Questions for socialists?

[ckaihatsu]

But let's say there's a shortage of something. Let's say that there isn't enough lithium being mined for you to have unlimited access to the metal, and you want some lithium batteries.

Even then, the system wouldn't be that tough. You'd whip out a "debit card." This card would be authorized by the municipal assembly and store 100 "credits" on a computer chip inside. Each citizen would receive a equal monthly supply of credits. These "credits" could be used to receive a good in limited supply. It would not be money, because after taking your batteries, you'd lose five "credits" off your card, but no one else would receive the five credits. The cards would just be a form of rationing system to ensure that each individual has equal access to less abundant resources without them being rapidly depleted.

You'd take your batteries, swipe your card through a machine, and leave, and go home, wondering why it took humanity 100 years to accept such a workable system.

I'm a socialist, not a fortune teller. I can't predict the future and what it'll look like. Even so, this example should give you an idea of how items could be distributed without money.

Sorry to be un-comrade-ly here, but on a technical / logistical note I'll point out that a blanket 'rationing' approach would *not* be very good because the 'credits' / points you outline here could *not possibly* apply to all goods on an even / proportional basis.

(For example, if the available supply of lithium-ion batteries was under-supplied by 25%, compared to the expressed demand for them, and the available supply of LED flashlights was under-supplied by *12%*, the two items would not be comparable in terms of demand, and a blanket point system would only *gloss over* this objective difference in demand for the two items.)

I thought as long as if you work you will get paid according to how much you need instead of how much you have worked.

There's some *internal* debate about this (mostly coming from me -- heh), since this kind of approach would tend to encourage a blanket *minimum* of work effort across-the-board, while demands could then readily outstrip supply, especially for more-labor-intensive goods and services.

[Baseball]

This is a common misconception due to ignoring the productive leverage of mass industrial production, and the historical rationing used by the former USSR under conditions of duress.

Lowtech seems to have that same "misconception" -- that work is mandatory in a socialist system.

Yes, it would be different, because a post-capitalist society's collective work effort and material outputs would *not* be siphoned off into sitting profits and unproductive caches of wealth in offshore accounts.

That's why it's far more than just a mere "gripe" -- it's the politics of social production.

It is a "gripe." All this means is that the profits (outputs) which the socialist commniuty accrues would be divided up in other prescribed ways.
But if you don't work... you will not be included in that vision

---

[Thirsty Crow]

It is a "gripe." All this means is that the profits (outputs) which the socialist commniuty accrues would be divided up in other prescribed ways.
But if you don't work... you will not be included in that vision

---

It's really curious, the way you use the term "profit".

In short, profits as part of capital aren't mere "outputs" (this rests on identifying "profits" with masses of commodities stored somewhere and waiting for their buyers), but rather the monetary difference between advanced capital at the chronological starting point of the cycle and its end point. Usually one talks about profit when the money accrued at the end of the cycle is larger than the sum initially advanced for accumulation.

[ckaihatsu]

Lowtech seems to have that same "misconception" -- that work is mandatory in a socialist system.

More vacuous assertions on your part, as usual. You presume to speak for others without even referencing their own words.

Sure, 'work' -- in general -- *would* be required for a socialist system, but it's another matter as to *how much* and *from who* and *what constitutes work*.

The great con of the present time is that the vast majority of humanity is denied the full benefits of its own tools and technologies, all for the sake of increasing *private* accumulations.

It is a "gripe." All this means is that the profits (outputs) which the socialist commniuty accrues would be divided up in other prescribed ways.
But if you don't work... you will not be included in that vision

I think it's clear by now that you're *not* the 'go-to' person when it comes to issues of socialism.

You play the 'scarecrow' role quite well, though -- hope it's worth your time.

[Lowtech]

But will a "mature" society blindly follows the dictates of the majority?

^This question has no relevance, but i will play your silly little game.

Normative notions like Laws and rights take into account how behavior of individuals effect the greater society as a whole.

capitalism in contrast seeks only to maintain plutocratic dominance of the few over the many and use of the profit mechanism to derive value from those who produce value. It doesn't concern itself with humanistic matters, but rather what will turn the most profit. Concentrating "wealth" is not normative at all, but rather the reverse, as is true of any totalitarian structure.

although you have a distorted view of the "dictates of the majority," and so won't agree out of willful ignorance, "dictates of the majority" is exactly how use of resources must be governed.

Civilized societies will seek mutually beneficial solutions. Archaic ideas of "I only fend for my own" and "As long as I benefit, that's all that matters" will be discarded for the barbaric and indifferent attitudes that they are.

You have already stated that people will need to work in order to accrue the benefits of socialism. As such, the "work or starve" chant can be safely ascribed to socialism as well, making such a claim completely meaningless when describing capitalism.

I said "capitalism: work for nothing or starve." Please address my actual comments.

I am suggesting that in order for people to organize in a certain manner, such organization needs to be described.

I know you wrote that in English, however you've said absolutely nothing.

[Baseball]

You play the 'scarecrow' role quite well, though -- hope it's worth your time.

OK-- so your are idly wondering whether being on Revleft is "worth" my time.

In other words, do the benefits of my time being here outweigh the costs of not doing something else during the same period of time?

Obviously, this is my concern, and I am making this decision based upon my own criteria.
This is also true of everyone else who is on this message board.
Indeed, people go about their lives determining whether the benefits of certain actions outweigh the costs of those actions. And those are also the concerns of those people.

However-- in order to rationalize the (economic) activities of millions and billions of people behaving in such fashion there must be ways to coordinate such action.
Money and prices and production based upon profit remain the best way to do so.

[Baseball]

It's really curious, the way you use the term "profit".

In short, profits as part of capital aren't mere "outputs" (this rests on identifying "profits" with masses of commodities stored somewhere and waiting for their buyers), but rather the monetary difference between advanced capital at the chronological starting point of the cycle and its end point. Usually one talks about profit when the money accrued at the end of the cycle is larger than the sum initially advanced for accumulation.

I use profit in the sense of it being a positive, a benefit i.e 'I profit from spending an hour on Revleft" or "I profit by eating a fine meal." The costs involved are less than the benefits accrued.

In an economic sense, I do believe that there must be a clear defined benefit accrued as a result of production. It can't be a vague benefit; it can't be subject other people's opinions. This must be true in a socialist system as well.

So when the term "output" is used in the socialist system, I am looking at it this way. That that "output" must be of a benefit, that its costs must be less than the benefit earned. Otherwise, what was the point of that production?

[ckaihatsu]

However-- in order to rationalize the (economic) activities of millions and billions of people behaving in such fashion there must be ways to coordinate such action.

Yes -- there is. See post #39.

Money and prices and production based upon profit remain the best way to do so.

Nope -- again, see post #39.

[Mrcapitalist]

Wouldn't several religious communes like the Zoars in Ohio be examples of communism?

[ckaihatsu]

Wouldn't several religious communes like the Zoars in Ohio be examples of communism?

Strictly speaking communism *has* to be worldwide, because capitalism insists on private-type valuations, while communism is all about *collectivizing* productive assets and natural resources -- the two approaches are mutually contradictory.

[Lowtech]

However-- in order to rationalize the (economic) activities of millions and billions of people behaving in such fashion there must be ways to coordinate such action.

You're combining coordination with the existence of the rich and their control of resources for their own gain. Economic subjugation, as currently imposed onto the lower classes by the rich, is not a practical hierarchy. You imply that the working class is dull-minded and so must labor in exchange for plutocratic benevolence. This implication is a belief as part of a belief system. You have yet to confirm otherwise.

Money and prices and production based upon profit remain the best way to do so.

The best way to do what? The economic process is the converting of raw resources into usable materials and items; ultimately producing what we consume. This process does not require money, markets nor the rich. Concentration of wealth (which is the mathematical inverse of poverty) and the detrimental effect of production for profit are unnecessary problems as they are produced by unnecessary factors.

I use profit in the sense of it being a positive, a benefit i.e 'I profit from spending an hour on Revleft" or "I profit by eating a fine meal." The costs involved are less than the benefits accrued.

In an economic sense, I do believe that there must be a clear defined benefit accrued as a result of production. It can't be a vague benefit; it can't be subject other people's opinions. This must be true in a socialist system as well.

So when the term "output" is used in the socialist system, I am looking at it this way. That that "output" must be of a benefit, that its costs must be less than the benefit earned. Otherwise, what was the point of that production?

No engine or technology ever invented by humanity has been able to achieve over unity, yet some how you assume over unity to be fundamental to economics. That alone confirms your view of economics to be complete fantasy and horribly ill informed.

[Baseball]

You're combining coordination with the existence of the rich and their control of resources for their own gain. Economic subjugation, as currently imposed onto the lower classes by the rich, is not a practical hierarchy. You imply that the working class is dull-minded and so must labor in exchange for plutocratic benevolence. This implication is a belief as part of a belief system. You have yet to confirm otherwise.

I am implying nothing of the sort. I am saying what I said-- amongst billions of people there needs to be ways to coordinate economic activity.
The use of money, and the pursuit of profit, remains the best way to do so.

No engine or technology ever invented by humanity has been able to achieve over unity, yet some how you assume over unity to be fundamental to economics. That alone confirms your view of economics to be complete fantasy and horribly ill informed.

I have no idea what perpetual motion has to do with this.

[Lowtech]

I am implying nothing of the sort. I am saying what I said-- amongst billions of people there needs to be ways to coordinate economic activity.
The use of money, and the pursuit of profit, remains the best way to do so.

Yes it is the best way to subjugate others; to exploit them. However, "economic activity" does not include subjugating others for one's own gain. Exploitation is not an axiom of economics.

People are compelled to do as they must to survive, with such action coming out of an innate vitality to support the survival of ourselves and our families; money has never been necessary for this function. if it had, money would have been present from the dawn of man. And a resource is only capital when hoarded and kept from those that need it. e.g. If I hoard water, I can contract others to do work for me in exchange for water. However, I can never provide them with water equal to the value of their labor, if I do, I will not gain any "profit" for myself. Profit is only sought by those that wish to economically subjugate others. Also you will say that need for capital is natural however that is false as this "need" for capital is not a natural need at all, but rather expression of the vacuum created by capitalism's artificial scarcity (all things hoarded as capital and sold at a profit).

I have no idea what perpetual motion has to do with this.

Riiight, however you did say:

I use profit in the sense of it being a positive, a benefit i.e 'I profit from spending an hour on Revleft" or "I profit by eating a fine meal." The costs involved are less than the benefits accrued.

...

So when the term "output" is used in the socialist system, I am looking at it this way. That that "output" must be of a benefit, that its costs must be less than the benefit earned. Otherwise, what was the point of that production?

You are describing over unity in a superstitious fashion; implying that 1) value is attributed to things via the individual's perception of it and 2) leads to processes yielding an output greater than the inputs.

Firstly, if these outlandish claims are left to dictate economics we'll wallow in this economic dark ages forever.

While over unity has yet to be found among the natural laws of physics it sure as hell won't be found in the mystical capitalist "economics" no matter what fancy economist speak you might have. Why do you insist on passing on this arcane nonsense as economic theory?

[Baseball]

Yes it is the best way to subjugate others; to exploit them. However, "economic activity" does not include subjugating others for one's own gain. Exploitation is not an axiom of economics.

It is not exploitation.

People are compelled to do as they must to survive, with such action coming out of an innate vitality to support the survival of ourselves and our families; money has never been necessary for this function. if it had, money would have been present from the dawn of man.

The "dawn of man" people lived in caves.

And a resource is only capital when hoarded and kept from those that need it. e.g. If I hoard water, I can contract others to do work for me in exchange for water. However, I can never provide them with water equal to the value of their labor, if I do, I will not gain any "profit" for myself.

Which is why money is used.

Profit is only sought by those that wish to economically subjugate others.

Its sought by people who wish to rationalize economic activity.

You are describing over unity in a superstitious fashion;implying that

1) value is attributed to things via the individual's perception of it

Which is true.

2) leads to processes yielding an output greater than the inputs.

I said that this is, or ought to be, the objective. It is certainly not always realized.

[Lowtech]

It is not exploitation.

perhaps in your mind assertion is enough to make something a fact. You are clearly wrong, even if looked at purely in the mathematical and practical sense, no where has anyone from your school of thought (if I entertain the idea that what capitalists do is thought at all) proven that economic subjugation is necessary to the economic process. Meager wages and hefty profits are no coincidence, they are directly related. Neoliberalism is an ideology that asserts the majority must submit itself to economic subjugation in exchange for plutocratic benevolence. You would have us live and die believing "If we work hard for a meager wage, the 'job creators' will have work for us to do." While in reality need creates jobs not the rich and we do not require exploiters to organize effectively.

The "dawn of man" people lived in caves.

So you scanned my comment, saw "dawn of man" and regurgitated unrelated nonsense? I hope no one lets you play with a baseball.

Which is why money is used.

Which is why usage of money cannot change the actual value of anything. Contrary to what capitalists assert; money is fictional, an erroneous measurement of value, not value itself.

Its sought by people who wish to rationalize economic activity.

Rationalize economic activity to the benefit of the bussiness owner; profit. Its rational for the owner, irrational for the worker. Every dollar I earn working, or dollar I spend purchasing, my return is a deficit as I have been compensated with less than the value of my labor and provided less amount of product than the equivilent of my money in production cost. You believe that deficit has no relation to the profit gained by capitalists.

1) value is attributed to things via the individual's perception of it

Which is true.

I've actually shown many times this is not true. Human perception of resources does not change its value. Your perception of a drug doesn't change it's harmful effect anymore than the price of oil changes the distance you can travel in your car with a gallon of gas. However the change in price can change the amount of profit the capitalist gains. The flexibility of price is not an economically necessary function or benefit, its used to produce a surplus of value; profit. Poverty and economic subjugation is the direct byproduct of profit based economics, and as I have shown profit to be unnecessary, the undesirable social impact it causes is in turn unnecessary.

You may assert that the need for capital necessitates profit. However as we can see that capitalism creates the predisposition to need capital to get anything done (as everything is hoarded and sold at a profit), this is circular reasoning.

I said that this is, or ought to be, the objective. It is certainly not always realized.

Not always realized? over unity has yet to be observed in nature and as far as modern science is concerned, it is mechanically impossible. Inspite of that, maybe capitalists are right and all of science is wrong, after all, "he who has the gold makes the rules", right Mr. Capitalist?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You'd think these innovative, creative, entrepreneurial capitalists would be able to use the search function.

[argeiphontes]

^ The arguing's the thing, though, isn't it? Speaking of which...

OK-- so your are idly wondering whether being on Revleft is "worth" my time.

In other words, do the benefits of my time being here outweigh the costs of not doing something else during the same period of time?

Obviously, this is my concern, and I am making this decision based upon my own criteria.
This is also true of everyone else who is on this message board.
Indeed, people go about their lives determining whether the benefits of certain actions outweigh the costs of those actions. And those are also the concerns of those people.

Why are you assuming that anybody is here for rational reasons? Not that I'm pointing fingers. You know what they say about pointing--one at the target, three back at you.

However-- in order to rationalize the (economic) activities of millions and billions of people behaving in such fashion there must be ways to coordinate such action.
Money and prices and production based upon profit remain the best way to do so.

Why would you think that economic activity is rational? Does the stock market behave rationally? Does Coke flash celebrities at you in order to help you make a rational decision between Coke and Pepsi? Pshaw, no reasonable person would make those claims.

Money, prices, profit, are just aspects of market allocation. It doesn't mean that anything underlying them is rational, does it? Even though I like market socialism, I'd be the first to admit that a planned economy would be the most 'rational'. I just separate what's desirable from what's rational. There's no shame in admitting that capitalism isn't the most rational system possible.

[Baseball]

While in reality need creates jobs

Completely true. The purpose of work is to provide needed goods and services.

and we do not require exploiters to organize effectively

But you do require explanations as to effective organization.
And critiques of capitalism are not it.

So you scanned my comment, saw "dawn of man" and regurgitated unrelated nonsense?

I responded in kind.

money is fictional, an erroneous measurement of value, not value itself

Yes. Money measures value.

Rationalize economic activity to the benefit of the bussiness owner; profit. Its rational for the owner, irrational for the worker.

Its rational across the board. Again, the value of production needs to be measured. This is true in the socialist community as well.

Every dollar I earn working, or dollar I spend purchasing, my return is a deficit as I have been compensated with less than the value of my labor and provided less amount of product than the equivilent of my money in production cost.

Its not a deficit at all. Value and wealth is being created. Its how both parties are measuring the worth of that production and that consumption.

Human perception of resources does not change its value.

How valuable are typewriters these days?

Your perception of a drug doesn't change it's harmful effect anymore than the price of oil changes the distance you can travel in your car with a gallon of gas.

Yep.

However the change in price can change the amount of profit the capitalist gains.

Yep.

The flexibility of price is not an economically necessary function or benefit,

false. It helps measure value amongst millions of goods across billions of people.

Not always realized? over unity has yet to be observed in nature and as far as modern science is concerned, it is mechanically impossible.

I continue to await the explanation as to perpetual motion being brought into this.
My response was was based upon your conclusion that capitalist processes lead to a situation where output exceed inputs. However, it appears you were talking about perpetual motion.

[Loony Le Fist]

Its ironical in the sense that people in the socialist community must work as well. They have no choice. They are required to do so OR they wlll not benefit.
Its no different than in the capitalist system.
The gripe has no merit when directed against capitalism.

Capitalism will never account for benefits or losses to society that cannot be commoditized or monetized. You believe it is moral for people to be turned into commodities by a system that pits every person against every other person as adversaries. I disagree that this is moral, or even necessary.

You may even be able to form some kind of a case (though I know it would be very wobbly) that capitalism might be the most efficient way to allocate resources. Fine. Dictatorships are, for example, the most efficient form of governance. After all, corporations are essentially dictatorships within their own domain. There is no bureaucracy: you do what you are told or you are left without a means of sustenance. There is no democracy to tie up the decision making process. However, efficiency of a process doesn't make it moral or good for society. Efficiency doesn't always mean better.

You don't mind the opportunity cost of being a wage slave for the remote chance of one day becoming a slave owner. I do. In fact, I mind more than just that opportunity cost: I reject the very system itself.

There are costs that are much more difficult to measure. The cost of making everyone adversaries. The cost of having a society where we must lie and cheat in order to survive. Every transaction in a capitalistic system has a winner and a loser if a given market is efficient (Pareto efficiency). In a perfectly efficient market, no one would have the motivation to transact, since no one could be made better off by doing so. So, in a proper functioning capitalist efficient economic system the only way to make a transaction, is through deception or coercion. Period. Free-marketeers preach the wonders of efficiency, yet every businesses goal is to be become a monopoly. Tell me how that is a rational system again? That is a schizophrenic, self-contradictory system at best.

Of course your response might be the snarky "What is the alternative?". That's a stupid question. Why? Because the answer is an infinite set. The answer is any other system other than capitalism, fascism, feudalism or any other exploitative system.

::END RANT::

[Baseball]

Of course your response might be the snarky "What is the alternative?". That's a stupid question. Why? Because the answer is an infinite set. The answer is any other system other than capitalism, fascism, feudalism or any other exploitative system.

::END RANT::

That wouldn't be my response. My response would be "How is socialism any better?"