Few Questions About Communism

[RA89]

No prob -- it's understandable. The model is comprehensive in its scope so it covers a wide terrain -- feel free to inquire about any of its aspects.

Thanks, I'd like to discuss the proposed supply and demand model, for the sake of understanding and not confusing myself I'll address it bit by bit then move on to the next parts once I've understood.

Starting with the "revolutionary policy *solution* (communist supply & demand)" http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population

Does this mean that all assets and resources belong to the community and that the community will together decide what to do with them?
What does "all assets and resources" cover? All land, property + raw materials etc?

-- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

What does this mean? That excess assets/resources can only be used by people if
-they intend to use it just for themselves and not the community (e.g. store in their house)
or
-they're fully accountable for anything negative that results from them using the excess assets/resources since they haven't been used in community/locality approved projects?
or something else entirely?

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

Does this mean that people who partake in liberated labour are the only ones allowed to control communist property?
And that they cannot as individuals privately own this property?
What is meant by "proceeds from work"? Could you please give an example of proceeds from work which could not be used or consumed by persons.
What falls under "communist property"?

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property

What does "actively used" and "in a personal capacity" mean?
What would qualify as a period of disuse that would lead to the possession in question reverting to collectivized communisty property?
E.g. not sitting on a sofa for a few months? What methods could be used to check whether such possessions are being regularly used.

[ckaihatsu]

Thanks, I'd like to discuss the proposed supply and demand model, for the sake of understanding and not confusing myself I'll address it bit by bit then move on to the next parts once I've understood.

Starting with the "revolutionary policy *solution* (communist supply & demand)" http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population

Does this mean that all assets and resources belong to the community and that the community will together decide what to do with them?

Yes.

[EDIT:] There would be a dialectical *dynamic* between the larger population (a locality, a number of localities by common consent, or a 'community'), and those who would be available and willing to put forth their liberated labor, from *any* geographic location. Ultimately it would be at the discretion of those with accumulated labor credits to pick-and-choose those individuals who are available and willing, given a mass-supported policy package that includes a budget of pre-allocated labor credits.

What does "all assets and resources" cover? All land, property + raw materials etc?

Yes, and especially the means of mass industrial production.

-- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

What does this mean? That excess assets/resources can only be used by people if
-they intend to use it just for themselves and not the community (e.g. store in their house)
or
-they're fully accountable for anything negative that results from them using the excess assets/resources since they haven't been used in community/locality approved projects?
or something else entirely?

Yeah, that pretty much covers it -- consider that either assets and resources would be *collectively* planned-for (as through RevLeft-like discussions and updates to per-workplace wiki pages, perhaps), or else they would be *unused*, in which case they / their use can't be denied to anyone.

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

Does this mean that people who partake in liberated labour are the only ones allowed to control communist property?

Yes -- the meaning is that absenteeist "rights" to an abstract "ownership" would not be valid, nor would even any 'private accumulations', because that implies a collection without active usage of it.

And that they cannot as individuals privately own this property?

Correct.

What is meant by "proceeds from work"?

The results of liberated labor. (Non-monetary.)

Could you please give an example of proceeds from work which could not be used or consumed by persons.

Sure -- if a group of people decide they want some new clothes and they find a way to source the raw materials (cloth, etc.), they might find that, using mechanized methods, they could easily produce far more finished pieces than they would care to have and use in the foreseeable future. (Perhaps they all decided as a group to budget 3 days to the endeavor.) All of the clothing that they could not possibly use themselves could either just be left there, or, more realistically, would probably be taken / delivered to some kind of clothing-oriented warehouse, for anyone from the public to retrieve for use.

What falls under "communist property"?

All assets and resources. Again:

Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common [...]

---

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property

What does "actively used" and "in a personal capacity" mean?

What would qualify as a period of disuse that would lead to the possession in question reverting to collectivized communisty property?

Granted, these *are* fuzzy terms, and I, from my existence in our present conditions, am objectively *unable* to indicate anything more specific here. (This is where I would agree with those revolutionaries who say that we can't formulate socialist policies in the here-and-now, since it would ultimately be up to those who are actually part of a revolution when it happens.)

Again the principle at work here is that absenteeist-type "ownership" would not be respected. Likewise, accumulations of materials for the sake of a *private*-type control would not be allowed.

E.g. not sitting on a sofa for a few months? What methods could be used to check whether such possessions are being regularly used.

Right -- again, I'll defer to those who would actually be in a position to make such specific policies.

This content from a past thread may be relevant here:

I've also wondered about how everyday use of *physical space* would change, once private property is done away with -- perhaps the communization of materials, and physical space, would mean that daily life would be much more *mobile* than today, perhaps more resembling the times of primitive communism, since there would be no more uncertainty in modern "foraging".

Private collections of whatever cultural artifacts would give way to a norm of *collectively* administrating such collections, more like a common network of museums or an academia that's as ubiquitous as the Internet.

It's tough to say, though, because it would probably hinge on how much slack the people of such a world would grant to the domain of *sentiment* -- would personal possessions *increase*, in a hoarding kind of way, for expanding and expansive personal reasons, or would society frown on such harboring of sentimentality, since all items themselves would be freely available anyway -- ?

A formal economy would be good to preserve and encourage individuality, but from a strictly material standpoint wouldn't be absolutely *necessary*, as the degree of socialized life increased. Doubtless there would have to be some complex balancing of the two, in all aspects.

[The Jay]

Apologies if these questions aren't clear, I've tried my best to put down the thoughts in my head coherently.

No worries. Details can always be flushed out.

1] Is there anyway to predict/know what the average communist house would look like?

The amount of people living in poverty makes me think that if all the wealth/resources were spread out, then the average house would be 4 walls, a ceiling and a sink/kitchen (I know some Capitalists say that we'll have to give up a life of luxury to live in a shithole under Communism).

But then of course when I consider the amount of wealth the top 1% etc have, then it makes me think it wouldn't be that bad.

Obviously I'm guessing indoor swimming pools and back garden golf courses would be gone for sure, but if everything was truly equal what would the average house look like under Communism?

That is really impossible to say. I can speculate that there could be more efficient means of housing people technologically. For example, condos are more efficient in terms of temperature maintenance as well as other utilities. Communal gardens would be more efficient and sustainable than getting all the food from a central location save some foods that do not grow in that location. This also introduces a means of having a walkable urban area.

That said, all of these things would be decided upon by the community.

2] What professions would be mandatory? Just jobs which directly contribute to the sustainability of life (e.g.food, housing, textiles etc.)?
Would something like a sport or acting career be only done in conjunction with the mandatory job or would a certain level of talent in those fields allow for the job to become the person's sole career as it is regarded as providing a benefit for society (entertainment)?

Again I can only speculate, but I think that there will be some centralization in terms of major industry. Not every person would logically be required to weave their own clothing when there are machines that can do the work thousands of times faster. Much of this organizing would probably take place during a revolution or Dictatorship of the Proletariat, setting up Communism.

3] If money is abolished, and someone wishes to acquire something which is limited how would they obtain it? Assuming that they lack to skills to build it themselves.

I would think that such a thing would be requested through the community if it is not readily available already. If it is something like a plane then probably not unless it would be used for the community's benefit.

4] How long until Communism takes place? And how do we know?

No person knows when Communism could come about but it would be known by the abolition of the law of value. Objects would not be commodities as defined by Marx in that the exchange value would not exist.

5] I see people saying that Russia was not really Communist, but then when they face the argument from Capitalists that "technological advancement and peoples incentive to progress etc will suffer" they give the example of the USSR in the space race etc to prove that it's not the case, so which is it?

This depends largely on whom you ask. I would attack the idea of incentives of reward as the sole means of technological advancement in itself. People are driven by many different things. Watch this for a quick intro:

+ YouTube Video

[RA89]

Ultimately it would be at the discretion of those with accumulated labor credits to pick-and-choose those individuals who are available and willing, given a mass-supported policy package that includes a budget of pre-allocated labor credits.

Does this mean that people who have earned labour credits, will select others who volunteer themselves, with the project having been given a budget of labour credits in advance prior to the start of it?

What would a policy package entail? The general guidelines for production/building?

Yes -- the meaning is that absenteeist "rights" to an abstract "ownership" would not be valid, nor would even any 'private accumulations', because that implies a collection without active usage of it.

Do you mean this in the sense that only people not involved in the labour of something cannot claim ownership rights of it?
Or more broadly that nobody at all could have absenteeist rights to an abstract ownership of anything?

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property

Is the bolded sentence above talking about the same sorts of material/property as the bolded from -

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

?
Or is the former talking about finished products and the latter about raw materials before the labour has taken place (along with reinforcing that finished products also cannot be privately accumulated)?

[RA89]

Again I can only speculate, but I think that there will be some centralization in terms of major industry. Not every person would logically be required to weave their own clothing when there are machines that can do the work thousands of times faster. Much of this organizing would probably take place during a revolution or Dictatorship of the Proletariat, setting up Communism.

So since communism can only exist if the whole world has it, does that mean it can be safely said that there will be no sweat shops what so ever as technology will be used to make work easier everywhere?
Or just wherever possible? E.g. Will it be harder to achieve in poor countries and/or take longer?

[The Jay]

I think that you may be underestimating the potential speeds of technological development that would be possible by sharing materials and fuels.

[ckaihatsu]

Ultimately it would be at the discretion of those with accumulated labor credits to pick-and-choose those individuals who are available and willing, given a mass-supported policy package that includes a budget of pre-allocated labor credits.

Does this mean that people who have earned labour credits, will select others who volunteer themselves, with the project having been given a budget of labour credits in advance prior to the start of it?

Yes.

There may certainly be more than one proposal, policy package, and project in play -- several competing versions could be present, with differences over labor credits budgeted, number of work roles, etc. -- you may want to see the following past thread for a sample scenario:


'A world without money'

tinyurl.com/ylm3gev

What would a policy package entail? The general guidelines for production/building?

Yes, basically -- it would be more detailed than a general proposal, and would have its political backers:

Infrastructure / overhead

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

---

Yes -- the meaning is that absenteeist "rights" to an abstract "ownership" would not be valid, nor would even any 'private accumulations', because that implies a collection without active usage of it.

Do you mean this in the sense that only people not involved in the labour of something cannot claim ownership rights of it?
Or more broadly that nobody at all could have absenteeist rights to an abstract ownership of anything?

Correct -- the *broader* sense of it, since that would be all-encompassing and consistent.

Only use-values would be socially recognized, so any claims to an abstract, absenteeist "ownership" would be invalid.


---

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property

Is the bolded sentence above talking about the same sorts of material/property as the bolded from -

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

?
Or is the former talking about finished products and the latter about raw materials before the labour has taken place (along with reinforcing that finished products also cannot be privately accumulated)?

'Material' / 'Materials' is meant in the general, generic sense, so it wouldn't matter at all whether the material in question is raw materials, finished products, equipment, or anything else.

The principle at work here is again use-values -- if things aren't being used for the sake of production, and they're not being used in an active personal capacity, then they really can't be 'owned' by *anyone*, since that would just beg the question of what interaction anyone has with it, which would be 'none'.

[Decolonize The Left]

But doesn't what you're suggesting here go against what a large portion of the population adore, luxury items/home?
I can see the argument that it is superficial but that is the way it is, how do we know peoples mindset/values will change so dramatically?

People's mindsets are a result of their material condition. So before there existed cars, people thought trains were the best form of transportation. Before trains, horses, etc...

So people's mindsets/value systems change according to that material condition and communism is effectively a radical shifting of material conditions brought on by the people themselves.

I'm having trouble understanding what a good management of goods and services would be if there was no money.
The effort/skill/productivity of the workers/community + the fulfillment of the need of those goods and services?

Well, "good management of goods and services" is a subjective phrase. Some would say it's what leads to the most profit (capitalists). Others would say it's what leads to the most enjoyment (utilitarian philosophy). Radical leftists would say that it's what results from working class possession of the means of production.

In other words, "good management" comes as a result of communism and is not something which can be worked towards without it because to do so is idealistic and not materialistic.

[RA89]

'A world without money'

tinyurl.com/ylm3gev

Unfortunately the link in the first post no longer works.

I feel like I understand your explanations and would like to move on the next part.

ASSOCIATED
MATERIAL VALUES

ASSETS AND RESOURCES
HAVE NO QUANTIFIABLE
VALUE — ARE CONSIDERED
AS ATTACHMENTS TO THE
PRODUCTION PROCESS

Does this mean assets and resources have no quantifiable value in a monetary sense?
What does the bolded mean?
That assets and resources are simply seen as being no more than means to complete the production process?

LABOR SUPPLY IS SELECTED
AND PAID FOR WITH EXISTING
(OR DEBT-BASED)
LABOR CREDITS

Why do projects need a budget of labour credits?

Would labour be credits earned through hours put in, or through effort or something more tangible e.g. percentage of overall work completion contributed?

EVERY PERSON IN A LOCALITY
HAS A STANDARD, ONE-THROUGH INFINITY
RANKING SYSTEM OF
POLITICAL DEMANDS AVAILABLE
TO THEM, UPDATED DAILY

What sort of political demands would be available/could you define political demand?

Different localities have different political demands available?

[RA89]

I think that you may be underestimating the potential speeds of technological development that would be possible by sharing materials and fuels.

I think so too.

But then I think, if that's all that is needed to make a community relatively advanced then how comes out of all the multi-millionaires and billionaires who have ever lived - surely a few had to desire helping people in poverty - no ones turned some slum/ghetto into a well functioning place by buying those things?
Or is that just not possible because of the way capitalism operates?

People's mindsets are a result of their material condition. So before there existed cars, people thought trains were the best form of transportation. Before trains, horses, etc...

So people's mindsets/value systems change according to that material condition and communism is effectively a radical shifting of material conditions brought on by the people themselves.

Fair point. It sounds like the way people look at the world and each other will be dramatically changed. And that it can't be described until one lives it. Are there any theories on how people would think under a communist lifestyle?

[ckaihatsu]

Unfortunately the link in the first post no longer works.

I feel like I understand your explanations and would like to move on the next part.

Okay.

Associated material values

communist administration -- Assets and resources have no quantifiable value -- are considered as attachments to the production process

Does this mean assets and resources have no quantifiable value in a monetary sense?

Correct -- since there can't be any commodity-money within communism (by definition), nothing in this framework can be quantified in the monetary or financial sense.

What does the bolded mean?

It means that for all societal / formal purposes, all productive materials and resources can only be defined in terms of their part within a production process. This complements the first part of the statement by giving a *positive* description for assets and resources.

That assets and resources are simply seen as being no more than means to complete the production process?

Yes, for all significant social / societal concerns -- it's worth reproducing from the first section of the model to further note that:

Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

---

Associated material values

labor [supply] -- Labor supply is selected and paid for with existing (or debt-based) labor credits

Why do projects need a budget of labour credits?

The best way to explain this is to juxtapose this whole framework to that of a 'gift economy', where all liberated labor is strictly *voluntarist* / donated, with no system of currency *or* economics. A gift economy would *not require* the use of labor credits whatsoever, since people could just freely produce at-will from the fully de-privatized world commons, with the material proceeds going towards the common good. (Any social coordination here would only increase the potentials of complexity / sophistication of that production, as with cascading supply chains.)

The *problem* with a gift economy, though, is that it depends on voluntarist individualism too much -- sure, it would be moneyless and entirely self-selected, but there may not be enough emergent social coordination to enable any decisive complex production techniques / processes, or to advance technological developments for the society as a whole, since production could very well remain in its default localist, patchwork state.

My 'communist supply & demand' model implements labor credits to *overcome* this gift-economy limitation. It formally recognizes that various kinds of labor inherently have varying levels of hazards and difficulty, and so the model allows higher rates of labor credits to be earned, per labor hour, for increasingly hazardous and/or difficult kinds of work.

Those who, from whatever efforts completed, earn labor credits, are thus empowered to select and activate liberated labor going-forward, in proportion to those labor credits in-hand. (So, for example, someone who has only worked a few weeks, but at a particularly hazardous role -- say, mining -- would be able to fund someone else's liberated labor, perhaps for *months*, if it's a much-less-difficult work role, since the per-hour rate would be much less. Or, alternatively, the amassed labor credits could possibly fund *several* workers at a much-less-difficult work role, for the same period of time that it took to earn the labor credits with the more-hazardous work of mining.)

The point of *budgeting* labor credits, as an integral part of any locality-backed project or production run, is so that liberated labor is never *exploited*, since the labor credits in possession are proof that a like-proportion of liberated labor has already been completed and serves as justification for coordinating and activating others' liberated labor going-forward.

The system of labor credits does not interfere with any potential gift-economy-type voluntarism or one-to-one-type arrangements regarding liberated labor.

Would labour be credits earned through hours put in, or through effort or something more tangible e.g. percentage of overall work completion contributed?

Labor credits are earned strictly through labor-hours-times-difficulty-or-hazard:

Determination of material values

labor [supply] -- Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived

---

Associated material values

consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily

What sort of political demands would be available/could you define political demand?

It's absolutely open-ended -- 'political demands' could be whatever people happened to call-for, formally, through this system. The demands could either be about matters of collective co-administration, as over a particular proposal or policy package -- 'politics' -- or they could be for the production of anything material, as for individual consumption -- 'economics'.

Different localities have different political demands available?

No, there would be no up-front qualitative restrictions or variations due to the particular locality.

[AmilcarCabral]

Yeah this statement is totally correct and scientifical. Another thing I'd like to contribute to this debate is about the need of educating the general masses on 3 very important activities that are very basic for the development of a whole society, for the scientific progress of the world which are: reading, writing and talking in a rational way (That's what John Dewey the education thinker claimed).

And I've noticed that the extreme ultra-individualist, ultra-self-absorbed, ultra-narcissistic way of life of all americans destroys lots of things not only the economy as a whole, but the current ultra-individualist way of life of all americans is a great impediment for any collective planning, community planning and any rational communication between the residents and citizens of a local community.

That's why I think that most americans are so quiet when they are at Wal Marts and at public places, because the ability to read, write and talk has been totally maimed and destroyed and it would be repaired in a workers-dictatorship and in an anarchist-communist system

PD: Hell man *conspiracy of denial* and conspiracy of silence*, that's one of the worst things I hate about the whole United States, that the USA is almost at the edge of an economic apocalypse, in the middle of an inflationary meltdown, the country is going down. The roads, highways interstate highways are full of cracks and holes, bridges are falling. The Obamacare is a capitalist neoliberalism, fascist scam, Republicans are hissing and motivating the White House and US government into invading Venezuela and Russia. Food and gas prices are going up every day, and yet most people in America we see every day at supermarkets, at banks and in public places are totally silent, mute, and living in a conspiracy of silence and in a conspiracy of denial. What a weird nation with avoidant personality disorders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoidan...s_and_symptoms


.

Yeah, that pretty much covers it -- consider that either assets and resources would be *collectively* planned-for (as through RevLeft-like discussions and updates to per-workplace wiki pages, perhaps), or else they would be *unused*, in which case they / their use can't be denied to anyone.

[ckaihatsu]

Sorry to nit-pick, but here's the only pea-under-the-mattresses thing I can find to comment on:

inflationary meltdown

So:


Deflation threat poses new dangers to world economy

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014.../pers-j17.html