please confirm this.

There are no taxes other than a tax on capital assets. There are no wages or benefits.

(This may help with the previous point, too -- so 'firms' would have 'capital assets', which is a form of entity-savings.)

I'd like to know how "ownership" of a firm-entity would be handled -- on what basis would decisions over the capital assets be made?

Okay, no equities and now no bonds -- what, then, if a firm is looking to expand its operations, and it goes to the public banks and is *denied* financing, probably for a political reason of some sort -- ? Those involved re-invent libertarianism and whine about their treatment all the way to the pockets of private concerns, who then pony up the funds -- in some sort of makeshift financial form -- and, as a group put up their middle finger to the government.

In which direction would this market-socialist government lean, then -- more towards the *relaxation* of regulations, to then relent and provide funding to this firm, or more towards the *enforcement* of its political policies, physically repressing all opposition to its decisions -- ?

That's too bad. It happens all the time in your vision of socialism, though. So there is little difference.

Hmmmm, suddenly you're switching over to referencing *my* model -- ? (The one at tinyurl.com/ygybheg.)

You should probably explain which part of my model you're referencing with this, since it's unclear.

Also, you're not addressing the point of how a firm-entity in your market socialism would interact with opportunities for finance -- what if a firm needed to rapidly expand its operations because of substantial growth in a short period of time -- ?

I think your conception here once again belies your inclination towards viewing an economic system as being somehow 'neutral' and apolitical, when in fact the real world is actually far more complex and messy.

Not at all. I just think that in the absence of capitalism, i.e. capitalist social relations, the sociopoilitical system would equilibrate differently. If you don't think so, then it calls into question the entire project of communism.

You should explain this one, as well -- what do you mean by 'the [market socialist] sociopolitical system would equilibriate differently' -- ?

And, what *I* think has virtually zero effect on the whole project of communism, since that's a *worldwide* movement, of many, many more people than just myself.

[argeiphontes]

Btw, before I start into a response here, I'm wondering if you can point me in the direction of a piece or article of some sort that describes the totality of what you're espousing.

It seems strange to have to have this piecemeal back-and-forth over any given detail -- a summarization is certainly needed.

Yeah, I agree. It's part of the reason I don't like Baseball's style.

I'm basically following the model of 'Economic Democracy' in Schweickart's After Capitalism (I own the book) and the similar ideas used by Richard Wolff. He has a FAQ on his website and his organization, Democracy at Work is here. Wikipedia on Economic Democracy is also interesting.

Okay, it *is* fair to defer policy-making to those at the time who are in a position to do it, but then this also puts you in the camp of those say 'We can't / won't try to envision how socialism could be implemented because it would be premature.' This camp would definitely *not* include market socialists since that's far too detailed a proposal right now while the world remains pre-revolutionary, under capitalism.

I wouldn't want to be in that camp, I think it's weak Monetary policy changes over time, though, in whatever way it's needed to manipulate the market. If the market hit a downturn or something, an expansionary policy could be used to increase demand. Other than what people like Krugman say, I'm not really familiar with monetary policy so I don't know the full extent of what can be done in certain situations, but I do know that policies change based on circumstances.

So, to clarify, there *would* be quantitative 'savings', and such quantities would be held in a network of public *banks* -- ? Please confirm this.

Yeah, there's savings, lending, and banking. Banks aren't privately owned, however. I'm assuming that banks are owned by their depositors, or at least that the depositors have some control over the banks and they are community-owned. The spread of bank ownership and control is an interesting question in itself. It's perfectly reasonable to demand that a community affected by the bank's investment decisions gets to have some say over what projects are invested in.

(This may help with the previous point, too -- so 'firms' would have 'capital assets', which is a form of entity-savings.)

Yeah. The capital asset basis is the tax basis in Schweikhart's model. I like this not only for the future, but it makes a nice intermediate demand that proletarians should support. They have their stupid Flat Tax, (democratic) socialists should have a Capital Tax as a better alternative to income and sales taxes or VATs, the latter being regressive.

I'd like to know how "ownership" of a firm-entity would be handled -- on what basis would decisions over the capital assets be made?

The decisions are made at the level of individual firms by the worker-owners themselves. If they want to expand or contract, they are free to do so. I think it's easy to see that, in market socialism, the actual question of titular or conceptual ownership isn't that important; what's important is that worker-owners are managing the MoP themselves. If somebody wants to argue for a type of market socialism where capital is socially owned or community owned (directly or through banks (as capital is owned nowadays)) and merely lent to the firms that work it, they're still my ally.

Hmmmm, suddenly you're switching over to referencing *my* model -- ? (The one at tinyurl.com/ygybheg.)

You should probably explain which part of my model you're referencing with this, since it's unclear.

All I meant was that it's not fair to criticize market socialism on the grounds that politics will have sway over investment decisions, when other socialist systems have this characteristic also. It's not a bug it's a feature.

Also, you're not addressing the point of how a firm-entity in your market socialism would interact with opportunities for finance -- what if a firm needed to rapidly expand its operations because of substantial growth in a short period of time -- ?

They can go to a bank and ask for a loan or line of credit. If the directors of the bank decide it's a good move, they can grant the loan. They can get money in any of the ways people do it in a market economy, except selling securities, because only workers can own and manage the workplace.

You should explain this one, as well -- what do you mean by 'the [market socialist] sociopolitical system would equilibriate differently' -- ?

Well, because workers own and control their workplaces, and finance is under democratic control, the outcomes are naturally going to be different than in the semi-managed capitalist systems we're suffering under today.

For example, without exploitation of labor there is less incentive for firms to senselessly expand, and try to outcompete all of the other firms in their sector. This would result in smaller firms and greater diversity and choice for consumers, and less wasted effort and resources on competition.

On the other hand, the relationship between work performance/output and personal earnings becomes more direct and present for the average worker and creates more efficient behavior. It could be said that it 'socializes the profit motive', except that based on the Labor Theory of Value there is no 'profit' in market socialism. (Profit is not created in exchange but in exploitation.)

This would have political repercussions as well. There won't be competing interests between labor and bourgeois because everybody has the same relationship to the MoP (i.e. no classes).

And, what *I* think has virtually zero effect on the whole project of communism, since that's a *worldwide* movement, of many, many more people than just myself.

Sorry, I'm not really sure what I meant by that comment, it was 9:20 GMT and I was drinking heavily