- 03 Dec 2022 00:51
#15257650
The point here with all of this is that it's all *overhead*, to private property. Once there's no more social institution / respect for 'private property' (meaning *beyond* one's own personal usage / needs / wants), then there's no need for (governmental-type) *overhead* for that kind of economics, 'capitalism'.
Jewelry and other desirable kinds of goods are considered 'semi-rare' in the model:
Unthinking Majority wrote:
The state is needed to enforce contracts. Business processes only work due to contracts. Contracts are peaceful agreements voluntarily consented to between 2 or more parties for mutual benefit. A worker doesn't have to attack their employer to get them to give them their paycheck and a business doesn't have to threaten to kill the spouse of a client if they don't pay back a debt. They go to court to enforce the contract rather than grab a weapon, which is what happens without a state. Russia and China behave like the mafia because their states are dysfunctional. Corporations run much of America because that state is also dysfunctional (corruption). A state that is actually ruled by its citizens is far less dysfunctional.
A state also enforces laws. If the world was a state Putin and Dubya Bush would be arrested for breaking the law and corporations couldn't steal resources from other countries...unless it was corrupt and dysfunctional and it was allowed by law. But I doubt the majority population of the world would allow such things. The main threat to the proper function of a state is when the power leaves the hands of the governed and tyrants come to control things, against the interests of the governed, which is what always happens in a dictatorship.
In your fantasy utopia who enforces rules? Who makes the person who steals a pretty piece of jewelry give it back to the collective? Violent gangs of workers?
The point here with all of this is that it's all *overhead*, to private property. Once there's no more social institution / respect for 'private property' (meaning *beyond* one's own personal usage / needs / wants), then there's no need for (governmental-type) *overhead* for that kind of economics, 'capitalism'.
Jewelry and other desirable kinds of goods are considered 'semi-rare' in the model:
'additive prioritizations'
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
http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174
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.
Recall:
[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.