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
Oct 3 2011 03:23

Thanks, RedHughs, for your explanation of how "constrained optimization problems" relate to this discussion. What you said was clear. The Wikipedia page was confusing and had math formulas beyond my education, so I was expecting your explanation to also be complicated and technical, and was surprised when it wasn't. Still not sure how the personal computer you mentioned would fit into it all, but I suppose that would be used for

RedHughs wrote:
the large scale production of goods on a centralized basis where all of the tools evolved by corporate and state central planning could be modified and used as needed.

I also assume that the "tools evolved by corporate and state central planning" would be put under democratic control within industries and communities. (That wasn't clear, but given that you're an anarchist I think it's safe to assume this is what you meant! smile )

I'm wondering now how you feel about having environmental effects quotas not for individual consumption but for the world as a whole in its production & transportation? What about for communities? I'm talking about a situation in which quotas for various environmental effects (carbon emissions, fresh water usage, emissions of certain types of toxic waste, etc.) are set through a democratic process at a global scale. Then this quota being divided up between the various regions and communities within regions, roughly on a per capita basis, but with variation according to need (e.g. - a cold region could have a higher carbon emissions quota because they need more heat and there's less sunlight for solar energy). Individuals would not have quotas or measurement of consumption, but there would be quotas and measurement for regions/communities as a whole.

I know we're talking hypotheticals but I'm wondering if this is something you'd be opposed to in principle?

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Oct 3 2011 08:53
ultraviolet wrote:
I'm wondering now how you feel about having environmental effects quotas not for individual consumption but for the world as a whole in its production & transportation? What about for communities? I'm talking about a situation in which quotas for various environmental effects (carbon emissions, fresh water usage, emissions of certain types of toxic waste, etc.) are set through a democratic process at a global scale.

[Default caveat about this being hypothetical]

In a sense, each community would consume on-average, the same amount of material resources then certainly the whole of society could be said have an environmental quota since the environment would limit material production.

I suspect that material production would be lower than the limit the environment would impose and further that the main way environmentalism would influence daily life be through each community "living with natural processes" through things like permaculture rather each community simply limiting itself.

But now we're probably beyond the bounds of anything definite.

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Oct 3 2011 21:42

I don't think I handled this to what would be your satisfaction...

Quote:
Then this quota being divided up between the various regions and communities within regions, roughly on a per capita basis, but with variation according to need (e.g. - a cold region could have a higher carbon emissions quota because they need more heat and there's less sunlight for solar energy).

As an alternative way to deal with the situation of cold weather, people could build underground or semi-underground houses which maintained a uniform heat all year round. Another expedient to concentrate the population in areas with nice weather or have organized migrations in Fall (which also, indeed would take resources).

So, once you had done all the expedients you could, you would likely have to devote more resources in some ways to areas with cold weather. Some world-wide democratic vote conceivably could be used but I don't think such cumbersome approach would be necessary.
We would be in this situation:
A) Humanity would operate in a fairly balanced relation with "natural" non-human processes and ecology
B) each planning group pretty much sincerely tries to keep up the situation of "minimum impact planning" or whatever you call it.
C) We continue to have something like the Internet so that what each planning group could be monitored fairly closely by a variety of individuals and other groups.

Under those circumstances, I think that each planning group could operate semi-independently rather than requiring a continuous mandate from a world-wide assembly, something that would be extremely unwieldy to organize.

And still, all of this is not so much a blue-print but a counter-example to the necessity to immediately set-up a centralized "resource control council".

As a practical matter, we communists aren't going to specify that structure of future society. But we will work to strongly encourage the very beginnings of communist relations to "bootstrap" themselves, to expand their power without apologies. And in any environment of "dual power", where proletarians have seized some power but no all, you are going to have a whole rag-bag of objections, arguments for going slow, leftist confusionism and so. Every would-be leftist bureaucrat in the world (literally!) will be trying to inject some nefarious escape-claus into the basic position of all power to the councils/all power to the dispossessed. "You don't have enough leaders of color!", "You aren't considering the environment", "You have engaged in proper democratic process" ad nauseam, ad-infinitum.

ultraviolet's picture
ultraviolet
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Oct 3 2011 22:18

Thank you, RedHughes! No further questions at this time. I hope I have not worn you out. Mr. T (chose this weird face cuz he looks like a guy who would wear you out in a wrestling match)