[ckaihatsu]

You don't understand the definition of basic needs. Wants, I could care less about. Lets go with meeting people's basic needs as they relate to Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Need.

That doesn't change, isn't arbitrary, and means something significant about a society that gives them without debt.

---


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

Spoiler: show

[ckaihatsu]

(Again.)

a society that gives them without debt.

I'd be interested to hear more about any conceivable anarchistic-type political-economy that enables a (post-scarcity, post-capitalist) society 'without debt'.

Would anarchism use over-the-back-fence kinds of 'grassroots' exchanges, neighbor-to-neighbor *only*, for lateral-only exchanges?

I have a standing *critique* of such in the following diagram:

Scenario: Anarchy. Notice the absence of any generalized levels. If total local self-sufficiency were possible -- or even desirable -- this is what it would look like. It would overthrow capitalist commodity relations only to recreate the same thing all over again, at an intercommunal level.

Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show

labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show

https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338


I'll note that the 'labor credits' in my labor credits model are able to take advantage of the conventionally-capitalist 'debt' vehicle -- hang-on -- which, for a *post*-capitalist social context would just be *simple debt*, with zero 'financialization'.

'Even though labor credits (which function like non-imploding personal IOUs, for labor-only concerns) *circulate*, they are never exchanged for goods or services, because that would implicitly be commodification -- nor would they *need* to be.'

viewtopic.php?p=15232211#p15232211

---

The use of labor credits frees everyone from *geography*, so that location itself doesn't determine access-to and use-of any given factories and/or equipment -- localities with more of their own *debt-based-issued* labor credits in circulation (issuance of all labor credits is noted publicly at the time of issuance, indexed by discrete serial numbers on the physical units) will have less material-economic social standing, or 'reputation', since they've been *directly* exploiting liberated labor through debt until people of their own locality go out to do work issued by *other* localities, to bring back sufficient numbers of labor credits to undergird / erase *their own* issued debt. (In other words new issuances of new debt-based labor credits from a debt-encumbered locality will not generally be seen by liberated-labor as acceptable, giving that locality far worse chances for future general social acceptance of any proposals or policy packages from it that specify certain nearby equipment for its own use. *Other* localities' policy packages for use of that same equipment would undoubtedly be better-favored as long as those localities weren't too debt-burdened as well.)

https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338

[ckaihatsu]

I have a standing critique of the labor-chit-type 'labor club membership' approach, for *material-matchup* reasons. Here's from a past thread:


Wellsy wrote:

His [Robinson Crusoe's] stock-book contains a catalogue of the various objects he possesses, of the various operations necessary for their production, and finally, of the labour-time that specific quantities of these products have on average cost him.


We shall assume, but only for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour-time.


ckaihatsu wrote:

Okay, but there's no guarantee of quantities adding-up, inventory-wise, on the whole -- just *saying* 'rewards-for-labor-[time]' doesn't necessarily mean that quantities produced will properly correspond to materials consumed, because quantities-produced is apples-and-oranges in comparison to quantities-consumed, since workers individually produce at different rates, over different items, than they consume-at.

viewtopic.php?p=15172107#p15172107


ckaihatsu wrote:


And:


Again, though, I'm not taking issue with people's own varying *work* abilities, and the varying individualized *compensation*, per individual, indexed to the overall average rate of socially-necessary productivity, per work role, per hour -- what I'm finding lacking, technically-speaking, is what the most fundamental, key-indexing factor / variable is to be. With all labor notes / labor vouchers / labor chit proposals, it's work-role time (hours), indexed to *other* work-role time (hours), and I'm saying that, technically, that's *problematic*, because people are still being incentivized *individually*, with labor notes, while there's an overarching socio-political political interest in collective *egalitarianism*, for all rates of productivity, to the common good, to be equivalent (per work role, per hour of work).

In other words the *politics* of collectivism is lacking and taking a hit if the post-capitalist political economy isn't taking per-hour varying *productivity* into account, which these conventional labor-notes-type proposals / frameworks *don't*.

To be stark, if I work at the factory for 8 hours doing socially necessary work that produces 1,000,000 widgets, while the next person does 8 hours of the same but only produces 800,000 widgets, and we both get the same compensation, of an 8-hours-note, this is *not* equal productivity to *the collective*.

There would be a macro-level (socio-political) *societal* interest in all 8-hour-notes being issued to workers for work done with the same *productivity* resulting. Why should one person be off by 200,000 units compared to someone else, for the same compensation *from* the social commons?

viewtopic.php?p=15172107#p15172107


---


Here's another treatment of the same 'totality' dynamic, incidentally:


Pies Must Line Up

Spoiler: show

viewtopic.php?p=15254042#p15254042