Results 1 to 20 of 62
What do you mean by "voting?"
It occured to me that communists seem to think that people should be able to vote on both the nature of their work and how their commodities should be produced. The problem is that there would likely be some major discrepancies between how people want to work and what they want to get. A vote for 20,000,000 more acres of farmland would be pretty untimely if you just voted to cut the number of agriculture employees by 95% to build up industry. I can think only think of two solutions. First, people would vote solely for the nature of their work, which could not guarantee that any commodity they need would be produced. Even if we assume everyone in the system are honest, hard working people, you're not going to get the agriculture you need if everyone wants to work in industry. Second, people could vote on what commodities they want to be produced, which would require some authority (a government by any other name) to allocate workers according to the vote. Since you'd be producing a specified amount in a specified time period according to what people voted for, the labor itself would be indistinguishable from labor for a capitalist enterprise. The only difference is that you're getting a one-size-fits-all communal reward for your labor, regardless of what your actual position demands of you. If there is no government to do this to you, then no amount of voting could have any influence on production. And we're still assuming that a democratic vote on any particular one-size-fits-all economic plan would be perfectly efficient at delivering consumers what they need. Any flaws would not only motivate the government to take more power, but also motivate the people to concede more power for economic security, which is the real catalyst for the rise of dictatorship.
Also, it seems that any purely voting based economic system doesn't have any mechanism for getting rid of failing enterprises. In capitalism, a private enterprise fails if the costs of upholding the business exceed the revenue; that is, if it can't produce a sufficient value of resources to make up for the value of the resources it consumes. I'm sure would-be entrepreneurs are always saying "It would've worked if I'd done just x differently." I think it's unrealistic to think that voters would be able to identify failing enterprises and vote to fix or eliminate them until they've already caused significant damage.
Last edited by Primagen; 12th May 2014 at 14:24.
Socialism, in Marxist terms, means a giving enterprises to workers. In the first phase they could fail. And workers will be responsible for failure of their enterprises. It will immune them for making stupid decisions in very fast way.
"Property is theft."
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
"the system of wage labor is a system of slavery"
Karl Heinrich Marx
So in fact you're advocating market "socialism".
In communism there are not enterprises and no commodities. There are associations of free producers and consumers instead. It wouldn't be a matter of 'voting' per se. People wouldn't vote on how many farm workers there will be or how much farm land. Consumers would indicate their wants and needs, and a planning process will be instated to ensure approximation of aggregate consumer demand. How many resources, labour, natural resources, means of production, need there be to meet the amount of foodstuffs that are needed to satisfy consumer demand. With all jobs contingent on capitalist production disappeared, I don't think there'd be a shortage of labour often. If there is, then that type of product needs to be scaled back or additional incentives provided.
pew pew pew
As you aren't able to understand that market won't cease to exist even when money will...
"Property is theft."
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
"the system of wage labor is a system of slavery"
Karl Heinrich Marx
How about you answer the question with a "yes" or a "no": are you advocating market "socialism"?
There is no other socialists than market socialists as market will never cease to exist. But there are many socialists who aren't aware of that.
But for me Leninists aren't communists at all.
"Property is theft."
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
"the system of wage labor is a system of slavery"
Karl Heinrich Marx
A market is essentially exchange of commodities. Anyone who believes in exchange-value, commodities, and markets is not a socialist. Socialism will not have exchange of commodities as there will be no wage-labour, no money or currency, and no production for profit or exchange.
pew pew pew
That's obviously a key question for advocates of a consciously-planned economy - will such an economy be able to raise the productivity of labour and increase efficiency in production? If socialism can't increase productivity, it can't be an historically progressive mode of production, and it definitely can't accomplish its central aim: creating the material conditions for a classless, stateless, genuinely free society.* Sadly, much of the left has stopped putting forward this positive case for socialism, having largely capitulated to the backward zero-growth ideas of middle-class environmentalists.
Under capitalism, inefficiency is solved by misery for many and for the benefit of a few - mass redundancies, crises, mass waste, attacks on wages and even wars. Under socialism it will be solved just like all other social problems will be solved: consciously and democratically. There's no reason to believe that people can't decide their material needs and desires, how to best go about meeting them, and how to best scrutinise and hold to account those who have been placed in direct charge of ensuring that they're met as efficiently as possible. Not a system of bureaucrats - since socialism depends on the conscious planning of production by the producers if it's to be superior to capitalism, this rules out top-down, unaccountable command of the economy. Socialism needs a well-functioning system of planning. This doesn't mean people will be called to vote on micro-managing every aspect of the economy. Elected representatives could be placed in charge of certain tasks - people fully accountable, democratically revocable at any time, and in a system of constant rotation to prevent the formation of cliques. Everyone will be a 'bureaucrat' so no one will become a bureaucrat.
* "A development of the productive forces is the absolutely necessary practical premise [of Communism], because without it want is generalized, and with want the struggle for necessities begins again, and that means that all the old crap must revive." (Marx)
Market is place where exchange of goods and services happens. The form of market is barter. And even when money will cease to exist and everything can be provided for nothing which as I hope will happen very soon, barter that is form of market will happen still. For example, for the sake of convenience. Instead of ordering a pen from distribution center, one will exchange with someone else for two apples.
And I'm explaining it over and over again on this forum...
"Property is theft."
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
"the system of wage labor is a system of slavery"
Karl Heinrich Marx
Yup, businesses have been failing left and right for hundreds of years, and then when communism comes along, they'll suddenly discover every landmine of business operation. Makes sense.
(1) You're using the terms "commodities" and "enterprises" differently than I am. To clarify, when I say "commodity," I mean any tangible object that you can use, and by "enterprise," I mean any organization that makes products or offers services, regardless of the purpose or hierarchical structure.
(2) By who?
(3) I just pointed out how there would be discrepancies between what workers want other people to produce for them, and how they themselves want to work. If everyone wants more food, that's inconvenient if everyone wants to be a machinist or a doctor. You seem to advocate the second solution to this dilemma, and opt for the system to meet consumer demands. This would have to come at the expense of worker autonomy, because if you give workers complete control over their work, then there's no way to ensure that they'll work to meet consumer demands. Since you're not getting individually rewarded for your work, but getting the same communal share as everyone else, the organization has nothing to gain by letting you go. Where a capitalist enterprise simply stops paying you if you quit working and looks for another candidate, a communist system wouldn't be giving you anything that you couldn't get from any other work of your choice, so they'll eventually have to resort to increasingly forceful means to keep people from quitting. Quitting a job and stopping your income is an easier way to quit than climbing over a barbed-wire fence and navigating a minefield while dodging bullets. I assume your response to this would be something along the lines of "well, that's not real communism." My point is that communism as you envision it is impossible because of the dilemma between worker autonomy and consumer demands.
(4) What I'm talking about has nothing to do with labor shortages. But since you mention that labor is dependent on capitalist production, I doubt that the mindset of businessmen is generally to avoid producing things to increase their price. There are some instances with this occurs, but the general practice is to produce whatever consumers will buy before someone else does.
No, a market specifically involves exchange through buying and selling -- which has disappeared in communism. Nor is communism based on barter. You will not exchange pens for two apples, you will either get the pen and two apples for free, or they will be rationed through some point system using labour-vouchers/credits. There's no exchange or barter, nor do I believe an advanced industrial system can be sustained by a comparatively primitive method of disposing of the total product such as barter is.
I don't think those are particularly useful definitions. If I make a sand castle for a child to play with I don't think it qualifies as commodity, or a berry picked by a gatherer in primitive society is not a commodity. A commodity is a good or product subject to buying and selling. I also don't think that, say, a (non-profit) church run by volunteers can qualify as an enterprise. Enterprises and businesses have a commercial purpose.
The free association of producers and consumers involves everyone, and there is an equal distribution of decision-making power. The producers can function as planners, and the community can install a bureau of statisticians and such to aid in the planning process, with a mandated accorded to them by a general assembly.
No, my response to this is I don't foresee this problem from occurring on any major scale at all, and therefore consider the dilemma between worker autonomy and consumer demand to be a false one. I don't dabble in idealist narratives about 'real' or 'untrue' communism or socialism. I also don't see why a labour shortage would lead to repressive measures, since coercive mechanisms would need to be reinvented and installed in the first place, and more logical and positive measures exist. If there's a shortage of producers, then it can be asked for consumers to engage in the productive activity themselves: bake your own bread. With more specialised work like physicians and engineers (although, again, I see no reason why there should be a shortage of these) additional incentives can be given. In a lower or first phase of communism, sectors or industries with a labour shortages could get 1.5 or 2.0 or whatever multiplier of the average labour voucher distribution, in a higher phase of communism scarce goods can be prioritised toward such work or it'll be automated.
¿Que? You argue that there will be a shortage of producers that can produce on a sufficient scale to foresee in consumer demand, i.e. a labour shortage. If not, I've misunderstood your argument.
That's not what I said though. I said that many professions that exist in capitalism are obsolete in communism, which includes the PR-industry, banking sector, military, police, lawyers, and retail jobs. These people will find different productive activities to engage in, or work, which is why I say I find it very unlikely there'll be too few bakers or whatever.
pew pew pew
(1) I'd say “no,” considering that what we want produced for us is rarely the same sort of work that we ourselves want to do, much less so on a collective level. For effective labor by democratic vote, there would have to be a consensus on a particular plan, something that I highly doubt could be reached.
(2) I'm not very familiar with inter-socialist disagreements, so how would you say that middle-class environmentalist ideas differ from your own?
(3) First off, even if capitalism is just as evil or even worse than you say it is, that still doesn't mean that communism wouldn't develop into something even more oppressive and more unequal, which is what I'm talking about here. I never said people couldn't decide their material needs or desires. I said that what they want be industry to produce would be irreconcilably different from the work that they want to do themselves. I myself would prefer to avoid working in agriculture, but I still like food. Therefore, what I want to be produced is incompatible with how I want to work. I'm sure there are countless industries that you use products from, yet you would not choose to work in any of them.
My point has been that if you give workers total control over their work, then you have no way of ensuring that consumer demands will be met, because autonomous workers can simply choose not to produce what certain consumers are demanding. Thus, if you want to meet consumer demands, there must be an authority (ie, a government, no matter what you call it) to organize labor, set production goals and time parameters, and keep workers busy.
(4) First off, in capitalism, bureaucrats don't organize labor; private enterprises do. Well, in the sort of capitalism that I advocate, anyhow. But I think it's unrealistic to assume that even an elected official would be voted out of office once he extends his authority beyond your comfort zone. Since this, and he can only do this by looking at consumer demands and organizing labor accordingly. The autonomy of the workers themselves could be no higher than they would have had under capitalism, because meeting consumer demands is the whole reason behind the work they're doing. The system doesn't develop into a totalitarian system because the officials keep taking more power, but because the people willingly concede their rights and their work autonomy when it gets in the way of their material good.
Along with the dilemma between worker autonomy and production demands, there will be countless other generic disagreements between what sort of production people want. If you asked five people for their proposed economic plan, you'd get at least four different answers. As people get increasingly desperate to get something done, voters will concede control of production to an official who promises to force a plan through; someone who doesn't believe in democracy, and wants to be the master of the economy.
Yes, you will exchange. As I said, for the sake of convenience. You must wait for a pen at least few hours and you can exchange it for apples with friend. Then transaction will occur. And that constitutes market.
Points, vouches/ credits are another form of money. If there is money, there is market. If you will try impose many unwise limits in soviet style, very big black market appears as its happened previously. And I'me eye-witness of such black market...
I agree that communism isn't based on market, but it doesn't change a fact that it will never cease to exist. Another example: Will cocaine be available in distribution center? Probably not. Then you'll have a black market of cocaine.
"Property is theft."
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
"the system of wage labor is a system of slavery"
Karl Heinrich Marx
They mean voting for communism.
http://ppe.mercatus.org/
The credits/vouchers are non-circulating, are unable to be transferred between people and are unable to be used to acquire Capital. There is no Capital, the means of production are socially owned (despite your insistence on giving them to the workers, which amounts to self-managed exploitation and Proudhonism) and trade has been replaced by distribution.
And why shouldn't there be cocaine? If there's a demand, it may as well be facilitated to.
Segui il tuo corso e lascia dir le genti.
Socialism resides entirely in the revolutionary negation of the capitalist ENTERPRISE, not in granting the enterprise to the factory workers.
- Bordiga
Then black market of their transfers will appear instantly... National currency of state capitalist countries like Poland and the SU theoretically were prohibited to be transferred for classic capitalist currencies. And I remember so-called "cinkciarz" who tranfered them on black market.
I don't think that everything will be allowed in distribution centers. And if so, there big room for black market.
"Property is theft."
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
"the system of wage labor is a system of slavery"
Karl Heinrich Marx
Hmm... I thought you were the anarchist here.
Segui il tuo corso e lascia dir le genti.
Socialism resides entirely in the revolutionary negation of the capitalist ENTERPRISE, not in granting the enterprise to the factory workers.
- Bordiga
I'm between Anarchism and Marxism. But even form anarchist perspective, if you think than anarchism allows everything, then you definitely you don't know much about anarchism...
But even everything will be available in distribution centers, then there will be barter due to convenience. You must wait too long for soap from the center, you'll change it for a drink with friend. Even when the Star Trek will be invented, then such barter will occur because replicators aren't portable.
"Property is theft."
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
"the system of wage labor is a system of slavery"
Karl Heinrich Marx
I don't think that bartering in the way that you describe necessarily follows in this scenario. For example, say you're at my home visiting and you'd like something to eat. I'm not going to ask you to barter with me, I'm going to show you what food I have around to snack on and let you pick whatever you'd like. Similarly, if you need a pen, there's no reason why you can't just borrow mine and give it back later, or just take it because it's just a pen and there are plenty more where that one came from. This kind of gifting between persons happens even in a capitalist economy so there's no reason to think it'll suddenly be replaced by this strange convenience bartering that you're talking about once things become more readily available.
