[ckaihatsu]

That would turn the way things work upside down and inside out.

What the model does is acknowledge what I call 'materialist factionalism' -- meaning that people in such a post-capitalist political economy would be a significant part of whatever type of *social role* they did the most with their life-time, over time.

(If someone primarily *worked* in that society, then they would have differing 'socio-material' interests on-the-whole from someone who primarily did personal *hobbyist*-type efforts with their time, or someone else who's primarily 'political'.)

I *outline* such elemental social material dynamics in the 'labor credits' model with 'materialist checks-and-balances':

...Some of the readily apparent *checks-and-balances* dynamics enabled with the labor-credits system are:

- (Already mentioned) One could work for personal material-economic gains -- the amassing of labor credits -- instead of having to 'like' *both* the socio-political aspect *and* the personal-material-economic aspect of one's work within a strictly-voluntaristic, non-labor-credit, communistic-type political economy. (Individual vs. socio-political realms)

- The contribution of one's potential liberated labor to societal objectives would always be fully optional, since the premise of a communist-type social order is that no one could ever be *actually* coerced for their labor since the ubiquitous norm would be that no productive machinery or natural resources in the world could be used on a *proprietary* / private-accumulation basis, while all the material necessities for life and living would always be in readily-available, sufficient quantities for all. Collective social productivity would be *very good* using post-capitalist, communist-type liberated-labor self-organizing, leveraged with full automation of all productive processes, for *huge* ratios of industrial mass-production output, per hour of liberated labor input. (Individual vs. socio-political and material realms)

- Mass demand, as displayed publicly, per-locality, by the daily mass-aggregated tallied rank positions (#1, #2, #3, etc.), will always be an existing social-pressure, specifically regarding liberated labor contributions to the general social good for varying qualities of public consumption. Such active liberated labor may or may not receive labor credits for their valid efforts, depending on such general *implementation* of circulating labor credits, or not, and the specifics of any active policy package. (Socio-political and material realms vs. individuals)

- 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 intra-voluntary 'locality' could collectively develop and agree-on any particular proposal or final policy package, with specifics over staffing, rates of labor credits per included work role, and work schedules for all work roles / liberated-laborers, but if the liberated-labor-internal social process *did not approve* of the terms for any given proposal or policy package they would not *forfeit* their collective control over the implements of mass industrial production as a result -- realistically the result would most-likely be a *devolving* of larger-scale work organizing, since no agreement was reached between mass-demand and self-organized liberated-labor. Production could still take place on any ad-hoc basis, with liberated labor always getting 'first dibs' on anything they themselves produce, but it would be far more small-scale, localized, and balkanized than if larger-scale, multi-locality proposals and policy packages could be realized, for material economies of scale. (Liberated-labor vs. consumers)

- 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)

- Proponents of any given active finalized policy package would have considerable logistical social latitude for administrating over its implementation, depending-on / limited-by its finalized detailed terms. In some instances, for example, proponents over *several* localities, of several *similar* policy packages -- say, over agriculture -- or even at regional, continental, and *global* scales -- may cross-coordinate to *generalize* production across many similar policy packages, for the sake of greater efficiencies of scale. (Administration vs. consumers)

- Proponents are meant to represent the exact terms of an active finalized policy package, and by extension, to also represent popular demand for certain material production and/or socio-political initiatives. Proponents may bring attention to certain aspects of the active finalized policy package in the course of its implementation, as with any possible differences on the part of active liberated-labor on the project. (Administration vs. liberated-labor)

- Liberated-labor will always be able to physically organize internally, without external interference. Depending on each active finalized policy package's provisions, liberated laborers may decide on their own the details of *how* they collectively supply their labor, to meet the objectives of that policy package -- as with specific personnel of their own, which work roles are absolutely necessary, the scheduling of work shifts and personnel, what geographical location(s) are to be used, how machinery is to be used, what the supply chains with other factories are, how the bulk-pooled labor credits funding is to be divided-up, if any additional funding of labor credits is needed, or even if locality debt issuances for additional labor credits are to be called-for, what maintenance may be needed on infrastructure / machinery, what education or training may be required for certain workers, etc. (Liberated-labor vs. administration)

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

---


Social Production Worldview

Spoiler: show

[ckaihatsu]

The US is looking to ease sanctions on Venezuela to allow Chevron, the last major US oil producer operating in the country, to pump oil there. Millions of barrels of Venezuelan oil could make up for lost Russian supplies. But first Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro must agree to resume talks with the country’s opposition to work towards a free and fair presidential election in 2024.

https://qz.com/opec-s-oil-cuts-force-th ... 1849623653

[ckaihatsu]

Shrink U.S. gasoline shipments

The Energy Department has jousted with oil companies for months over the idea of temporarily limiting how much fuel the United States exports, a figure now at around 4 million barrels a day.

The Energy Department argues that the fuel could be better used to fill regional inventories inside the U.S, which are below the seasonal average. Amos Hochstein, the State Department’s senior adviser for energy security, is reviewing the option, people familiar with the effort told POLITICO.

[...]

Produce more fuel at home

Republicans have been using OPEC’s announcement to bash the Biden administration’s energy policies, contending that the country had been “energy independent” under President Donald Trump.

That characterization isn’t exactly accurate, even though the U.S. became a net petroleum exporter under Trump and remains one under Biden, shipping out more crude and refined products than it imports. Oil prices — the biggest factor in the costs of gasoline and diesel — are determined on the global market, so any disruptions affect prices anywhere the fuels are burned.

[...]

The Biden administration, much to the exasperation of environmental groups, has steadily issued permits to drill for oil and gas on public land, and has seen its calls to stop new drilling on public land blocked by the courts and Congress.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/0 ... e-00060854

[Negotiator]

About the topic of the thread -- so OPEC thinks they get too little money for their valueable resources, therefore they lower supply in order to raise the price. *shrug*

Thats the free market. Not capitalism, by the way. Just the free market.

The global trade will always be a free market.

And the USA clearly wants to be enemy with everyone. Now everyone is their enemy. Including, apparently, Saudi Arabia. *shrug*

The USA even bombed Germanys gas pipeline to Russia. Judging by polls, apparently most germans know the USA did it. I mean there is no hard proof, but the evidence available would easily suffice for a conviction in any court - they talked about it since many years, Biden basically announced it at the start of the year, they definitely had the necessary means - knowhow and resources, there was suspicious US activity in the area, and the official reaction to the event was "Oh thats a great business opportunity for the USA, let us sell Germany our super expensive liquified fraking gas that poisons our environment instead of the cheap gas from the russians.". Yeah, thats the natural reaction if an ally get their energy infrastructure destroyed. Totally not suspicious.

Of course the reaction to all this from the german government is maximum retarded and enrages the rest of Europe that depends upon geman energy - but thats another issue.

Either way the plan of the USA was to raise prices - after the election. So their plan ... was to lie. Again.

[late]

About the topic of the thread -- so OPEC thinks they get too little money for their valueable resources, therefore they lower supply in order to raise the price. *shrug*

Thats the free market. Not capitalism, by the way. Just the free market.

The global trade will always be a free market.

And the USA clearly wants to be enemy with everyone. Now everyone is their enemy. Including, apparently, Saudi Arabia. *shrug*

The USA even bombed Germanys gas pipeline to Russia. Judging by polls, apparently most germans know the USA did it. I mean there is no hard proof, but the evidence available would easily suffice for a conviction in any court - they talked about it since many years, Biden basically announced it at the start of the year, they definitely had the necessary means - knowhow and resources, there was suspicious US activity in the area, and the official reaction to the event was "Oh thats a great business opportunity for the USA, let us sell Germany our super expensive liquified fraking gas that poisons our environment instead of the cheap gas from the russians.". Yeah, thats the natural reaction if an ally get their energy infrastructure destroyed. Totally not suspicious.

Of course the reaction to all this from the german government is maximum retarded and enrages the rest of Europe that depends upon geman energy - but thats another issue.

Either way the plan of the USA was to raise prices - after the election. So their plan ... was to lie. Again.

Ghadafi was imitating the Texas oil cartel when he created OPEC. It's a cartel...

Saying we want to be enemies of everyone is nuts.

We have a military base in Saudi Arabia to protect them... We also protect the ships that carry their oil. Allies can have disagreements...

It's not clear who bombed the pipeline. Russia is a distinct possibility. But we don't have anything concrete yet.

You do realise that you claimed we were pressuring the Saudi to increase production (thus holding prices down) in one breath, and then claim we are conspiring to increase prices..?? Make up your mind..

You're all over the map. Esp. considering that our domestic oil guys love the higher prices, and the White House (and everybody else) doesn't love them.