Distribution in Communism?

[ckaihatsu]

To indicate the relative changes in scarcity of a given good it will be necessary to calculate a "scarcity index."

This is all well and good, as far as any 'market socialism' can go, but what's left out of the equation is *liberated labor*, and how *that* would be 'priced'.

If meat happens to be in relatively short supply, does that mean that the 'price' for butchers will automatically go up, thus encouraging more people to step into that role -- ?

It actually doesn't matter either way, because any 'price' for labor implies *wage labor*, and a *market* for labor (in relation to other commodified goods and services). So then we're right back at capitalism, even if it's been reformed somewhat by the one-time, ephemeral collectivization of production goods.

As soon as the supply of money in circulation begins to wane, for any reason, a valid political call would arise to *increase* the volume of money in circulation, and this could happen artificially (fiat currency), or by the selling-off of formerly collectivized production goods and property, since many will begin to wonder why such is 'out of circulation' while money is in short supply.

[Ledur]

This is all well and good, as far as any 'market socialism' can go, but what's left out of the equation is *liberated labor*, and how *that* would be 'priced'.

If meat happens to be in relatively short supply, does that mean that the 'price' for butchers will automatically go up, thus encouraging more people to step into that role -- ?

It actually doesn't matter either way, because any 'price' for labor implies *wage labor*, and a *market* for labor (in relation to other commodified goods and services). So then we're right back at capitalism, even if it's been reformed somewhat by the one-time, ephemeral collectivization of production goods.

I proposed a system of distribution for final consumer goods only. Labour is an input, hence it's part of the allocation of resources process. There's nothing that resembles capitalism here.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I was comparing distribution under the price system to a possible way to distribute the social product under communism.

__________________________

In my opinion, this distribution system fits well in robbo203's system of self-regulating stocks (even though he doesn't like controlled distribution, he advocates free distribution).

But his article was about allocation of resources, not distribution.

Forget a little about distribution, let's focus on allocation in order to answer your question about labour. There's a part of robbo's article called law of minimum, which says that, in an environment without prices, the scarciest input will limit the output.

I'll try to join the "scarcity index" and the "law of minimum", and use some numbers.

For example, to produce X you need inputs A, B and C.

1000 units of X = 15 units of A + 50 units of B + 5 units of C

Suppose that you usually produce 1000 units of X in a month. You call your suppliers. The scarcity index of each input is:
A: 0,80
B: 0,70
C: 1,25

Scarcity index (demand/supply) of C is 1,25. That means C must save their stock and can't deliver you 5 units. This time, C will hand you over 1/1,25 = 0,8*5 = 4 units.

All your production will respect your scarciest input (unless you can change the industrial process, but let's suppost it's not the case), and you can only produce 80% of the usual output:

800 units of X = 12 units of A + 40 units of B + 4 units of C

Finally you have to signal ahead this scarcity to your "customers". Scarcity index of X is 1,25. Production units ahead of X expected 1000 units, but only 800 units will be distributed accordingly.

note: I think the scarcity index is the perfect substitute for prices and a complete solution to the Economic Calculation Argument.

__________________________

Now suppose that C is liberated labour and X is meat, to be delivered to a single distribution center, and there aren't any nearby meat suppliers. The meat unit needed 5 butchers, but this month one got ill. X (meat) is a consumer good. On the distribution center's shelves, this month we'll have 800kg of meat instead of 1000kg. Usually 950-960kg are depleted, and the demand hasn't changed. However supply went DOWN. Scarcity index of meat now is 1,25. Using some sort of algorithm, the new "access" to meat will be 4,5kg/person/month, instead of 5kg/person/month. That prevents the stocks to be depleted before the end of this month.

In a market system, in the same situation, less meat would be sold at a higher price. Some people would not buy meat because of their low purchasing power, even if they needed meat. In this "access" or "rationing system", some vegetarians would not have meat anyway, but everyone who need meat would have acccess to it until the end of the month, even though in a slighter less quantity.

As you can see, the rationing is for consumer goods only, not labour, other inputs, nor other intermediate production units. These will rely only on the scarcity index.

[ckaihatsu]

Oh, okay -- yes, my mistake -- your layout shows a *comparison*, scarcity index vs. capitalist prices. Got it.

My remaining concerns, then, would be about how economic *initiatives* might be accomplished, as for anything new, which would have 'perfect scarcity', by definition. It looks like the self-regulating stocks / inventory control system is good for anything that's already established, but how would consumer preferences, as for something novel, be introduced and incorporated into this whole schema?

Another concern is about how things for production and distribution would be 'scaled-up', to provide economies-of-scale over larger geographic areas -- can you speak to this at all?

[Ledur]

My remaining concerns, then, would be about how economic *initiatives* might be accomplished, as for anything new, which would have 'perfect scarcity', by definition. It looks like the self-regulating stocks / inventory control system is good for anything that's already established, but how would consumer preferences, as for something novel, be introduced and incorporated into this whole schema?

A production unit might try a new product and sketch a delivery plan (some units/period of time). If it was accepted by critics, demand would skyrocket. The scarcity index (demand/supply) is high. Rationing would be high as well, like 1 unit/year. This value is either arbitrarily assigned, or falls into some category of goods, democratically decided (for example: a new gadget - once a year; a new car - once every 5 years, etc).

The scarcity index is high, hence the producers would increase production until the scarcity index gets close to 1. If materials/labour are easy to find, if the item doesn't cause pollution or other externalities, the easiest solution is to share the recipe to idle manufacturers (this would be FAR easier in communism, because in capitalism people don't share technology).

Another concern is about how things for production and distribution would be 'scaled-up', to provide economies-of-scale over larger geographic areas -- can you speak to this at all?

I don't know if I got it right... If it's a high-demanded product, hierarchical distribution centers (local, regional, global) would track supply and demand within the region. If it's a low-demanded product, distribution could be direct from the production unit to the final consumer.

[ckaihatsu]

A production unit might try a new product and sketch a delivery plan (some units/period of time). If it was accepted by critics, demand would skyrocket. The scarcity index (demand/supply) is high. Rationing would be high as well, like 1 unit/year. This value is either arbitrarily assigned, or falls into some category of goods, democratically decided (for example: a new gadget - once a year; a new car - once every 5 years, etc).

The scarcity index is high, hence the producers would increase production until the scarcity index gets close to 1. If materials/labour are easy to find, if the item doesn't cause pollution or other externalities, the easiest solution is to share the recipe to idle manufacturers (this would be FAR easier in communism, because in capitalism people don't share technology).

Okay -- the only thing with this is that it's strictly 'gift economy', meaning sheerly organic-voluntarist-type liberated labor. There are no societal-type incentives for people to commit to more-difficult or more-distasteful labor roles.

If there's huge demand for a new gadget or car there could very well be a gap between the quantity of demand and the actual willing liberated labor to *satisfy* that demand -- many, who even have the required talents and skills for such work, could just say 'meh' and nothing would be different for them whether they did the work or not.

I'll have to note that, with my model, those who commit to difficult and/or hazardous work roles *do* get particular consideration, through higher rates of labor credits earned:

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

labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers [...]

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

So this approach addresses material scarcity through socially-sanctioned incentives for the liberated labor that *alleviates* such material scarcity. Work roles that are more-difficult, more-hazardous, and/or more-demanded would see increasing rates of labor credits offered per hour of liberated labor, and those who *earn* such labor credits would realize an increasing share of control over *future* uses of liberated labor, limited to the actual amount of labor credits earned.


---

I don't know if I got it right... If it's a high-demanded product, hierarchical distribution centers (local, regional, global) would track supply and demand within the region. If it's a low-demanded product, distribution could be direct from the production unit to the final consumer.

Okay -- I ask because my impression is that much of the anarchist-type economics I've come across has been basically *localist* and *lateralist* in description. This is the first I'm hearing of larger-scale distribution centers, and you're essentially saying that it would happen on an as-needed basis.

To clarify the last part, though, it's not that *direct-distribution* would vary according to scale -- certainly it doesn't matter what the product is, or where it is in the supply chain, it would still be provided directly *downstream* to the next 'node', or to the end-user consumer. What *would* vary according to scale would be the *production* aspect, as for larger productive-type operations that could cover *several* localities, all the way up to regional, and even global, levels.

[Ledur]

Okay -- the only thing with this is that it's strictly 'gift economy', meaning sheerly organic-voluntarist-type liberated labor. There are no societal-type incentives for people to commit to more-difficult or more-distasteful labor roles.

Precisely. A communist society should organize and decide what to do with unbalanced supply and demand regarding labour, specially those undesired tasks.

If there's huge demand for a new gadget or car there could very well be a gap between the quantity of demand and the actual willing liberated labor to *satisfy* that demand -- many, who even have the required talents and skills for such work, could just say 'meh' and nothing would be different for them whether they did the work or not.

I'll have to note that, with my model, those who commit to difficult and/or hazardous work roles *do* get particular consideration, through higher rates of labor credits earned:

So this approach addresses material scarcity through socially-sanctioned incentives for the liberated labor that *alleviates* such material scarcity. Work roles that are more-difficult, more-hazardous, and/or more-demanded would see increasing rates of labor credits offered per hour of liberated labor, and those who *earn* such labor credits would realize an increasing share of control over *future* uses of liberated labor, limited to the actual amount of labor credits earned.

I like your approach. Labour notes could be a solution.

In a communist society, work is voluntary. But the undesired tasks must be done, even if no one wants to do them. Labour notes is an incentive, I agree, but I think that rotating tasks is also a solution for two reasons. First, if everyone try those tasks, perhaps someone would appreciate it after doing it a couple of times? Then we have a volunteer, much better than someone filling that task by the need of "earning" some extra credits. The second benefical side of rotating these tasks is that when the more people put their hands dirty, the more chances someone would share ideas to ameliorate that task or even automate it.

That said, I think that incentives other than labour credits could be given. For example, less working hours.

Okay -- I ask because my impression is that much of the anarchist-type economics I've come across has been basically *localist* and *lateralist* in description. This is the first I'm hearing of larger-scale distribution centers, and you're essentially saying that it would happen on an as-needed basis.

Yes, I'm assuming that we have a large area, with thousands or millions. A large federation. We might have several anarchist communes, but when we reach this situation, I think they would join together, because a bigger region with a single communist mode of production would be better (more efficient) than smaller communes trading, in my opinion.

To clarify the last part, though, it's not that *direct-distribution* would vary according to scale -- certainly it doesn't matter what the product is, or where it is in the supply chain, it would still be provided directly *downstream* to the next 'node', or to the end-user consumer. What *would* vary according to scale would be the *production* aspect, as for larger productive-type operations that could cover *several* localities, all the way up to regional, and even global, levels.

Ah ok.. I agree, I haven't thought this way.

[ckaihatsu]

Okay -- the only thing with this is that it's strictly 'gift economy', meaning sheerly organic-voluntarist-type liberated labor. There are no societal-type incentives for people to commit to more-difficult or more-distasteful labor roles.

Precisely. A communist society should organize and decide what to do with unbalanced supply and demand regarding labour, specially those undesired tasks.

Certainly -- collectivism implies a mass-conscious, 'hands-on' approach to all societal matters. It should be favored, if at all possible.

*However*, that said, the reality could very well turn out to be one of an impasse regarding a sufficiently evenly-shared distribution of work roles. If people feel that favoritism or elitism of some sort exists within a certain post-capitalist arrangement, the 'labor credits' method is meant to provide a complex-type addressing of a complex-type situation.

I like your approach. Labour notes could be a solution.

Thanks -- that's labor *credits*, not labor *notes*.

(It's not generic, because most conceptions of labor *notes*- / vouchers-type systems are *non-circulating*, while my 'labor credits' *do* circulate.)

In a communist society, work is voluntary. But the undesired tasks must be done, even if no one wants to do them. Labour notes is an incentive, I agree, but I think that rotating tasks is also a solution for two reasons. First, if everyone try those tasks, perhaps someone would appreciate it after doing it a couple of times? Then we have a volunteer, much better than someone filling that task by the need of "earning" some extra credits. The second benefical side of rotating these tasks is that when the more people put their hands dirty, the more chances someone would share ideas to ameliorate that task or even automate it.

My critique here is that any work-role rotation system will probably be limited by the geographic / physical-space constraints of the work involved -- that means it's necessarily *circumscribed* to a particular location and might not be easily generalizable, as with lateral-type linking-up with other, like locations.

Also, my previous 'fused' critique from post #40 still stands:

[E]ven though it's moneyless, in practice it would tend to be too *inflexible* and *restrictive* for the participants since they would be "stuck" both economically and politically in it, due to the economic aspects and political aspects being *fused together* as one and the same.

(In other words, if everyone in the work-role rotation basically approved of its 'politics' -- what it's producing -- they may *not necessarily* like its *economics*, meaning what they're getting from that production, in regards to their own personal needs. And, obversely, if a participant happened to like the work-role rotation *economically*, meaning what they're getting personally from the group's collective production, they may not also like it *politically*, in terms of that same output for the greater public good. Either way they'd basically be stuck having to "like" the output both on a societal level *and* on a personal level, due to its inherent inflexibility.)

That said, I think that incentives other than labour credits could be given. For example, less working hours.

This makes no sense since it's *contradictory* to the premise of an equitably-shared rotation of work roles -- if *one* person is allowed to work fewer hours, then, by extension, *everyone* in that rotation should be able to reduce their hours by the same amount as well. And, this, of course, might make for an *insufficient* amount of work output in relation to the tasks at hand.


---

Okay -- I ask because my impression is that much of the anarchist-type economics I've come across has been basically *localist* and *lateralist* in description. This is the first I'm hearing of larger-scale distribution centers, and you're essentially saying that it would happen on an as-needed basis.

Yes, I'm assuming that we have a large area, with thousands or millions. A large federation. We might have several anarchist communes, but when we reach this situation, I think they would join together, because a bigger region with a single communist mode of production would be better (more efficient) than smaller communes trading, in my opinion.

Let me ask you this: Would the point of the initial 'smaller communes' be for *trade*, as in *exchanges*, or would they be for respective *production* and *direct-distribution*?

I ask because when the 'large federation' of 'several anarchist communes' is formed, how would it be any *different* than if those several communes just remained the same, *without* federating -- ?

How would the 'bigger region' with a 'single communist mode of production' operate exactly, compared to the existing patchwork of 'smaller communes trading' -- ?

To clarify the last part, though, it's not that *direct-distribution* would vary according to scale -- certainly it doesn't matter what the product is, or where it is in the supply chain, it would still be provided directly *downstream* to the next 'node', or to the end-user consumer. What *would* vary according to scale would be the *production* aspect, as for larger productive-type operations that could cover *several* localities, all the way up to regional, and even global, levels.

Ah ok.. I agree, I haven't thought this way.

(Okay -- this part is relevant to the preceding part.)

[acandleinthedark]

But how would that fit with the whole 'to each his own' idea? I mean, what if my contribution to society is low? Would distribution apply differently to me as it would to someone else? What would be the criteria for even deciding what my contribution equates in terms of goods and services?

If by "the whole 'to each his own' idea" you're referring to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", you might not be thinking through that quote fully enough.

The way I might put it differently: Everyone contributes what they can to the best of their ability - and not everyone will be able to contribute as much as some, but that's okay - and if they avail themselves of the dignified standard of living, good nutrition, "getting what they need (to not just survive, but thrive, to carry on their work)" they'll be best positioned to contribute to their maximum potential.

So to answer your questions:

I mean, what if my contribution to society is low?

So what if it is? Maybe by getting what you need, your contribution will improve over time.

Would distribution apply differently to me as it would to someone else?

Instead of thinking of distribution in this way you should be thinking of people going to the "store", as someone has already called it, and getting the things you need to lead a fulfilling, productive life. You can decide for yourself whether you need hundreds of shoes to live a meaningful existence. I suspect in a communist society you'd find more interesting projects to occupy your time.

[Ledur]

We can't think of a detailed blueprint of a communist society. But knowledge, tech and sciences would be people's heritage. All knowledge would be open source, and everyone, regardless of educational level, would contribute. So I don't think we could talk about people contributing more or less to society. Even if someone is less productive, for some reason, others would help and make a good environment, so everyone could use their full potential.

[Ledur]

*However*, that said, the reality could very well turn out to be one of an impasse regarding a sufficiently evenly-shared distribution of work roles. If people feel that favoritism or elitism of some sort exists within a certain post-capitalist arrangement, the 'labor credits' method is meant to provide a complex-type addressing of a complex-type situation.

Ok.

Do you suppose people would vote democratically how these labour credits would be earned?

This makes no sense since it's *contradictory* to the premise of an equitably-shared rotation of work roles -- if *one* person is allowed to work fewer hours, then, by extension, *everyone* in that rotation should be able to reduce their hours by the same amount as well. And, this, of course, might make for an *insufficient* amount of work output in relation to the tasks at hand.

Actually I tried to give two separate steps of one possible solution. First, less desirable jobs would have less working hours. Second, if unfilled tasks still didn't have volunteers, these tasks would be equally shared by everyone. So yes, everyone works a couple of hours in undesired tasks, but the amount of total working hours in them would obviously be sufficient to fill society's needs.

Let me ask you this: Would the point of the initial 'smaller communes' be for *trade*, as in *exchanges*, or would they be for respective *production* and *direct-distribution*?

I don't know, that depends on how ancom would born. Internally, they'd be direct distribution. What I can't answer is about the size of these communes. If a large area (with millions of inhabitants) decided to be ancom in a single big commune, this single area would trade with the rest of the world. Another possibility is, in the same area, people decided to be ancom, but instead of a single giant commune, they decided to be independent, and then they'd "trade" among themselves and with the rest of the world as well.

I ask because when the 'large federation' of 'several anarchist communes' is formed, how would it be any *different* than if those several communes just remained the same, *without* federating -- ?

I tried to answer you above.

How would the 'bigger region' with a 'single communist mode of production' operate exactly, compared to the existing patchwork of 'smaller communes trading' -- ?

Direct distribution vs exchange.

[ckaihatsu]

Ok.

Do you suppose people would vote democratically how these labour credits would be earned?

There are at least two 'senses' of this -- one is in terms of the projects and production runs planned, which is addressed by this aspect of the model:

labor [supply] -- Work positions are created according to requirements of production runs and projects, by mass political prioritization

Another sense of it is in terms of the *rate* of labor credits earned, for whatever work role. For this there's a society-wide collective institution of mass surveys for every work role that people depart from -- it would yield a massively 'inter-subjective' index on the hazard / difficulty factor for each and every work role, hopefully without requiring too much administrative overhead.

This work role index would be the go-to reference -- like a 'blue book' for buying and selling today -- for setting a rate of labor credits for any given work role, at any scale. It wouldn't be set-in-stone, though, and people might deviate from the index's values as the particulars of the situation warranted.

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

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

---

Ok.

Actually I tried to give two separate steps of one possible solution. First, less desirable jobs would have less working hours. Second, if unfilled tasks still didn't have volunteers, these tasks would be equally shared by everyone.

This is still problematic because of labor having to be 'liberated' -- you're assuming that [1] everyone would *agree* that 'these tasks' need to be done, and [2] that everyone would be willing and able to share those tasks equally. There could very well be objective limitations of physical and geographic space where, for the tasks at-hand, it would be a 'gray area' as to whether to call for more participation from those local to the tasks, or to put a call out for *extra* labor from *outside* the immediate environs. (An example could be about the upkeep and refurbishing of some building, perhaps.)

In either case there's a *mismatch* between the 'democratic' process and the 'willing labor' process -- it's unclear how these (unfilled) tasks got to be *designated* as such, but the social process for formally declaring them as 'tasks' should match-up with the social process that ascertains the available and willing liberated labor for the same.

So yes, everyone works a couple of hours in undesired tasks, but the amount of total working hours in them would obviously be sufficient to fill society's needs.

This sounds too much like a 'decree' than a collective-derived addressing of actual realities and material logistics.


---

Let me ask you this: Would the point of the initial 'smaller communes' be for *trade*, as in *exchanges*, or would they be for respective *production* and *direct-distribution*?

I ask because when the 'large federation' of 'several anarchist communes' is formed, how would it be any *different* than if those several communes just remained the same, *without* federating -- ?

How would the 'bigger region' with a 'single communist mode of production' operate exactly, compared to the existing patchwork of 'smaller communes trading' -- ?

Ok.

I don't know, that depends on how ancom would born. Internally, they'd be direct distribution. What I can't answer is about the size of these communes. If a large area (with millions of inhabitants) decided to be ancom in a single big commune, this single area would trade with the rest of the world. Another possibility is, in the same area, people decided to be ancom, but instead of a single giant commune, they decided to be independent, and then they'd "trade" among themselves and with the rest of the world as well.

Ok.

I tried to answer you above.

Ok.

Direct distribution vs exchange.

What I'm hearing -- and please correct me on any misunderstanding here -- is that, no matter what the size, each commune would provide a direct distribution of its production *internally* to within its boundaries, while making certain goods available for exchanges *externally*, to other communes.

If this is the case then this is basically a patchwork *syndicalism*, and is not full communism. The existence of *any* exchanges, anywhere, implies an implicit *valuation* taking place, since communes could very well find themselves in competition with other ones, for the production of something for export. (One commune might be able to produce the thing for *less* in commensurate exchange, than another.)

Communism implies a full, unvarying 'direct distribution' so as to avoid any kind of exchanges whatsoever, so as to obviate exchange values entirely.

[GanzEgal]

But how would that fit with the whole 'to each his own' idea? I mean, what if my contribution to society is low? Would distribution apply differently to me as it would to someone else?

To each according to his need is unrelated to contribution of the individual. It is only related to needs, wishes, desires.

If the society were moneyless, to such an extent that no credits or quotas or consumption statistics are calculated, then consumption would be unlimited and uncontrolled, so it cannot be related to work contribution in any way.

Personally I am not intersted in a moneyless society. I believe that quotas should exist, to equally distribute the limited economic resources that exist. For example, if the total housing in the world is 80 sqm x world population, I would like to impose a quota that each person has the right to 80 sqm of accommodation. Otherwise a few people taking a large mansion for theirpersonal use would mean that the last ones in the queue would receive very little housing units, or more probably, we would run out of housing before the queue ends.

As for measuring work contribution, we must remember that humans aren't born equal, some are smarter and stronger, some are or become weak, sickly and stupid. That presents a philosophical problem for rewarding individuals for the amount or quality of their work. It would be a bit like rewarding individuals for their inborn abilities, which they did nothing to deserve. Nobody deserved to be born smarter or weaker than the others.

Nevertheless, I recognize the need to set skill requirements for jobs, so a person who wants to do a certain intersting job, must acquire the required skill level for it. Working time is something that we can relatively fairly reward people for. I would specify a minimum working time, something like 20 hours per week for example, which entitles a person to basic housing, food and clothing. Most people would choose to work 30 - 40 hours per week, to gain more credits for a higher standard of living. A larger home, a better computer, a larger television, or whatever. The most ambitious ones would work 50 - 60 hours per week, to trade off more of their leisure time to a yet higher standard of living.

[ckaihatsu]

As for measuring work contribution, we must remember that humans aren't born equal, some are smarter and stronger, some are or become weak, sickly and stupid. That presents a philosophical problem for rewarding individuals for the amount or quality of their work. It would be a bit like rewarding individuals for their inborn abilities, which they did nothing to deserve. Nobody deserved to be born smarter or weaker than the others.

Most people would choose to work 30 - 40 hours per week, to gain more credits for a higher standard of living. A larger home, a better computer, a larger television, or whatever. The most ambitious ones would work 50 - 60 hours per week, to trade off more of their leisure time to a yet higher standard of living.

These two portions contradict each other since not-rewarding people according to the amount or quality of their work means not-basing a better quality of life on the hours per week that people work.

I've come to see the core contradiction as being this (from a recent post at another thread):

Would this compensation be decided-on in relation to the labor contributed, or would it be decided-on in relation to the 'value' / worth of the compensation-value itself, meaning the range of goods and services that could be obtained with it -- ?

- If the subsidies are in relation to the *labor inputs*, then that effectively *commodifies* labor, since workers will be looking to see the relative *levels* of compensation given for whatever work inputs, over time. People will know what kinds of work are rewarded more than others and that will be a labor *market* of sorts.

- If the subsidies are in relation to the *compensation value* (goods and services exchangeable for it), then that's effectively *market socialism* since the subsidies now function as cash and will circulate at-will, independently of any and all pre-planning.

The problem with every compensation-for-labor proposal I've seen is that there's a *direct exchangeability* of labor for material rewards, which effectively *commodifies labor*.

I've been advocating my own proposal throughout this thread, of course, which is outlined at post #40.

[GanzEgal]

not-rewarding people according to the amount or quality of their work means not-basing a better quality of life on the hours per week that people work.

(...) The problem with every compensation-for-labor proposal I've seen is that there's a *direct exchangeability* of labor for material rewards, which effectively *commodifies labor*.

I've been advocating my own proposal throughout this thread, of course, which is outlined at post #40.

Your proposal assumes that material goods will become so abundant that offer surpasses any and all demand. I assume that this will never happen, not in a meaningfully near future anyway, so even if such circumstances were possible and thus relevant for a future generation 500 years after our own era, unlimited abundance of material goods is for our generation and the soon coming generations impossible, and thus irrelevant.

If, when, and as long as material goods will be a limited resource, their distribution needs to be regulated, if we wish to achieve economic equality between citizens. My arguments focus on such a reality, where material goods are limited and need to be regulated. It is mot meaningful for us to debate about economic politics, if we place our policy recommendations into radically different circumstances, so that a policy designed for one type of circumstances would be irrelevant in the other very different circumstances. If we want to debate, we will have to agree what circumstances our debate takes place in.

Under circumstances where material goods are limited, I believe that a significant number of the voting population would be willing to organize labour market and commodity market in such a way that work is rewarded by the hour, who works more gets rewarded more highly. Basic existence might be provided by the state without any work, and persons documentably unable to work, because of sickness etc, would get rewarded equally as the statistically average worker.

I have philosophical objections to rewarding skill with a higher salary per hour (or more work credits, whatever the term will be), because I perceive that high skill requires favourable inborn qualities, which the skilled person has not deserved, neither has an untalented person deserved to be born untalented.

But I have no objections to rewarding longer working hours with a higher salary (or standard of living, whatever the term will be), because it seems to me that every person who is fit to work, can equally decide to work shorter hours and enjoy longer leisure time, or sacrifice more of his leisure time and work longer hours. Rewarding longer working hours seems fair to me, because the sacrifice is quite the same for every individual, regardless of inborn qualities, only excluding persons who are unfit to work and therefore don't get the choice to sacrifice and therefore earn more (or less) than the average worker.

[ckaihatsu]

Your proposal assumes that material goods will become so abundant that offer surpasses any and all demand.

Actually, no, I *don't* make any such assumptions. The proposal is referenced at post #40, and is also referenced in this post -- you'll see no mention of any assumed material abundance as a given.

What you *may* have been referring to at post 40 is this part:

Labour could be sold in a market, then it is a commodity, despite abundance of material goods.

No, as I already mentioned it's *not* a commodity [in the 'labor credits' framework], *because* of the abundance of material goods -- especially the ones critical to regular life and living.

---


So this *is* in line with the *definition* of communism -- that a collectivized society would (certainly) be able to be self-sustaining, otherwise it wouldn't be worth it in the first place.

Personally I do think that a basic 'gift economy' of sheer voluntarism, to-and-from the commons of collectivized goods and services, would be possible and doable, for everyone's basic humane needs.

I think you're missing-out on the *purpose* of communism -- over capitalism -- which is to *eliminate scarcity*. This is what motivates revolutionary activity today, and would continue to be the driving force even after capitalism is usurped, through to the fulfillment of every person's every conceivable material need and want.

Here's from post #45:

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

labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers [...]

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

So this approach addresses material scarcity through socially-sanctioned incentives for the liberated labor that *alleviates* such material scarcity. Work roles that are more-difficult, more-hazardous, and/or more-demanded would see increasing rates of labor credits offered per hour of liberated labor, and those who *earn* such labor credits would realize an increasing share of control over *future* uses of liberated labor, limited to the actual amount of labor credits earned.

---

I assume that this will never happen, not in a meaningfully near future anyway, so even if such circumstances were possible and thus relevant for a future generation 500 years after our own era, unlimited abundance of material goods is for our generation and the soon coming generations impossible, and thus irrelevant.

(Everyone's entitled to their opinion.)

If, when, and as long as material goods will be a limited resource, their distribution needs to be regulated, if we wish to achieve economic equality between citizens.

'Economic equality between citizens' is *not* communism.

My arguments focus on such a reality, where material goods are limited and need to be regulated. It is mot meaningful for us to debate about economic politics, if we place our policy recommendations into radically different circumstances, so that a policy designed for one type of circumstances would be irrelevant in the other very different circumstances. If we want to debate, we will have to agree what circumstances our debate takes place in.

Under circumstances where material goods are limited, I believe that a significant number of the voting population would be willing to organize labour market and commodity market in such a way that work is rewarded by the hour, who works more gets rewarded more highly. Basic existence might be provided by the state without any work, and persons documentably unable to work, because of sickness etc, would get rewarded equally as the statistically average worker.

I have philosophical objections to rewarding skill with a higher salary per hour (or more work credits, whatever the term will be), because I perceive that high skill requires favourable inborn qualities, which the skilled person has not deserved, neither has an untalented person deserved to be born untalented.

But I have no objections to rewarding longer working hours with a higher salary (or standard of living, whatever the term will be), because it seems to me that every person who is fit to work, can equally decide to work shorter hours and enjoy longer leisure time, or sacrifice more of his leisure time and work longer hours. Rewarding longer working hours seems fair to me, because the sacrifice is quite the same for every individual, regardless of inborn qualities, only excluding persons who are unfit to work and therefore don't get the choice to sacrifice and therefore earn more (or less) than the average worker.

I'll leave the following for your consideration:

'How would an individual obtain goods in a feasible post-capitalist social order, in a socially acceptable way, without having to work.'

And, to address this, my conception of such a social order *would* readily allow individuals to receive goods *without* providing work themselves, *because of* the existence of machinery that doesn't require much work-effort input to produce mass quantities of manufactured goods.

Here's the "proof", in steps:

Material function

consumption [demand] -- All economic needs and desires are formally recorded as pre-planned consumer orders and are politically prioritized [demand]

Determination of material values

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination

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

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

Propagation

labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality

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

So, in brief, this means that any one person's demands would only be their own, but, depending on what's demanded, they may resonate with the same, or similar, demands of many others.

If the goods that someone wanted were commonly demanded and routinely produced then it would just be a matter of making sure that the number of units produced would be adequate to satisfy one's own personal requirements -- I'd imagine this would simply be an administrative matter of contacting those whose policy package it is that's actively in use, to have production bumped-up accordingly. I doubt that additional labor credits would have to be considered for this, since you're only one person, and the additional production to cover one person would be negligible.

So we can see that the key variable here is 'which goods'. If the request / demand can be satisfied with already-existing mass production, then there you have it -- no work needed on your part, and you get what you want, subject to the real-world political process.

The downside is that it *would* still require you to be part of a *social-political* process, since the context is a *political economy*, unless regular practices included producing significant surpluses of whatever, for those like yourself to just find and take from.

At *worst* you might have to deal in a more-involved way with those whose policy package is being used, to have it favorably amended, and/or to deal with the liberated laborers themselves, to ask them to run a larger batch, for your personal benefit.

[GanzEgal]

Personally I do think that a basic 'gift economy' of sheer voluntarism, to-and-from the commons of collectivized goods and services, would be possible and doable, for everyone's basic humane needs.

For the basic human needs only, quite easily. Porridge and sausages to eat, a set of clothes to wear, and a Japanese capsule hotel to sleep in.

But people want much more than this, so it is necessary to theorize how to achieve much more than this.

I think you're missing-out on the *purpose* of communism -- over capitalism -- which is to *eliminate scarcity*.

Scarcity is an ambiguous word. You probably refer to "poverty", not having enough for the basic necessities of life. The other meaning is "not infinite", "having a limit". By this meaning, scarcity always exists, because the material universe is finite, nothing exists in infinite amounts.

'Economic equality between citizens' is *not* communism.

Hmmm.

Economic equality between citizens would be a moral reason to support Socialism. Lack thereof might be a reason to oppose it. Usually the lower end of economically inequal circumstances tends to criticize and oppose the economic system. Frustration about the present economic inequality is _the_ reason why most people who are interested in Socialism, are interested in Socialism.

What type of inequality would exist in Communism? Experts of some professional skill having a higher standard of living than others? Or members of some local community producing a higher standard of living among themselves than members of some other local community? Or some other mechanism that causes long-term economic inequality?

[ckaihatsu]

For the basic human needs only, quite easily. Porridge and sausages to eat, a set of clothes to wear, and a Japanese capsule hotel to sleep in.

But people want much more than this, so it is necessary to theorize how to achieve much more than this.

Yep -- agreed. I've said as much here (at another thread):

My framework [...] addresses the *outer reaches* of what a strictly moneyless communistic 'gift economy' could conceivably cover. Some on the revolutionary left have suggested that perhaps a *remnant* of the former markets could exist within a post-capitalist social order, to cover luxury / specialty production, since such might be *unaddressed* by the more mass-oriented mainstream gift economy.

However, a regular market-based approach to luxury / specialty production could very well be more cumbersome than it's worth -- it would be tolerating a kind of exchange-values-based 'black market' within an otherwise free-access social paradigm.

My 'labor credits' is meant to acknowledge a post-capitalist liberated-labor on its own terms, without resorting to backsliding to any system of exchange values.

---

Scarcity is an ambiguous word. You probably refer to "poverty", not having enough for the basic necessities of life. The other meaning is "not infinite", "having a limit". By this meaning, scarcity always exists, because the material universe is finite, nothing exists in infinite amounts.

Yes, I agree with your two denotations -- we can talk about a general, 'starving' 'scarcity', or a 'per-item' scarcity. I've responded to the latter topic at another thread we've been using, with the 'Swiss watch for everyone' example:


http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...7&postcount=39

Hmmm.

Economic equality between citizens would be a moral reason to support Socialism. Lack thereof might be a reason to oppose it. Usually the lower end of economically inequal circumstances tends to criticize and oppose the economic system. Frustration about the present economic inequality is _the_ reason why most people who are interested in Socialism, are interested in Socialism.

Certainly -- no argument here.

What type of inequality would exist in Communism? Experts of some professional skill having a higher standard of living than others? Or members of some local community producing a higher standard of living among themselves than members of some other local community? Or some other mechanism that causes long-term economic inequality?

By definition the *only* material "inequality" that should exist in communism would be one that's *directly caused* by personal preferences regarding one's own lifestyle.

[GanzEgal]

By definition the *only* material "inequality" that should exist in communism would be one that's *directly caused* by personal preferences regarding one's own lifestyle.

If this ideal is taken seriously, in a world where scarcity of material goods exists, and different workers and factories produce goods or services with varying productivity, only a centralized government or distribution system would be able to harmonize the differences in standard of living that gets produced by different labour units. Without centralized harmonization, some local units would be able to produce a higher standard of living among themselves than some other local units. Then also hereditary inequality would creep in, as some children would be born to parents living in affluent labour units, and some would be born to parents in poorer labour units.

[ckaihatsu]

By definition the *only* material "inequality" that should exist in communism would be one that's *directly caused* by personal preferences regarding one's own lifestyle.

If this ideal is taken seriously, in a world where scarcity of material goods exists, and different workers and factories produce goods or services with varying productivity, only a centralized government or distribution system would be able to harmonize the differences in standard of living that gets produced by different labour units.

I think you're retaining a private-property conception of consumption here, for a *post*-capitalist social context.

If, as you're positing, various locales would produce varying kinds of output -- a perfectly reasonable line of reasoning -- that doesn't mean that each locale would necessarily 'build up' its own character of *consumption* based on that local output. The point, overall, would be to eliminate scarcity on a free-access / direct-distribution basis, so patterns of consumption could be quite *independent* of local productivity.

A particular locale might become known for its *productive* traditions, such as logging for a forest-type area, but in terms of *consumption* people would mix-and-match whatever they like from wherever they could find it, most likely including products from around the world as well.

Without centralized harmonization, some local units would be able to produce a higher standard of living among themselves than some other local units. Then also hereditary inequality would creep in, as some children would be born to parents living in affluent labour units, and some would be born to parents in poorer labour units.

You're making it sound like everyone would be fenced-in, into prison labor camps or something.

There's no reason why productive units couldn't freely pick-and-choose from many neighboring (and beyond) sources of upstream supplies, and make their productivity available on a broad geographic basis as well.

[cyu]

people want much more than this

I would say what people "want" in modern society is determined much more by advertising than most people realize or are willing to admit.

...not that advertising would be outlawed in post-capitalist society, but I would see it morphing into advocacy of a different kind - instead of "please buy my product or I'll lose my job" I'd see the advocacy as more directly related to the needs of the world - or at least the needs of the organizations that agree on the content of the propaganda - even distinct from "please donate to our charity because we're trying to help people" but maybe "please join our organization so you can help the same people we're trying to help".