One Degree wrote:
Correct except there is very, very little that needs world consensus. Trade between individual communities need not have any agreement except the ratio of trade.
You're still continuing to assume 'governance', when that's *not* the purpose here -- rather, it's about *social production*, particularly the mass-industrial kind. That's what's at-stake.
Some basics: Exchanges, as with barter or currency, are 'hands-off' and inherently lead to crises of overproduction, but it's *convenient* for those with money since social reality just kind of 'comes together' for the sake of purchases, without needing prior planning. Whereas a mass-consciously-political workers state would be far more 'hands-on', but any such hands-on administration would tend to create bureaucracies of specialized and detached roles over the group-subjective valuations of this-or-that, leading into elitism and a class-like separation on that basis, even if things *started out* fairly egalitarian otherwise.
So a post-capitalist order wouldn't be looking for *consensus* (as over "governance" issues), but rather *centralization* over per-item production, a political and logistical task which *doesn't* require a standing bureaucracy / administration, because the workers at the workplaces involved could just coordinate, locally-to-globally, at whatever geographic scopes are appropriate, to make finished goods and services, for the sake of pre-planned recipients / end-users, by formal individual daily demands lists, sorted by predefined geographic area.
This 'direct distribution' communistic gift-economy method would eliminate all need for exchanges and trade, so there would no longer be any objective need for money / finance / etc. (In other words if online sites like Amazon and eBay became collectivized under workers control, those former corporations could handle all of the *logistics* of any and all formal orders put-in from the public since it's effectively *centralization* within material-economics.)
This locality group's political cohesion is especially important for the function of issuing new debt-backed labor credits, since those go into general circulation and reflect a locality-collective debt (representing the received efforts of liberated labor, with debt-out-of-thin-air-backed reciprocation, meaning that liberated labor has been internally direcly exploited by that locality, until sufficient numbers from that locality go out to do projects for *other* localities, to earn sufficient numbers of labor credits to erase the locality's debt, per batch).
One Degree wrote:
Where does this debt come from? Why does it require going to other communities to settle it?
I was hoping that paragraph of mine would be sufficient to explain it, but I'd be open to any *specific* follow-up questions you may have.
One Degree wrote:
You seem to be describing electronic currency and calling it labor credits to justify socialism.
The labor credits are *not* currency, because there's no *commodification*, or commodities, whatsoever. The labor credits can only represent past liberated-labor labor hours worked, times a multiplier for each particular kind of work role -- necessary since not all work roles are objectively the same in hazard, difficulty, and distastefulness, not to mention availability. Here's from the FAQ:
Labor credits FAQ wrote:
-> So labor credits are just *money*! Communism is supposed to be moneyless!
No, the labor credits are actually *not* money, because they don't *function* like money -- there's no commodity-production, no finance, and no M-C-M' cycle of exchange-use valuations for profit-making. The work done by liberated labor per hour can simply be *fully valuated* in relation to other kinds of work-role-efforts, through the use of circulating labor credits being paid-forward for each work role, typically specified in a finalized policy package. All of the output of goods and services, to supply chains and the end-user / consumer, have already been planned-out in advance, through the iterations of proposals and then finalized policy packages that specify all work roles required, per project, with pooled labor credits to *organize* the participation of available-and-willing liberated laborers themselves.
One Degree wrote:
Yes, economy should not determine politics. That is capitalism you are promoting without paper money. As soon as you bring the economy into it you have abandoned the needs and wants of the people. You are saying they must be subservient to the economy.
Allow me to introduce my 'mindset' behind all of this -- my understanding is that a post-capitalist communistic gift-economy would still have varying objective interests *in tension* with one another, but since the whole society would be post-*class* these 'tensions' would be far more mild and resolvable than the class-based tensions and tragedy that we have today under capitalist rule.
Here's from the intro, at the FAQ:
What's called-for is a system that can match liberated-labor organizing ability, over mass-collectivized assets and resources, to the mass demand from below for collective production. If *liberated-labor* is too empowered it would probably lead to materialistic factionalism -- like a bad syndicalism -- and back into separatist claims of private property.
If *mass demand* is too empowered it would probably lead back to a clever system of exploitation, wherein labor would cease to retain control over the implements of mass production.
And, if the *administration* of it all is too specialized and detached we would have the phenomenon of Stalinism, or bureaucratic elitism and party favoritism.
I'll contend that I have developed a model that addresses all of these concerns in an even-handed way, and uses a system of *circulating* labor credits that are *not* exchangeable for material items of any kind. In accordance with communism being synonymous with 'free-access', all material implements, resources, and products would be freely available and *not* quantifiable according to any abstract valuations. The labor credits would represent past labor hours completed, multiplied by the difficulty or hazard of the work role performed. The difficulty/hazard multiplier would be determined by a mass survey of all work roles, compiled into an index.
In this way all concerns for labor, large and small, could be reduced to the ready transfer of labor-hour credits. The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession, and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.
https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... -Questions
[O]ne could reasonably ask 'What if humane-need demand for social production *outstrips* the pool of available-and-willing liberated labor that could see the demands through to completion?' Perhaps no one on the *entire planet* wants to do livestock farming or be an artist's assistant for the sake of someone's *else's* artistic conceptions. Yet the society would have the general objective *capacity*, or material *potential*, to accomplish the provision of ham and yogurt, or a landscape artwork, for the general social good. The social use of the 'labor credits' vehicle would bridge this gap, and would also allow for keeping the material-economic and socio-political realms *separate*, so that one would *not necessarily* have to be personally invested in what they're doing as (liberated) labor, as would be inherently necessary in a strictly-voluntary communist-type gift economy. (One could work at *whatever* work roles are available, if allowed-to by whatever project, simply to amass *labor credits* instead of necessarily having to 'like' a work-role both personally *and also* for its material output to the social good, as would happen in a non-labor-credits communistic gift economy.)
In this way the labor credits framework has a dynamic of checks-and-balances among the three 'realms' of inherently different objective interests in a post-capitalist socio-political-material environment -- that of  liberated labor for more control, and even hegemony, over the social productive process, that of  mass consumption for easy / free access to satisfy any and all personal needs imaginable, and  administrative interests in institutionally overseeing all aspects of the material-economic world, as over all production and consumption, liberated-labor and all implements of mass production.
I'm *not* saying that people / consumers need to be 'subservient' to a workers state / planned economy, because there's a component within the framework that *aggregates* daily individual demands, by individual priority-rankings (#1, #2, #3, etc.):
...Some of the readily apparent *checks-and-balances* dynamics enabled with the labor-credits system are:
- Active liberated-labor would control all *ultimate* ('point-of-production') productivity for society, but *not-necessarily-working* people of any intra-voluntary collective 'locality' (or localities) could make and agree-on proposals and final policy packages that contain great *specificity*, as over *exactly* who (which persons) are to be included as active liberated-labor, and also their respective rates of labor credits per hour per discrete work role, and each worker's particular work schedule, as a part of the overall project scheduling. (Consumers vs. liberated-labor)
- Any given finalized policy package will include a formal announcement of key proponents, politically responsible for that project's implementation, if satisfactory participation to cover all the necessary components of it is present. There is never any *standing*, *institutional* administration over everything, as we're used to seeing historically at the nationalist level. If a project *isn't* performing up to formal expectations (as detailed in its policy package), the proponents can be replaced with a mass-approved (exceeding in ranking over the initial policy package) proposal that 'tweaks' those details that need changing, such as which personnel, exactly, are deemed to be the formal 'proponents' of that project. (Consumers vs. administration)
One Degree wrote:
There is no labor exploitation if you are willingly serving a role for the community. It should not matter to you if your role requires 12 hours a day and someone else’s only requires 8.
You're using an *informal* meaning of 'labor exploitation', while I'm referring to the empirical discrepancy that exists between the market value of hours worked under capitalism, and the wage received for those same hours worked. I'll reference the following:
Types of alienation
Alienation of the worker from their product
Alienation of the worker from the act of production
Alienation of the worker from their Gattungswesen (species-essence)
Alienation of the worker from other workers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_ ... alienation
One Degree wrote:
You are inserting ‘individual rights’ into socialism/community. You can’t switch back and forth which one is your goal. Does the community come first or the individual? A lot of political debate is based upon ignoring this critical factor.
I see the resolution of this *scale*-based social dimension as being on a *per-item* basis -- in other words it will *vary* depending on the material issue at-hand.
Of *course* people in a socialism-type society / community would have their own individual 'rights', or personal autonomy / consciousness, which we can politically term as 'self-determination', on a bottom-up basis.
Within a *collective*, communistic gift-economy context, what would matter is that there simply is *enough* available-and-willing liberated labor for the completion and fulfillment of any given task / project, for common benefit. I introduce my framework of labor credits to provide a logistical fallback for any case where there *isn't* sufficient socio-material incentive from the gift-economy itself (*zero* labor credits per hour), for some socially necessary production.
One Degree wrote:
Now, my turn. Why are you arguing the importance of ‘efficiency’ on Pofo? My guess is boredom, enjoyment of debate, anger, just because you want to, etc. None of these are efficient uses of your time in convincing people of the importance of efficiency. It would be much more efficient to browbeat one real person into becoming a believer and then expand through multiplication. Efficiency is simply not very important to our lives. Finding something to entertain us is. Why base a world on something we don’t really care about?
Well, if you'll note, I'm not *predicating* any aspect of my proposed political-economy -- the 'labor credits' framework -- on 'efficiency'. Efficiency isn't a *required* dynamic / function of the model, but rather, the model *allows-for* and *enables* efficiencies-of-scale in liberated-production, if actual participants of that kind of society *organize* it that way (as with degrees-of-centralization, per-item, at any scales from local to global).
Regarding *entertainment*, that would be a 'service' then, as it is now. One critical socio-political issue that crops up in a post-capitalist societal context is the question of 'Who gets to attend a concert?'
I'll posit that this domain of 'semi-rare' goods and services can be handled politically adequately with my 'additive prioritizations' approach / method:
-> What about the proletarian-revolutionary *redistribution* of existing 'wealth' -- sure, there'd be no more money in usage, but who gets *what* from the world's already-produced bounty as it exists today, and why?
I think this is an often-overlooked issue, especially since socialism is often touted as *being* a process of redistribution-of-wealth in the immediate stages of world revolutionary upheaval.
My model framework can be readily adapted to this task, and it confers the benefits of retaining a *fully mass-intentional* political process, instead of better-known, *non*-politically-conscious methods such as 'first-come-first-served', any other kind of time-based rationing, or a randomocracy-type lottery system. For any singular, *non*-divisible or *non*-replicatable context, like that of today's mansions, the item should be turned into a museum for full public admittance.
For finite, though *numerous* identical existing items, as for cultural collections, there may be *many* people who would like to personally possess some or all of those items from the days of capitalist commodity production -- this kind of competition, if left raw and unaddressed, would *not* be good for a post-capitalist society since there'd be no established way of deciding who-gets-what-and-why.
Better, I think, would be an approach that is more routine and less time-sensitive in prioritizing among responders -- the thing that would differentiate demand would be people's *own* prioritizations, in relation to *all other* possibilities for demands. This means that only those most focused on Product 'X' or Event 'Y', to the abandonment of all else (relatively speaking), over several iterations (days), would be seen as 'most-wanting' of it, for ultimate receipt.
My 'communist supply and demand' model, fortunately, uses this approach as a matter of course:
consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily
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
consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process
I'm also realizing that this model / method of demand-prioritization can be used in such a way as to lend relative *weight* to a person's bid for any given product or calendar event, if there happens to be a limited supply and a more-intensive prioritization ('rationing') is called-for by the objective situation:
Since everyone has a standard one-through-infinity template to use on a daily basis for all political and/or economic demands, this template lends itself to consumer-political-type *organizing* in the case that such is necessary -- someone's 'passion' for a particular demand could be formally demonstrated by their recruiting of *others* to direct one or several of *their* ranking slots, for as many days / iterations as they like, to the person who is trying to beat-out others for the limited quantity.
[A]ggregating these lists, by ranking (#1, #2, #3, etc.), is *no big deal* for any given computer. What we would want to see is what the rankings are for milk and steel, by rank position. So how many people put 'milk' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'steel' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'milk' for #2 -- ? And how many people put 'steel' for #2 -- ? (Etc.)
*This* would be socially useful information that could be the whole basis for a socialist political economy.
So, by extension, if someone was particularly interested in 'Event Y', they might undertake efforts to convince others to *donate* their ranking slots to them, forgoing 'milk' and 'steel' (for example) for positions #1 and/or #2. Formally these others would put 'Person Z for Event Y' for positions 1 and/or 2, etc., for as many days / iterations as they might want to donate. This, in effect, would be a populist-political-type campaign, of whatever magnitude, for the sake of a person's own particularly favored consumption preferences, given an unavoidably limited supply of it, whatever it may be.