Is this communism, in your opinion? Is it true to "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"?

65 posts / 0 new
Last post
ultraviolet's picture
ultraviolet
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Sep 25 2011 05:32
Is this communism, in your opinion? Is it true to "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"?

A comrade over at Anarchist Black Cat forum wrote the following in her response to someone who was saying that communism couldn't work because people are greedy, will overconsume, and won't work. She describes three versions of a communist system and makes the case that indeed communism is capable of functioning well.

What she describes (in the first two versions) at first to me seemed not to be communism, intuitively, because I had it in my mind that communism meant take as much as you want without any measurement of what you take and without any limit. The concept of limits on consumption through credits, and measurement through "prices", seemed alien to communism. But the more I thought about it, the more it was clear that, as long as credits are distributed according to need, this is consistent with from each according to their ability and to each according to their need. There's nothing in that quote about "to each without limit!"

That being said, there's still a part of me that doubts whether this is communism. Not for any logical reason but because of how ingrained my early impressions/misconceptions of communism are. So I'm posting what she wrote here to see what others think.

What's your opinion? Is this communism?

(Note: Comrade RedHughes raises the point that communism means that "scarcity as a social phenomenon" is overcome -- by that they mean that "society, our collective activity, will redefine needs so that our existence will no longer be dominated by scarcity. [...] If you instead have a society where people get satisfaction from each other directly, through hanging out, collective play, rituals, self-improvement, whatever, then you can have a society of abundance without any increase in the physical, material means of production." I think this is a good point. But the answer to the question of how to distribute goods/services remains.)

Quote:
there are basically two types of communist systems that use credits.
1 = everyone gets an equal number of credits as an allowance.
2 = credits are distributed according to need... there is an "average" level that most people get, but those with special needs get more.

goods and services then have "prices" which are based on the amount of labor time it took to produce it and its environmental impact, likely with seperate numbers rather than collapsing this information into one number (so the apple will be X labor time points, Y water usage points, Z carbon emissions points, etc.). and as jacobian has taught me in another thread (thanks, j.!), "prices" will need to "float" so that if a good/service approaches scarcity its price rises. (for why this is necessary, see: Question about Rationing Scarce Items in an Anarchist-Communist Society, http://www.anarchistblackcat.org/index.php/topic,9046.0.html)

if you run out of credits, then too bad. learn to budget better. well... i imagine we won't let people starve. people who use all their credits too quickly should be allowed to get an "advance" on their next month's credit allowance... this is different from a loan because there will be no interest and no lender, except if you recognize that the entire world is the lender. the debt is "paid" back by subtracting from next month's allowance. the same thing can be done if people need/want to make a major "purchase" in a certain month that is inconsistent with their usual consumption patterns.

or, another option is that those who run out of credits, or want to go overlimit, make a request of the community to do so... and if the community's total consumption in terms of labor time and environmental impact can spare it (because they are below their quota limit), then it will be approved, within reason. if request is approved, no need to "pay" it back by consuming less in the future... if it's rejected, then you get the advance still but must pay it back.

as you can see, not every conception of communism is just grab as much as you want without any limits. i don't think people who have seriously thought through communism imagine it this way. i think most people who reject communism do so because this is what they imagine it to be, as i once did.

i don't call these credits money though because in my view, an essential aspect of money is that it circulates, but communist (and socialist) economic models that use credits stress the need for the credits to be non-circulating. if currency circulates this means that producers of goods/services get paid for what they sell. if producers get paid for what they sell this implies that they have a right to do so because what they made is their own, which implies they own the means of production they used to make it. but the means of production belong to the world, and thus no one, so selling what you produce is unjust and a violation of communism (or socialism). circulation will also lead to wealth inequalities and economic competition between workplaces. therefore, currency must not circulate.

there is another possibility for communism which does not use credits/currency but still uses "prices." in this version, instead of each person having a certain number of credits, there is no fixed limit on the quantity they consume (in terms of labor time or environmental impact). however, there are recommended limits/averages that will be decided by society, and the consumption levels of individuals are tracked so that (1) individuals can monitor their own consumption and limit it within acceptable boundaries, and (2) community members can know if any of their neighbors is overconsuming, and can then use social pressure to discourage them.

communities will (we hope and expect) have tolerance for those who consume above average because of legitimate needs, recognizing that everyone's needs are not equal. but glutonous overconsumers will earn the wrath of their peers. in anarchism, overconsumption amounts to theft... and since all is owned by all it is theft from the entire community/world, so overconsumers make a victim of everyone. they won't get away with it without consequence, whether that be formal or informal consequences.

in a twist on the above version, chronic over-consumers who do not respond to social pressure can have more concrete consequences imposed on them by the community if their behavior doesn't stop. what those consequences will be all depends on what the community decides through democratic vote. something light might be mandatory out-patient therapy (because it takes a sick fucker to steal from the community like that). something more coercive might be putting the person (temporarily) in a locked up institution where they are rehabilitated. basically jail. as anarchists and/or prison abolitionists we might not like this last harsh option to deal with overconsumers but since communities are democratic they can decide to do that if they want. i'm also just making the point that options are available.

i think greedy overconsumers would be rare, but if/when they popped up, the community would put a stop to it one way or another.

same with people CAPABLE of working a full amount but who refused to work or slacked off. their coworkers could have a vote to fire them. people who kept getting fired over and over would have a hard time finding a workers collective to hire them, as their reputation built. what to do with these chronic slackers? as with everything else, the community will decide. maybe they will be mandated to get therapy (is there some unresolved trauma causing them to act like an ass?). maybe they will have their consumption restricted. many options limited only by the community's imagination and human rights "laws."

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Sep 25 2011 06:49
ultraviolet wrote:
Is it true to "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"?

I would answer "Yes!", ultraviolet.

The solution to the 'free rider' problem is simple.

"Ability" and "Need" are socially-determined, by democratic methods.

There won't be any 'individuals' deciding their 'ability' to only sit on their arse all day, yet deciding on their 'need' for a top-of-the-range Porsche.

Every 'each' has a vote. You get outvoted? That's your 'abilities' and 'needs' re-defined by your fellow Communists.

We have to bring together production and consumption, and that is a social task, not individual taste.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 25 2011 12:10

The system you've quoted above not only seems very prescriptive, but very mutualist. So while I agree (and I think all communists must agree with FEATTA, TEATTN), I think most anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists would disagree with what's outlined.

martinh
Offline
Joined: 8-03-06
Sep 25 2011 11:28

Surely a need is something like food, shelter or social interaction. No one needs a Porsche. They might need some thrills or social status, or compensation for a small penis, but as LBird points out, these are socially determined.

Regards,

Martin

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Sep 25 2011 11:41
martinh wrote:
No one needs a Porsche. They might need some thrills or social status, or compensation for a small penis...

Errrrmmm... perhaps I should stick with the bourgeoisie, after all...

[more brightly]... hey, I've got a huge mouth, though...

[deflated]... nah, it's just not the same, is it? ...

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 25 2011 12:10

Just to build on Martin's post, there's a need for luxury, enjoyment, education, and entertainment. We are post-scarcity, after all, and communism should seek to increase the standard of living, not just by simply providing for the basic needs of humanity.

Baronarchist
Offline
Joined: 22-06-11
Sep 25 2011 12:14

I think we do have a need for luxuries although that's a pretty loose term that will always change as we progress societally and technologically. Of course no matter how much the Capitalist talks about progress, it's not progress we ever see in terms of goods. A poor worker will attain the sort of luxuries in thirty years that son of a CEO is enjoying now regardless of work input.

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Sep 25 2011 12:31
Chili Sauce wrote:
We are post-scarcity...

Yeah, but we have to keep hammering home the message that 'scarcity', like 'luxuries', are socially-determined, not some ahistoric void.

For example, there was a 'scarcity' of top generals living in shite in trenches at the front with the infantry during WW1.

Now, according to 'market theory' [suppresses a snigger at the idea that anything to to with 'markets' stands the slightest theoretical scrutiny], an entrepeneur should have turned up at the dugout, eager to realise a profit on this 'scarce good', and offered a cheap-deal, barely-used, 'general staff' - a 'scarcity' at the front, if there ever was one.

I'm sure a couple of brigades would have dug into their collective pockets (after all, the money they had on them wasn't going to be much use after the whistles go), and bought such a desirable 'scarcity', to collectively kick the fuck out of and drag over the top with them, to their mutual doom.

'Scarcity', eh? Such a harmless concept...

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Sep 25 2011 12:46

We 'need' to be careful in conversations such as this, least we forget how socially determined our concepts of need and luxury are. I.E.We tend to think of needs as necessities and luxuries as something that comes after these have been met (Maslov's pyramid etc). We would all I imagine define access to clean water as a need, but clean water(at least how we define today) has been for most people for most of human history unobtainable. It is difficult to untangle needs from desires and necessities from luxuries. Indeed one generation's or cultures may be(come) the next's/other's necessities. Think of reading and writing in modern day Britain (still strictly speaking not necessary), can we think of a communist society existing today without nearly all adults aquiring these skills?

no1
Offline
Joined: 3-12-07
Sep 25 2011 13:31

Interferon beta is a very expensive (because hard to make) drug which causes a small improvement for some people with the debilitating degenerative disease multiple sclerosis and may slow the progression somewhat. There will always be drugs like that IMO, which would require enormous resources to be invested for a small effect. Are they a luxury? How would they be made available under communism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interferon_beta-1a

martinh
Offline
Joined: 8-03-06
Sep 25 2011 16:53

no1, why is it hard to make? If it is hard to make cos it requires something that is genuinely scarce, then our approach would be different than if it was just about allocation of resources to its production. That shuldn't be a problem, after all, once we eliminate all the useless or anti social stuff that goes on. (Advertising, arms manufacture etc).
And yes, beta interferon qualifies as a need in my book. As do all sorts of other things devalued by this society, like care. I accept that my humour re the Porsche hasn't come across, but I can see no way that such a luxury fills a socially-defined need.
Regards,

Martin

ultraviolet's picture
ultraviolet
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Sep 25 2011 17:10

So far I count six people replying to this post, but only two have "voted" on the question of whether what's described (in the first two models) is communism. Can others share their view, even if only to say yes or no?

Chilli Sauce wrote:
The system you've quoted above not only seems very prescriptive, but very mutualist. So while I agree (and I think all communists must agree with FEATTA, TEATTN), I think most anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists would disagree with what's outlined.

She described three versions of communism. Two in which noncirculating credits are distributed (equally or according to need). The last/third system has no credits and no official limit to consumption, but our quantity of consumption (as measured by environment effects and labor time to make the stuff we consume) is monitored so that the community can complain if someone is consuming an obscene amount.

Does your view that what she describes is "very mutualist" apply to just the first two systems? Or do you think this about all three of them?

If you think this even about the last one, I am curious to know how you think distribution should be in a communist society. Should there be no measurement at all of what we consume, in terms of the environmental impact and labor time it takes to make them? I think we need to have measurement so at the very least each person can monitor his/her own consumption, even if you disagree that the community should be able to have any say in individual's consumption level. If I want to consume a fair amount, how can I do so unless I can measure how much I'm consuming? In order to measure, we need to have "prices" on each good telling us its labor time and environment effects... I realize "price" is the wrong word here but you know what I mean, I hope.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 25 2011 17:38

No1, I really thought that was spam for the first sentence or your last post.

no1
Offline
Joined: 3-12-07
Sep 25 2011 17:48
martinh wrote:
no1, why is it hard to make? If it is hard to make cos it requires something that is genuinely scarce, then our approach would be different than if it was just about allocation of resources to its production. That shuldn't be a problem, after all, once we eliminate all the useless or anti social stuff that goes on. (Advertising, arms manufacture etc).

It's hard because it's a laborious process, which is hard to do at a large scale so yields would be small, it requires a lot of work and highly skilled and experienced people. It is also very difficult but essential to keep the quality at the same level. (Tbh. I haven't looked into the details with this particular drug but have a good idea of the general problem.)
So basically, what is scarce here is labour. Of course it can be produced in a communist society. I think there are a lot of drugs that could potentially be produced, but if they are increasingly laborious to make with decreasing benefits, you need to decide where you draw the line of where it becomes irrational to do so. Under capitalism it's an easy decision - profitability. But in a communist society, will it be 'rational' to get, say,100 people to work fulltime to produce something that makes one person's life slightly better? How will these things be decided?
In this sense some things will always be scarce IMO.

no1
Offline
Joined: 3-12-07
Sep 25 2011 17:46
Chilli Sauce wrote:
No1, I really thought that was spam for the first sentence or your last post.

I'm training Mollom to ignore V!@6RA links.

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Sep 25 2011 18:01
no1 wrote:
martinh wrote:
no1, why is it hard to make? If it is hard to make cos it requires something that is genuinely scarce, then our approach would be different than if it was just about allocation of resources to its production. That shuldn't be a problem, after all, once we eliminate all the useless or anti social stuff that goes on. (Advertising, arms manufacture etc).

It's hard because it's a laborious process, which is hard to do at a large scale so yields would be small, it requires a lot of work and highly skilled and experienced people. It is also very difficult but essential to keep the quality at the same level. (Tbh. I haven't looked into the details with this particular drug but have a good idea of the general problem.)
'

I too was skeptical whem I read your "expensive because its hard" statement. I am no doubt naive, bit surely once the process for chemical production has been clearly defined, automation comes next, and one automated process should be no "harder" than any other automated process.

I work in IT, I do "hard" things all the time, but they become repetitive, boring and error-prone, so I automate as much as I can, at which point "hard" becomes "easy". The automation may also be hard, but you only have to do it once!

Go on, why is chemical manufacture "hard", even in the general case?

And if, as you say, you have no specific experience in the case of this drug, why do you assume it's hard? Aspirin is very cheap, is it easy to make compared to Beta Interferon? Or is simply that there are no patents in effect which would allow companies to use their monopolies to set the maximum price the market will bear?

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Sep 25 2011 18:00

Well surely if it was easy to automate and do easily, they'd have done it for profit.

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Sep 25 2011 18:00
no1 wrote:
So basically, what is scarce here is labour. Of course it can be produced in a communist society. I think there are a lot of drugs that could potentially be produced, but if they are increasingly laborious to make with decreasing benefits, you need to decide where you draw the line of where it becomes irrational to do so. Under capitalism it's an easy decision - profitability. But in a communist society, will it be 'rational' to get, say,100 people to work fulltime to produce something that makes one person's life slightly better? How will these things be decided?

How will these things be decided ? Surely, if in doubt, direct democracy ?

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Sep 25 2011 18:08

http://www.ms-gateway.com/more-on-interferon-beta-1b/interferon-beta-1b-manufacture-146.htm

Looks like all it takes to make beta interferon is a genetically modified bacterium. The manufacture is done by the bacterium.

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Sep 25 2011 18:07

dp

no1
Offline
Joined: 3-12-07
Sep 25 2011 19:07
Pikel wrote:
http://www.ms-gateway.com/more-on-interferon-beta-1b/interferon-beta-1b-manufacture-146.htm

Looks like all it takes to make beta interferon is a genetically modified bacterium. The manufacture is done by the bacterium.

Precisely! What's hard about it is not the general principle of how it is made, the hard bit is to grow large quantities of E.coli that maintain production at a constant level, then to purify it from a mixture of thousands of other proteins, without affecting its function. You're dealing with a living organism here (rather than chemical synthesis) which means it's far more complex and unpredictable. (btw., this is inteferon beta 1b, while interferon beta 1a has to be produced in mammalian cells).

Quote:
I too was skeptical whem I read your "expensive because its hard" statement. I am no doubt naive, bit surely once the process for chemical production has been clearly defined, automation comes next, and one automated process should be no "harder" than any other automated process.

I work in IT, I do "hard" things all the time, but they become repetitive, boring and error-prone, so I automate as much as I can, at which point "hard" becomes "easy". The automation may also be hard, but you only have to do it once!

Go on, why is chemical manufacture "hard", even in the general case?

I think you're slightly missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm not saying that technological progress won't make things easier to produce. I'm saying that at any particular moment, there are useful things that are very hard ('expensive') to produce (even if 20 years later it will be easy). Some require lots of people to work on them, but I guess you can add energy to that - some things will require so much energy that people in a communist society will have to think very hard about whether they should be made or not.

Fall Back wrote:
Well surely if it was easy to automate and do easily, they'd have done it for profit.

Exactly, though interferon B is commercially available - the reason I chose this example is that it was in the news a few years ago as one of those drugs which are so expensive that the NHS postcode lottery decides if you can get it or not. I've always been intrigued by the question of how a communist society would deal with such problems.

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Sep 25 2011 21:18
no1 wrote:
Exactly, though interferon B is commercially available - the reason I chose this example is that it was in the news a few years ago as one of those drugs which are so expensive that the NHS postcode lottery decides if you can get it or not. I've always been intrigued by the question of how a communist society would deal with such problems.

I totally agree - I recall from discussions that this was a big problem with SF's Economics of Freedom pamphlet.

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Sep 27 2011 10:15

indeed it was and this is an excellent example (medical ones usually are )of the problems of 'rational' resource allocation. The Croydonian simply suggests "direct democracy" without any reference to how this would be applied and at what level. Ultraviolet see measurement as being crucial, so at the very least we can self access our enviromental and other impacts. But what 'rational' critera can we apply to account for the cost of a life that needs twenty four hour care and consumes massively more time, energy and resources? How would it make someone feel to know this was being done? Here we are in the two separate realms of economics and ethics, if we start accounting for the costs and benefits (as some reccomend we do for enviromental impact) we dehumanise ourselves. So we left confronting the massive problem of developing the ethics for how and why to draw a line on the allivation of suffering. for those of you who think we can simply duck this issue, I humbly suggest you do some research and thinking on the medicalisation of life.

yourmum
Offline
Joined: 9-03-10
Sep 27 2011 12:19

people dont get it what it means to live in a post-scarcity society. do you want to eat 7 beefsteaks per hour? use 10 televisions to watch movies? the need has its measure in itself...

you dont produce luxury in communism, why would you. you decide on what the needs are. you produce the stuff that is available for everyone following the maslov pyramid or rational order of needs as decided by the workers and bet you wont spend ressources for anything else. even socialists should know about that because its the basic principle of their economy too, before there fancy ideas of fair-trade come into play.

for this medical example: if society decides those medicaments should be produced you do it, else you dont. there is no outer measurement of a use value or would you eat apples all day because they dont need much work? pretty stupid, eh.. thats what being a primmo is about.

so all those measures in that text in terms of restricting people from consumption and forcing people to work, they are just capitalist phenomena of money taken seriously as problems of the nature of man and wont even occur in a communist mode of production that is not the repetition of the kind of socialism thats named state capitalism by some communists and writes on its flag "concious adaption of the law of value". im talking strictly general production of use values here. decide the use value, then setup the work. not decide the use value from another point of view like more profitable or cheaper or whatever like capitalists do.

what i find most unnerving is that those anarchists-socialists feel the need to defend themselves from a picture of the nature of man being greedy and lazy by imagining meaningfull mechanisms of exclusion in "communism". what kind of critic do they have at this capitalist mode of production if they agree with this picture of human nature? what kind of criticism do they show towards phenomena of this system? are they telling bankers and rich people they are greedy when they are not busy painting out socialism as a fair-trade version of capitalism?

http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/msz/html/82/82_6/sysver.htm <- german in thorough need of a translation

ultraviolet's picture
ultraviolet
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Sep 29 2011 00:01
yourmum wrote:
people dont get it what it means to live in a post-scarcity society. do you want to eat 7 beefsteaks per hour? use 10 televisions to watch movies? the need has its measure in itself...

I don't think anyone wants to eat 7 beefsteaks per hour. But most people might want to eat beef everyday. Environmentally this would be disastrous. So, for those who define post-scarcity as meaning we don't need to measure or limit the environmental impact of our consumption, I disagree. (If post-scarcity is defined as RedHughes defines it, then I do agree.)

yourmum wrote:
you dont produce luxury in communism, why would you. you decide on what the needs are. you produce the stuff that is available for everyone following the maslov pyramid or rational order of needs as decided by the workers and bet you wont spend ressources for anything else.

How do you suggest we "decide on what the needs are"? Do you prefer that everyone plans their consumption in advance (similar to parecon, where we all make yearly consumption plans, only without the remuneration of course)? Or do you prefer a system where everyone takes what they need/want as the need/want arises, without advanced planning?

Whichever the case, we need to make sure that the total "demand' by society will not take more time to make then we are willing to give in labor. What happens if we measure our needs and it will take a total of 100 billion hours of work per week to provide (which is 4 billion people working 25 hours per week) -- but we only want to work 20 hours per week on average? We either have shortages or we have to compel people to work more than they want to.

This is why it helps to have consumption limits (either "consumption credits" distributed according to need, or with no set limit but the community intervenes to discourage overconsumption).

If we know people are on average willing to work 20 hours a week, that means there are, in a world of 7 billion with 4 billion working, 80 billion hours of labor time worth of goods is available per week in total. That's about 11 hours and 25 minutes worth of goods (measured in labor time) per person per week. To ensure needs based distribution and avoid shortages, I think it makes sense to distribute "consumption credits" according to need, with 11 hours and 25 minutes worth being the average, but variations according to need.

Same with environmental impact. If we democratically decide to emit X tons of carbon per year, it makes sense to divide X by 7 billion, which gives us the average amount of carbon per person we can emit, and give everyone roughly the same carbon quota with variations according to need. Without this measurement or limit, we risk emitting more carbon than we wish to.

I assume we all agree it's important to avoid having to choose between shortages and working more than we want to... and that it's important to have democratically agreed upon environmental quotas for society as a whole on carbon emissions, fresh water use, etc. How can we achieve these goals without consumption limits or without at least measurement so we can self-impose limits? If there is another way, please tell me. If measurement is not necessary to achieve these goals I will be happy to drop it.

yourmum wrote:
so all those measures in that text in terms of restricting people from consumption and forcing people to work, they are just capitalist phenomena of money taken seriously as problems of the nature of man [...]

Clarifying question: What are the restrictions on consumption you are against? It's pretty clear you are against restricting consumption of someone who is able to work but refuses to. But are you also against a system that uses "consumption credits" distributed according to need?

yourmum wrote:
im talking strictly general production of use values here. decide the use value, then setup the work. not decide the use value from another point of view like more profitable or cheaper or whatever like capitalists do.

The text I quoted did not advocate basing decisions on what is more "profitable" (profit is abolished!) or "cheaper." There are other factors to consider besides use value -- most importantly environmental impact -- if we don't consider this we might cause environmental catastrophes. Labor time should also be considered so that we don't have a situation where the sum total of the goods everyone demands is greater than the sum total of labor hours everyone is willing to work.

yourmum wrote:
what i find most unnerving is that those anarchists-socialists feel the need to defend themselves from a picture of the nature of man being greedy and lazy by imagining meaningfull mechanisms of exclusion in "communism". what kind of critic do they have at this capitalist mode of production if they agree with this picture of human nature?

I don't agree with the picture of human nature as greedy, lazy, etc. I do think there is a good possibility that there will be a small minority of people unwilling to contribute according to their ability. Saying that a small minority of people may behave a certain way is nothing like saying that such behavior is human nature.

Why worry about a small minority? Even a small minority, if behaving this way, can drag down the morale/harmony of a community... it can piss people off and might lead them to advocate the reintroduction of wages, even differentiated wages. I agree with the person I quoted: If the slackery of a few people wasn't dragging down morale then I would vote to ignore it / let it slide... But if it was dragging down morale, I would vote for there to be consequences for such people. Another reason I give attention/thought to the possibility of a minority of slackers is that, as someone who is concerned with convincing regular/mainstream people to embrace anarchism, this is a concern they usually have, and it's important to be able to reassure them that if such behavior became a problem it wouldn't be ignored.

Lastly, I disagree with labeling someone socialist when what they advocate does not violate "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

Jason Cortez wrote:
indeed it was and this is an excellent example (medical ones usually are )of the problems of 'rational' resource allocation. The Croydonian simply suggests "direct democracy" without any reference to how this would be applied and at what level. Ultraviolet see measurement as being crucial, so at the very least we can self access our enviromental and other impacts. But what 'rational' critera can we apply to account for the cost of a life that needs twenty four hour care and consumes massively more time, energy and resources? How would it make someone feel to know this was being done?

Your point here is a good one. But I think you miss my point. The products of our labor are distributed according to need. Someone who needs 24/7 medical care and rare treatments that require lots of labor or environmental impact to produce, will get all of this. This type of stuff, essential for human survival, is also part of public consumption, so we wouldn't count it towards individual consumption.

But even with essential public goods, it IS important that we measure them. That way, as said earlier in this post, we can ensure that as a society we do not exceed the environmental effects quotas (for carbon, etc.) that we have democratically agreed to follow, and to ensure that we don't demand more stuff than we are willing to supply via labor hours. So rather than each person being entitled to roughly 11 hours and 25 minutes "worth" of stuff per week, our individual consumption would be significantly less than that... because a portion of those labor hours would be allocated to the production of public goods, like health care. We will want to calculate the total labor hours and environmental effects being used for public goods, first, so we know how much is left to distribute to individuals. This is part of the reason why measurement is important... so we can figure out these important questions.

That all being said, I am still interested in hearing a diversity of opinions on this, and I promise to avoid being as argumentative as I may have seemed in this post... I wanted to clarify some of my positions... but I do want to respect others' views, and try to keep an open mind to what they're saying, without getting caught in a back and forth cycle of debating. I will likely avoid debating from here on in this thread, now that my positions have been clarified, though I may ask clarifying questions... I hope others will be willing to share their opinions.

yourmum
Offline
Joined: 9-03-10
Sep 29 2011 15:50
Quote:
decide (for new) and measure(for old) the use value, then setup the work

would be pretty silly to want goods for 25 hours average work and want to only work 20 hours average, wouldnt it? why shouldnt we eat beefsteak every day? whats disastrous with the consequences? need a lot of cows, thats all. then take "needs less work" instead of cheaper, thats what i was referring to. you dont go around and think "what needs less work" in terms of deciding use value. you might go around and say for the same use value this strategy needs less work. how do you decide on what the needs are? you look at how much is consumed and setup production to be a little more then that, thats all the measurement it takes, thats all. whats the sense in consumption credits if not a restriction when you spent them? and you dont decide how many beefsteaks are being produced, you decide it by eating one, not by voting for an amount. im against democracy, just like consumption credits you need it whenever you want to restrict something, its a way to govern, nothing else. there is another flaw in your thinking too: you dont decide how much you want to work simply from your stomach, you look at what results are being delivered, then you decide. you might decide oh ill work those 2 hours extra for that result (famouse example: not gettng rickrolled by hitler in 5 years), but just deciding ill work 20 hours whatever the result is crazy.

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Sep 29 2011 18:18
yourmum wrote:
im against democracy

You sure ?! Please say you are just not in favor of using democracy to solve this problem and not against democracy for anything ? If so, how would we decide anything in post revol society, that is, if I can even accept that you could be an anarchist/libcom in the first place without believing in democracy

piter
Offline
Joined: 30-06-08
Sep 29 2011 18:23

maybe the debate on democracy is for another thread (Well I guess we have plenty of thread already about democracy...), unless we stick with how democracy work (or not) with the subject of the thread?

yourmum
Offline
Joined: 9-03-10
Sep 29 2011 18:29

why so please? =) <3 im against democracy for anything, how could i be an anarchist otherwise wanting the rule over the minority by the majority? ive never got suggested to vote on anything around here so im not quite sure what you mean with your second part. ive asked on this board before what exactly you need the democracy for in a matter of content of the decision, not as a means to make decisions - never got an answer so will you answer me? when have you ever needed democracy for anything in your life except deciding on new guys for the gov?

agree with piter, wrong place to ask but everyone is coming up in every thread with the democracy.. so hard to get around it.

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Sep 29 2011 19:17

Plenty of times 'yourmum', basically any decision I have to make with a group of people, where it is important and effects us all, we take a vote of some sort. Voting, where all of the options have a chance of winning, is democracy.

yourmum
Offline
Joined: 9-03-10
Sep 29 2011 19:45

no its not, its just legitmizing the decision that is already support by all for the sake of the group staying together and in favour of a fast decision making process, doing what the majority wants. you are talking consent, not dissent. what would happen if someone truly cant come to terms with your decision? would he go do it anyways for the sake of the decision making process being democratic? would he leave your group or would you cast him out because he doesnt respect a democratic vote? would you take him out of the decision for the sake of the group? would you force him to do what the majority wants? do you even vote about stuff that concerns all or just the ones willing to participate?