I just saw this youtube comment and it´s not the first time that I heart an argument like this:
it is impossible to have true socialism be totalitarian, that is an oxymoron. In socialism, the workers own the means of production and thus cannot be subjected to a totalitarian form of government.
How can you debunk arguments like this? First I think that he is wrong about the definition of socialism, cause the means of production are almost always owned by the state. Secondly, is this an example of the No true Scotsman fallacy?
In my opinion totalitarianism has nothing to do with whether workers own means of the production or not. Its about total control over humans and their property. What about "workers" that want to opt out of this system and live under free market capitalism. If they are free to do as they wish then indeed "true socialism" is not totalitarian.
If worker already owns the means, then he owns them, duh. If not, he can't claim them just because he works with them. Or am I not getting something?
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
BramElias:I just saw this youtube comment and it´s not the first time that I heart an argument like this: it is impossible to have true socialism be totalitarian, that is an oxymoron. In socialism, the workers own the means of production and thus cannot be subjected to a totalitarian form of government. How can you debunk arguments like this? First I think that he is wrong about the definition of socialism, cause the means of production are almost always owned by the state. Secondly, is this an example of the No true Scotsman fallacy?
He's referring to the other definition of socialism, which is not state ownership of the means of production, but public/no ownership of means of production, i.e. "the workers own the factories". He's technically right, his brand of socialism wouldn't be totalitarian nor would it necessarily have to be statist. It has a different flaw; it's a pipe dream. They are completely forgetting that economic activity requires risk-taking and initiative, in short: organization. They are talking about "the factories" as if factories simply pop up in the countryside when it's time for them to be built. Somebody has to organize that. In his society there wouldn't be any factories. Socialists could take over existing factories, but there wouldn't be any new ones. Thus in practice "true" socialism degenerates into central planning whenever attempted, because somebody has to organize things or people starve.
BramElias: How can you debunk arguments like this? First I think that he is wrong about the definition of socialism, cause the means of production are almost always owned by the state. Secondly, is this an example of the No true Scotsman fallacy?
Why should it be a no true Scottsman?
The problem with this argument is that "the people...." is statist doubletalk and euphemistic language for "the state". Whenever a statist speaks of a state he might start of his sentence with "society has decided..." or "the people decided...". These people confuse the state with "the people". So when a socialist says he wants "the people" to own capital, he means to say that "the state will own capital which will be democratically chosen". Which is in the end the same as saying that the state owns the capital.
Unless this person is advocating anarcho-syndicalism. Which is not really statism, but rather would be an ultimate economic failure.
Well that's all good and nice for the "workers". The question remains: In such "true socialism", what type of (non-totalitarian) form of government would prevent "non-workers" from owning (buying?) anything they wanted, including "means of production"?
Btw, in true capitalism, no one is preventing anyone ("workers" and "non-workers" alike) from owning anything, including "means of production".
Z.
No brainer. The argument is best answered by agreeing. True socialism is NOT totalitarian, which is precisely why it can't exist. Someone has to make sure everyone's getting their appropriate share. There are only two methods of doing so. Private ownwership or totalitarianism. Fifty people can claim to own a factory, but what does that mean? Which part do you own? Or does everyone own the whole collectively? Because if everyone owns 100% of a watermelon, there is no clear rule stating that one of them can't just eat the whole thing. And how do fifty different people, with their own brains and imagination, all decide and agree on what to do with the factory? The problem is not in the statement itself. The statement is fine. It is the ACT of socialism, not the statement that has a problem.
Valject:Fifty people can claim to own a factory, but what does that mean?
It could mean that they are equity (share) owners (holders)?
But that just says that each person is entitled to 1/50th of profits and, should it be agreed to sell the factory (to whom? It is owned by everyone) they all receive 1/50th the payment. Since that last part clearly is outside the bounds of any socialist ideal, I will stick to the first. Ownership of a share of profits has nothing to do with the ownership of the factory itself. You could be a stakeholder, what good is that if fifty people still have an equal say in what should be done with the factory? How is it decided how much each person's share is to be divided up? I mean, the guy doing all the heavy lifting might claim he works harder, so he needs to save more of his share to buy those extra calories. Blam! Socialism falls flat on its face! At any rate, the point being that owning the means of production doesn't mean shares. It means actual physical ownership of the factory. It's the difference between orders handed down from a CEO to slow production while some machines are being repaired and simply deciding "Eh, I've worked the stamping machine enough for the day. Think I'll pop upstairs and do maintenance now."
Valject:Ownership of a share of profits has nothing to do with the ownership of the factory itself. You could be a stakeholder, what good is that if fifty people still have an equal say in what should be done with the factory? How is it decided how much each person's share is to be divided up?
So a factory (or anything else) for that matter can (must?) not be owned by more than one person? Is there no such thing as a 50% ownership in a hot-dog stand or 0.0000003% ownership in IBM or a factory?
The argument either confuses capitalism for socialism or the workers for the government. Classic case of mistaken identity.
It sounds like a perverse form of homesteading a business.
z1235: Valject:Ownership of a share of profits has nothing to do with the ownership of the factory itself. You could be a stakeholder, what good is that if fifty people still have an equal say in what should be done with the factory? How is it decided how much each person's share is to be divided up? So a factory (or anything else) for that matter can (must?) not be owned by more than one person? Is there no such thing as a 50% ownership in a hot-dog stand or 0.0000003% ownership in IBM or a factory?
I'll admit, that wasn't a very good way to word it, but what he's getting at is that you can't have factories owned equally by everyone. It was touched on before, but the main problem with this idea of everything being owned by everyone equally is that there wouldn't be anyone to organize anything. Sure companies can have multiple owners owning different size portions...but find me a company where everyone involved (including the workers) owns exactly the same amount as everyone else. It doesn't work like that. And even if you made it that way, like saying "everyone has equal ownership" overnight...what happens when the guy on the manufacturing floor decides his job is too hard, and he should be a manager in the office upstairs? Who is to say he shouldn't be? He's just as much an owner as anyone else.
Oh, so then we'll just vote on who should do what job. Even putting aside the obvious obstacles that would come with that and assuming a concensus can be reached, how effecient of an arrangement are they going to come to? And let's even leap farther and assume they come to the most effiecient arrangement possible and everyone is working in the exact position that maximizes productivity...What happens when someone decides he's working harder than someone else? And what about all the other people who don't work at the factory? Do they own it too? Or are we just talking about the people who work at the company?
Even if the claim is that "the factories will be owned by the workers who work in them" and we don't go with the insane notion that everything is owned by everyone, you still run into problems that completely break the whole system.
And the other point that was raised was another important one: Where will new factories come from? If everyone owns everything equally, how the hell is it ever going to be decided what resources should be put to what use? How will anything ever get produced? And let's suppose someone does bite the bullet and works hard and creates something new from some of the resources...what's to stop one person from saying the guy "stole" from the collective by doing what he wanted and creating or consuming something for himself? After all, he took and used everyone's resources as if they were his. What's to stop someone (or thousands of people) from claiming the fruit of the first man's labor is theirs? After all, everyone owns everything equally...so whatever that guy made, I have a claim to. And in fact, that guy took those resources without my permission. Those resources are part mine, and I didn't give him the okay to use them. In fact, a lot of people didn't. That guy stole from us. He has given up his right to the property. He has no claim to anything he has made with these stolen resources.
The notion that the world could exist without private property is quite possibly the most insane idea ever contrived. And notice how it stays alive...the proponants basically never get past stage 1. In fact, they don't even get to stage 1...they stop at just the idea "everyone own's everything equally." They don't even consider what that would look like...let alone how to get to that point or how it would operate or progress. Ideas this illogical always begin in the middle. They offer absolutely no explanation of how it would work or how a society could even get to that point.
"So a factory (or anything else) for that matter can (must?) not be owned by more than one person? Is there no such thing as a 50% ownership in a hot-dog stand or 0.0000003% ownership in IBM or a factory? "
Don't be silly. That's making the assumption that part ownership in a business is equivalent to ownership of the physical properties thereof. You can own a 20% stake in Fatface Hot Dogs, but that does not mean you own A) the hot dog stand, B) the ingredients, C) the cooking implements, D) any real, tangible piece of the property. And those situations in which you have two equal shareholders are always mitigated by lengthy contractual stipulations, in order to ensure both parties are satisfied beforehand with the terms of how disputes are to be settled. Where is such a method of dispute settlement when you have one hundred people each with a one percent ownership that somehow, inexplicably equates to "everyone owns everything"? And, quite frankly, do you want to be the lawyer drawing up that contract? The majority shareholder concept is very important in making sure things can actually be put to use. I do not say, nor do I suggest, that a business cannot have more than one owner. What I suggest is that someone has to be able to make decisions, bottom line, with what to do with the resources.
Socialism is definitely collectivisation of the means of production (that is community ownership with use rights being that of the producer); social democracy on the other hand, is nationalisation.
Some socialists believe in a state as a transition phase; others don't (anarchists).
Someone said that such a community would 100% taxation which is not right considering that (depending on the brand of socialism) the producers are free to distribute their goods to community as they please; but they cannot expect a fair share of the general produce of society should they not. There are different mechanisms used to allocate resources and for society to calculate a producer's productivity.
Are you saying that they barter with those goods produced? Let's discuss these mechanisms.
Valject:Don't be silly. That's making the assumption that part ownership in a business is equivalent to ownership of the physical properties thereof.
Correct. Part ownership means exactly: part ownership in all assets and part responsibility in all liabilities of the entity owned. What's silly about this?
Valject:Where is such a method of dispute settlement when you have one hundred people each with a one percent ownership that somehow, inexplicably equates to "everyone owns everything"?
In the Articles of Incorporation? Or whichever contract/document the shareholders have voluntarily consented to?
Valject:And, quite frankly, do you want to be the lawyer drawing up that contract?
No, but I'm sure you've heard of corporate law/lawyers.
Valject:I do not say, nor do I suggest, that a business cannot have more than one owner.
Good.
Valject:What I suggest is that someone has to be able to make decisions, bottom line, with what to do with the resources.
Sure. But that's just your personal opinion (preference). An entity (business, factory, partnership, co-op) owned by shareholders is free to voluntarily organize itself under whatever rules it wishes. What interest would the owners have in choosing rules that would be detrimental to the value of their entity?
There's nothing inherently wrong with an entity being co-owned by individuals working in it. Actually it's quite common today, and I don't see why it also wouldn't exist in a free market. The problem with socialists and "left" ideas is that they exclusively "allow" (prefer, impose, enforce?) only such instances of ownership, whereas capitalism "allows" any exchange and coordination of capital as long as it's voluntary.
John James:The notion that the world could exist without private property is quite possibly the most insane idea ever contrived.
Just making sure... Are you replying to me?
No, a gift economy is not the same as a barter economy. Labour vouchers are a possible mechanism for distribution.
I tried to quote you - Valject - in the above post (but failed).
z1235:Just making sure... Are you replying to me?
Well if you notice your name is in the quoted part that I reply to in that post...so yes, the reply was directed at you. If you're asking if I'm suggesting that you suggested that the world could exist without private property, then, no...I'm not. I'm simply making the statement because it nips in the bud the conclusion that any socialist ideal will have to come to.
EvilSocialistFellow:There are different mechanisms used to allocate resources and for society to calculate a producer's productivity.
And there are so many because all of them fail to address economic calculation problem accordingly. Socialists argue amongst themselves even today how to solve this one single erradicating flaw of socialism. The best mechanisms are just attempts are building the price-mechanism.
EvilSocialistFellow: tried to quote you - Valject - in the above post (but failed).
Go here and you'll see an explanation of how to use the bookmarklet that helps with that. And if you don't feel like messing with that even, you can just manually change 'false' to 'true' (in the url) every time you're replying to someone. In other words, whenever you click "reply", go to the address bar at the top of your browser screen and change that last word "false" to "true"...and then tap "enter" or "return".
And there are so many because all of them fail to address economic calculation problem accordingly. Socialists argue amongst themselves even today how to solve this one single erradicating flaw of socialism. The best mechanisms are just attempts are building the price-mechanism - Vilc
Wow I haven't been around here long but the calculation debate doesn't half get thrown around a lot (there are other arguments against socialism).
Firstly, the price mechanism itself does not include extraneous costs but despite this distortion we have not all been wiped off the face of the planet. The price value also treats commodities as mere quantities with homogenic qualities as if they somehow have comparable utilities.
Secondly, the labour theory of value sufficiently addresses the point; supply and demand, quality (perceived demand or levels of consumption of a given commodity) and absolute costs can be determining factors in a commodities perceived value.
Thirdly, there are so many systems because social anarchism (of which I am an advocate) is a spontaneous movement that evolved from the masses so there is likely to be a diversity of ideas. However, different schemes can be successfully operated in different places; there is no blueprint and the best schemes are likely to be the ones to catch fire.
("Correct. Part ownership means exactly: part ownership in all assets and part responsibility in all liabilities of the entity owned. What's silly about this?")
This implies that no one can make a decision about what to do with any asset. For instance, you have a pressure washer. You, and five other people. No, make it simple. One other person. Both own fifty percent. Can either of the owners remove all the screws and take them home without violating the ownership of the other? Only if it agreed upon beforehand that so-and-so's share includes those screws. Just saying they both own the thing is frivolous. It has to be dealt with. Even in the modern interventionist society, such disputes are settled by a legal system. How is such a dispute settled in the socialist model? It is not. It is assumed that everyone will work together, and will not demand any private ownership. I think you are confusing things on this point. We are discussing the idea of workers owning means of production, regardless of who created those means. You're making a case for joint ownership in a system of private ownership. Nobody was talking about that. You can't just conflate the socialist aspect out of the argument and then expect the case for socialism to be proven.
("Where is such a method of dispute settlement when you have one hundred people each with a one percent ownership that somehow, inexplicably equates to "everyone owns everything"?
In the Articles of Incorporation? Or whichever contract/document the shareholders have voluntarily consented to?")
What shareholders? We aren't talking about capitalism. Are you claiming that the idea that someone builds a factory to have it run by the people who work the factory is the same as that person directing affairs in that factory? Do we need to break off and discuss why these things are different? Where are there Articles of Incorporation in workers owning means of production? Who enforces this?
("And, quite frankly, do you want to be the lawyer drawing up that contract?
No, but I'm sure you've heard of corporate law/lawyers.")
So what if someone decides to stop working at that factory? A new worker has no real incentive for joining that factory, as he can only make the claim to whatever was left behind by the employee that left. And how do you deal with workers coming and going when you have to contract the ownership stipulations anew every time there is a change? We're not talking about twenty people getting together and starting Assbook.com. We're talking about twenty people all having, according to the societal norm, either complete ownership or 1/20th ownership in every aspect of Assbook. It's completely unmanageable. What if someone decides that "bandwidth" is really a ghost, and in distrust wants to pull the page from the internet? You really don't see any problems? Suggest to me how this idea could work.
("What I suggest is that someone has to be able to make decisions, bottom line, with what to do with the resources.
Sure. But that's just your personal opinion (preference). An entity (business, factory, partnership, co-op) owned by shareholders is free to voluntarily organize itself under whatever rules it wishes. What interest would the owners have in choosing rules that would be detrimental to the value of their entity?")
What makes you think they all believe the same things are detrimental? You see, a few majority shareholders can make decisions with what to do with resources. What happens when you give all the shareholders an equal share? I can describe a situation. Imagine that the American people really had shares of GM, which was stated but never really explained. Now make all those shares equal. Before, there still would have been a majority shareholder deciding what to do, but with the shares being equalized, what will happen to the company? Because, being an equal shareholder, my idea is that the company should take the direction of eradicating all the fruit bats in the world. I have an equal share. I can put the factories to work doing this, can't I? Deny me that, and you have denied me my share. But you HAVE to deny me that, because YOU think that they should keep making cars. So how does this equal ownership really get anything done? Nobody really has any say, do they? Decisions are kept to the few for a very good reason: Differing views in aggregate are not very compromising.
("There's nothing inherently wrong with an entity being co-owned by individuals working in it. Actually it's quite common today, and I don't see why it also wouldn't exist in a free market. The problem with socialists and "left" ideas is that they exclusively "allow" (prefer, impose, enforce?) such instances of ownership, whereas capitalism "allows" any exchange and coordination of capital as long as it's voluntary.
Z.")
The free market can do as it bloody well pleases. Co-owners as you put it does not describe the situation inherent in the socialistic idea of workers owning means of production. Who do you sell your "stake" to when all workers own a means of production? Anyone who wants a piece of ownership just has to work there. But who gets to hire? What happens when someone leaves? What happens when someone comes aboard? What would it even mean to sell one's stake? You have to be working there for things to be divided properly, right? If there are twenty workers, and ten of them sell off their "share", how can you expect that the remaining ten will work while the ten new owners receive their portion for no input? Will the remaining ten hire ten new people to work, however hiring would work? If so, won't all twenty of the laborers be pretty miffed about the ten that are still getting compensation? Who is even going to buy one of those shares when every sale of a share comes at the cost of a diminished work force? There simply is no share. There's nothing of value in the idea of a part ownership. I mean, I'm not even talking about the inevitable imposing of rules that would ensue. This is all in the supposed totalitarian-free socialist idea. Where are you getting this confused with two people in a joint venture owning a hot dog stand? If they want to hire ten more people and give them equal shares, bravo. But the main point, the important aspect of the difference between this free market application of shareholding and the idea that equal ownership is a given lies precisely there, in that at some point there is original ownership of something. Two fellows started a hot dog stand. If your hot dog stand is immediately subject to the will of those ten workers, why would one person start the stand, let alone two?
"No, a gift economy is not the same as a barter economy. Labour vouchers are a possible mechanism for distribution."
We already have labor vouchers. They're called "paychecks". But if you are suggesting vouchers for amount of labor hours put in, how do you take into account what types of labor are worth more? Who is deciding what the payout should be, for that matter? Could you describe the functioning of a labor voucher system in more specific terms?
We already have labor vouchers. They're called "paychecks".
No, they're currency not labour vouchers.
But if you are suggesting vouchers for amount of labor hours put in, how do you take into account what types of labor are worth more?
Socially necessary labour time + perceived unpopularity (determined by supply and demand) + extraneous costs + any other variables.
Who is deciding what the payout should be, for that matter? Could you describe the functioning of a labor voucher system in more specific terms?
There is no definite blue print but x hours worked is the average time taken by society to produce a given quantity of articles. So I can work for y hours but produce x hours worth of articles and be paid x rather than y. Labour vouchers are different given that they are destroyed on use. If they have the labourer's identity (e.g. photo) on the voucher then they can't be stolen either. Members in the community take it upon themselves to calculate labour time by occupying various roles (which are rotated on a regular basis) in the workers' council. Everyone has access to the paper work so that there is no corruption.
John James:Go here and you'll see an explanation of how to use the bookmarklet that helps with that. And if you don't feel like messing with that even, you can just manually change 'false' to 'true' (in the url) every time you're replying to someone. In other words, whenever you click "reply", go to the address bar at the top of your browser screen and change that last word "false" to "true"...and then tap "enter" or "return".
Cheers :D
(We already have labor vouchers. They're called "paychecks".
No, they're currency not labour vouchers.)
I thought it was rather funny.
(But if you are suggesting vouchers for amount of labor hours put in, how do you take into account what types of labor are worth more?
Socially necessary labour time + perceived unpopularity (determined by supply and demand) + extraneous costs + any other variables.)
Certainly you can describe the method of deriving this? What is meant by "socially necessary"? The least amount required for everyone to survive? How is that calculated? There are so many factors that such a calculation cannot take into account that a book could be filled with them. How are freak accidents dealt with, for instance, if you calculate the average amount of food a person needs, produce it, but it catches fire, is stolen, falls into a lake, etc? And the perceived unpopularity is what exactly? A statistical number taken from the amount of X made versus X bought? What if X wasn't bought because people were on some religious holiday that didn't allow for X? The next batch of X produced will be too small. How do you shift production universally to accommodate these changes, especially when all the means of production are owned by groups who may have different views? What are extraneous costs? Who decides what is extraneous? Isn't adding "any other variables" not only insidiously ambiguous, but leaving a lot of questions as to how this formula produces any usable numbers?
(Who is deciding what the payout should be, for that matter? Could you describe the functioning of a labor voucher system in more specific terms?
There is no definite blue print but x hours worked is the average time taken by society to produce a given quantity of articles. So I can work for y hours but produce x hours worth of articles and be paid x rather than y. Labour vouchers are different given that they are destroyed on use. If they have the labourer's identity (e.g. photo) on the voucher then they can't be stolen either. Members in the community take it upon themselves to calculate labour time by occupying various roles (which are rotated on a regular basis) in the workers' council. Everyone has access to the paper work so that there is no corruption.)
But X taken as an average here could fluctuate madly in a system where workers work completely at whim. In what way is Y here correlating with X? Your ten hours worked is worth some factor of ten against whatever average X, but what is that factor? The very use of an average means less production, because if someone works forty hours to your ten, the X average is higher payout for you, but lower for them, so they lose incentive to continue working forty hours. All wages will go down, as well as production. Who is making sure the vouchers are destroyed? This would rely totally on the good will of individuals, which this system seems to assume. But unlike a capitalistic system, such good will hardly goes rewarded. If it is the job of the person taking the voucher to destroy it, how do you make them? If it is the job of the person spending it, how do you make them? Should they police each other? What if they collude to not destroy it? Who is marking these vouchers with the laborer's identity? How many voucher hours is that person being paid in? How is their usefulness calculated? How do you stop the voucher makers from making their own vouchers? How hard is it to remove a photo or spoof any other form of identification the voucher might contain? Who forces the community to do these calculations? How do we know they are all good at math? How do we know they won't fudge the numbers for their own gain? Who is making enforcing these role rotations? How will anyone get good at a job with such rotations? How will any who are already good exert their full potential? How does the availability of all paperwork prevent corruption? Who gets to be on the council? How hard is it for a council to collude to misinform the community? What about those that can't read? Are they fair game for the fooling?
Quote
Valject:I thought it was rather funny.
Ah sorry, humour is rather hard to convey over a computer :(
Certainly you can describe the method of deriving this?
Dealt with below.
What is meant by "socially necessary"? The least amount required for everyone to survive?
"The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value." - Marx, Capital, Vol.I, Chapter One, Section A
There are so many factors that such a calculation cannot take into account that a book could be filled with them. How are freak accidents dealt with, for instance, if you calculate the average amount of food a person needs, produce it, but it catches fire, is stolen, falls into a lake, etc?
Erm...I'm not sure what this has to do with calculation but other extraneous variables can be accounted for in terms of labour time; e.g. it requires x hours on average to clean up a lake full of nuclear waste. This value is deducted from the labourers' salary who dumped nuclear waste in the first place. I explain in my blog why externalities is counted.
And the perceived unpopularity is what exactly?
Supply and demand; for instance if a given type of labour is below that which is needed it is perceived to be unpopular and thereby receives an extra percentage pay above the absolute cost of production.
A statistical number taken from the amount of X made versus X bought?
That would be quality (which, by the way, producers would only be paid for on the basis that their product was purchased).
What if X wasn't bought because people were on some religious holiday that didn't allow for X? The next batch of X produced will be too small.
Levels of demands for labour production during certain periods would necessitate the production for given commodities by syndicates and thereby given investment in syndicates (who manage their investment funds autonomously).
How do you shift production universally to accommodate these changes, especially when all the means of production are owned by groups who may have different views? What are extraneous costs? Who decides what is extraneous? Isn't adding "any other variables" not only insidiously ambiguous, but leaving a lot of questions as to how this formula produces any usable numbers?
An extraneous variable is any cost that is shifted outside of the enterprise. For instance, if any given group of producers do not invest in wise health and safety measures, they have saved internal costs but risk potentially externalising costs if someone has an accident. The labour time required for production medicine (raw materials), treatment of the patient and the patient's lost time from work (in labour hours) could all count as external costs that were unjustifiably shifted from the cost of production. In these cases, the cost of externalities + the cost of production can be greater than the cost of production itself if proper measures were taken.
As I explained below, there is a freeflow of information between groups of producers, consumers and citizens who are taking part in the community organisation which determines the calculation of goods.
(There is no definite blue print but x hours worked is the average time taken by society to produce a given quantity of articles. So I can work for y hours but produce x hours worth of articles and be paid x rather than y. Labour vouchers are different given that they are destroyed on use. If they have the labourer's identity (e.g. photo) on the voucher then they can't be stolen either. Members in the community take it upon themselves to calculate labour time by occupying various roles (which are rotated on a regular basis) in the workers' council. Everyone has access to the paper work so that there is no corruption.)
But X taken as an average here could fluctuate madly in a system where workers work completely at whim. In what way is Y here correlating with X? Your ten hours worked is worth some factor of ten against whatever average X, but what is that factor?
Right, lets say 10 groups of producers in a given community produce 10 computers in a given working day (x hours) on average between each individual group.
One group of producers therefore is likely to produce 10 computers in x hours; the socially necessary labour time for one computer is x/10.
x hours = 10 computers
Group A produces 10 computers in x hours; they are paid (as a group) x hours worth of labour vouchers.
Group B produces 10 computers in 2x hours; they aren't paid 2x because they have taken twice as long than average; they are only paid x.
Group C produces 20 computers in x hours; they are paid 2x for their super productivity.
The community bank, where these goods are distributed, can calculate this easily since they only have to calculated articles per labourer.
Changes in these circumstances (the socially necessary labour time may change if there is a new technology invented which allows producers to make computers even faster) also occur under capitalism so it is not just socialism that must deal with these issues.
Who is making sure the vouchers are destroyed? This would rely totally on the good will of individuals.
The people that they are given to at the community bank in exchange for other goods destroy them or perhaps cross through numbers (for instance if you have, perhaps a certificate the says "The Community Bank Owes You X", they would simply cross through the writing and hand it back to you; when you redistribute a product, they renew the value of the certificate with, perhaps a stamp or something). They do this in front of the labourers. If the labourers do not see them do this, they will likely report the matter given that they are likely to be engaged in some form of corruption. The system could work in any number of ways but corruption is not likely.
How hard is it to remove a photo or spoof any other form of identification the voucher might contain?
Fraud is possible under any economic system (including capitalism where it is possible to forge money, as an example).
Who forces the community to do these calculations?
The people getting involved in the community themselves. FYI, its called "Participatory Politics".
How do we know they are all good at math?...Who is making enforcing these role rotations?
Certain positions in the community will require qualifications. Other positions might deal with more trivial engagements.
How will anyone get good at a job with such rotations?
Naturally, people will be helping each other out with the administrative tasks and I imagine the work involved in the rotation of roles wouldn't be too different, otherwise we could limit the rotation for highly qualified jobs on the only basis of recall by petition.
How does the availability of all paperwork prevent corruption?
What I mean, is that anyone and everyone should be able to read the paperwork. Paperwork also gets shared.
Who gets to be on the council?
Anyone who volunteers.
How do we know they won't fudge the numbers for their own gain? How hard is it for a council to collude to misinform the community? Are they fair game for the fooling?
What about those that can't read?
Its voluntary participation, not obligatory. I imagine reading would be an mandatory requirement for certain positions but their would be other positions they could attain. Education would also be provided for free so they can learn to read if they want.
P.s. I am an anarcho-collectivist.
I feel like Im reading the Holy Bible, go in peace brother may the Lord be with you.
I prefer the holy bible of Austrianism. Particularly the book of Rothbard or Mises...
The awesome thing about voluntarism and statelessness is that this communism talk is tolerated. A community where no one is coerced and is fully committed to the cause would lead to a pretty damn good commune. At least to the values of the people willingly following the rules.
Valject:The free market can do as it bloody well pleases.
I'm glad we're in agreement.
I don't think I've ever actually engaged a true socialist on this question, but this is what I would say: How does one ensure that the workers always own the means of production? Pretty much anything can be a means of production. If Joe owns a frying pan and a pet chicken, it is easy to see how these items of comfort can double as a means of production. But under "true socialism" Joe would be forbidden from saying to Susan: "If you will use my frying pan to make and sell egg sandwiches and return the money to me, I will give you a cut of the income," even if Susan thinks this is a great idea and worth her time (unless Joe also offers to make her part owner of the pan and chicken). Here you have an example of totally voluntary, mutually beneficial work arrangement that is somehow forbidden. The questions for the "true socialist" is: What, if not a totalitarian state, is snooping around making sure no one is engaging in this type of voluntary engagement? What happens to people who do?
Lol
(I don't think the definition here is really something that can be taken in a concrete form. It states that this portion of time, call it "X", is the amount required to produce an article under normal conditions. What are normal conditions? And the correlary is that this X is determined using averages of "degree of skill and intensity", both things that cannot be given concrete numbers. For instance, what is the degree difference of skill between a trained nurse and a gentleman with a stethoscope and a speech impediment? Numbers cannot be put to these things. It might make more sense to say that an average of units Z that are produced in length of time dX, regardless of the skill of workers and conditions of production.)
Erm...I'm not sure what this has to do with calculation
(Nothing with the calculation per se, but it means that the workers have received labor vouchers in the amount of N while the amount of commodities has not risen in proportion with the N that they are entitled to.)
but other extraneous variables can be accounted for in terms of labour time; e.g. it requires x hours on average to clean up a lake full of nuclear waste. This value is deducted from the labourers' salary who dumped nuclear waste in the first place. I explain in my blog why externalities is counted.
(Who is paying out the salary, then? And who gets to make that deduction from the salary? What if the x hours required to clean cannot be covered by the deduction of labor vouchers from those who caused the spill? And how many more labor hours is cleaning up nuclear waste worth as opposed to...anything else? Like making caramel apples, or something.)
(So it pays more to do something unpopular, even to the point of going beyond the costs of production, as long as the labor is deemed necessary? Who is deciding what is necessary, and who gets to say what that extra amount is going to be. What exactly is the cost of production in a system where everyone is paid in labor vouchers? Assumedly, they are investing those vouchers into things they buy from the community store, or whatever. So someone buys a shoemaking machine, and then some people decide to volunteer to work the machine. But not enough people are working the machine to supply all the shoes. The original investor in the machine is also now working that machine in order to earn labor vouchers. Where are these vouchers being handed out from? Couldn't the original purchaser of the machine just buy a machine that no one else wants to work on, and therefore receive an enormous percentage increase in his labor vouchers for a while? Until enough people see the profit in working that same machine, in which case, that percentage goes down again anyway, and everyone leaves? Who is keeping track of the payout? How are the percentages due to demand being calculated?)
(But isn't that just demand, not quality? It might not be quality just because it is being bought. Beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all, is what I mean in this case.)
(But that doesn't help if the event that caused the slow in demand for X was unpredictable. Certainly there will be things that are unpredictable, especially in a work force that is largely producing voluntarily. And what is meant by syndicates handling funds autonomously? Isn't the entire system of funds (labor vouchers) autonomous in nature?)
An extraneous variable is any cost that is shifted outside of the enterprise. For instance, if any given group of producers do not invest in wise health and safety measures, they have saved internal costs but risk potentially externalising costs if someone has an accident.
(I'm still not getting this part. What responsibility does the group of producers have to that one individual? Other than the cost of that temporarily lost labor, which could easily be filled by any volunteer? Obviously, the group as a whole is the poorer if any one person is put out of work involuntarily, but this is true of any system of economy. And wouldn't the overall perception be that this injured worker has caused the need for X to be less satisfied, and therefore bring up the labor hour percentage for the rest of the workers? Wouldn't it be beneficial, in this case, to the group in terms of their own vouchers, to maybe smash a few legs here and there?)
The labour time required for production medicine (raw materials), treatment of the patient and the patient's lost time from work (in labour hours) could all count as external costs that were unjustifiably shifted from the cost of production.
(But who gets to call it unjustifiable? Who enforces this? Why do shoe makers care about the problems of medicine makers? Sure, the effects hit them personally in tiny ways, but in a population of thousands, millions, and billions, the use of medicine by one person won't make or break an entire society. And if they were worried about it, wouldn't they be spending their vouchers to stock up on bandages and medicine? Wouldn't the medicine makers have their work cut out for them? And wouldn't the increased percentage of labor time payout due to any inability to meet the demand for medicine make the field very lucrative anyway?)
In these cases, the cost of externalities + the cost of production can be greater than the cost of production itself if proper measures were taken.
(How are the proper measures drawn up? Taught? Enforced?)
(The assumption, though, is that by simply saying there is a freeflow of information, there will be. How can one make sure information is not being withheld? I'll volunteer to be part of the community organization. How do you prevent me from giving out false information, or making others think that someone else might be doing just that? How do you stop me from fudging things? And what is meant by "calculation of goods" here? Just the numbers meant to be used in the calculation of the amount of labor hours on labor vouchers?)
Right, lets say 10 groups of producers in a given community produce 10 computers in a given working day (x hours) on averagebetween each individual group.
(Certainly this is the case, but there is a stark difference. Namely the responsibility of individuals in each circumstance. For instance, in the scenario described above, what if the real situation is that Group A produces 20 computers, but Group B has agreed amongst its members to rob Group A by 1/2 their production, then hang around the shop for 2x hours, chatting it up or whatever, and generally goofing off. Cleverly, it appears that they are not as productive a group, so when Group A complains to the community, Group B says this is just a nonsense rumor. Group B has members volunteer for community organizational duties constantly, making sure to give the appearance via all the free paperwork that they are just not very productive, but always manage to produce A's amount in twice the time. Now A starts joining the community organizers, and the whole organization structure is at odds with itself. A begins distorting the paperwork as well, perhaps in self-defence, but lying nonetheless. In the end, the best way to handle B might be for A to defend their production facilities. But how many labor vouchers is each individual going to give up to purchase the ability to defend the group? What if someone feels they are giving up too much? Won't many of them find it more profitable to just do other work, which in turn will raise the percentage of labor hour value that B receives, giving B precisely the incentive to do exactly what they did? Compare this to capitalism, where the owner of the company can direct profits earned towards defense of his industry, without having to sacrifice his work force or argue with every single worker on an equal footing.)
(Who are they reporting it to? Who gets to fire these volunteers? What if you have a friend that works at the community bank, and that friend just happens to not cross out a few numbers? What if you are always throwing fun parties with the extra funds, so that people at the community bank turn a blind eye on your malfeasance? How is corruption not likely? Just because it's done in front of a lot of people? Magicians do things in front of lots of people, and many of them, even when they do not believe in magic, can't explain how the trick was done. People cheat at casinos. On camera. Under scrutiny.)
(So how, then, did you come to the conclusion that corruption is not likely under the system proposed above? I said nothing about fraud not being possible in a given system. I asked how this system approached it, following up the statement that it wouldn't be likely. How is it not likely?)
(But what if they just...don't? What if no one participates? Or what if everyone who does lies?)
(Who gets to say what qualifies someone? Wouldn't that group of volunteers, or whatever they would be, have a position of authority that is obviously open to corruption (such as, perhaps, deciding on low qualifications for certain roles that a good friend might want)?)
(Then isn't this no longer a voluntary labor system? And who enforces these things?)
(The bible gets shared, but that doesn't make everyone a believer. Nor does it stop anyone from burning it, or any other book. And how do you force everyone to share paperwork?)
(I volunteer. I also think the rules should be changed so that there can only be one volunteer at a time, for as long as that person likes. What exactly is the extent of the power of a volunteer, is my point? How are those limits enforced?)
(Mandatory as in enforced, or as in "you can try if you like, but if you can't read we'll all be laughing at your failure, or something"? Are you still allowed to try something that requires reading, or is some opposition in place to prevent illiterate people from doing certain things? The education may be provided for free, but how can you be sure there will be volunteers educating people? In a system of non-ownership of means of production, who exactly are "providers"? What if the volunteers aren't very educated? Wouldn't that be the blind leading the blind?)
(Totally cool with that. No matter what anyone here may have to say that's bad about you, I assure you they could find a million times worse to say about me. You are just expressing your ideal.)
I'm feeling lazy (plus I have some reading I want to do) so I might leave bits out of the quote...
I need to read more before I answer any more questions, so please don't waste time replying to this thread.
Valject:I don't think the definition here is really something that can be taken in a concrete form
Yes, it is abstract labour not concrete labour that is measured here.
It states that this portion of time, call it "X", is the amount required to produce an article under normal conditions. What are normal conditions? And the correlary is that this X is determined using averages of "degree of skill and intensity", both things that cannot be given concrete numbers. For instance, what is the degree difference of skill between a trained nurse and a gentleman with a stethoscope and a speech impediment? Numbers cannot be put to these things. It might make more sense to say that an average of units Z that are produced in length of time dX, regardless of the skill of workers and conditions of production.
Normal conditions are simply calculated by the average production. Marx uses an actual example of hand-loom weavers who were cheap sourced out of labour when machinery was introduced that made production much easier/cheaper. Marx makes a distinction between utilities produced by human labour and utilities not produced by human labour (either with the aid of nature or machinery); such things "can be a use value [that is, a utility], without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &c." Value here is the labour time embodied in them which Marx argues is the medium by which the commodity is exchanged (well, kind of but there is more to it than that). Of course, machinery is operated by labour but the overall labour input is reduced. For instance, berries can grow out in the wild by nature with no input by man given; so they have no value, only utility. Again, degrees of skill related intensity are related to standard condition. The general levels of skill in a given economic section that can be calculated according to average productivity; more skill (in general), more productivity.
The difference of skill between the nurse and this gentleman is the nurses average productivity per hour (when compared with other people of the same profession) compared with the gentleman's average productivity per hour (again, when compared with other people of the same profession). Labour is homogenous for Marx; more skilled (i.e. more productive labour) is merely a larger quantity of labour time than less skilled labour. Also important is the cost of production of labour-power;
"What, then, is the cost of production of labour-power?
It is the cost required for the maintenance of the labourer as a labourer, and for his education and training as a labourer." - Marx, Wage Labour and Capital, Chapter 4 - By What are Wages Determined?
This determines wages:
"the shorter the time required for training up to a particular sort of work, the smaller is the cost of production of the worker, the lower is the price of his labour-power, his wages. In those branches of industry in which hardly any period of apprenticeship is necessary and the mere bodily existence of the worker is sufficient, the cost of his production is limited almost exclusively to the commodities necessary for keeping him in working condition. The price of his work will therefore be determined by the price of the necessary means of subsistence."
We can see this with the doctor vs. janitor scenario. The doctor has to go through 7 (I think) years at Med school plus a multitude of work experience, etc. whereas the janitor's overall training is much lower. The doctor, invariably, is paid more money. Generally speaking, worse jobs pay less money.
Lets say, that if we took into account all the shop keepers in the world; lets say that on average they could sell x amounts of articles per hour. Any shop keeper who sells x articles would have produced would have produced a total number of articles with a value of one hour's labour embodied in them. But, lets say one day someone invents vending machines and all the shop keepers buy them up and start using them to sell their goods and save themselves time. People can now sell y (which is > x) articles per hour on average. This means that the normal conditions have changed. But all sorts of things (e.g. security cameras and alarms - no one needs to man the shop over anymore [thereby less effort required to produce]) could change, thereby changing the quantity of goods produced. So we only calculate the standard conditions in terms of average productivity and take them as a given. (The price mechanism will get pushed down by the way due the increased productivity from machines and thereby higher supply relative to the demand for goods).
I have to note, though that this is a simplification of the labour theory of value; there are other variables considered, like the absolute cost (including extraneous costs, costs of raw materials and other variables), supply and demand, etc. as I have read elsewhere (other articles and books that refer to Marx). But Marx keeps things simple in Volume I. But I haven't read further than that yet.
I'm not entirely sure what your question is here but we don't generally speaking want to encourage wasteless production caused by unresourceful and careless "consumption" (e.g. randomly and accidentally burning things that get thrown into a lake - your question still confuses me a little); so they will have to pay (in terms of vouchers) if they want more. As far as calculation goes, we can still count the destroyed articles as "consumed" though if certain produce was very easy to be destroyed (e.g. easily breakable TVs), there would be less consumption of that particular commodity and the producer is only given a salary when his production meets demand.
Who is paying out the salary, then?
Citizens participating in the "bank" of the exchange where produce may both be deposited (in exchange for labour vouchers) by the producers and withdrawn (where labour vouchers are cashed in and destroyed in front of the consumer's eyes to prevent corruption) by the consumers. These citizens occupy voluntary roles as participants aiding their community; they may be paid by a slight deduction from labour vouchers, or perhaps work voluntarily (people do that kind of thing). Their pay check will be some algebraic formula determined by the average salary of all producers in the area so they are incentivised to coordinate the production as efficiently as possible to improve the salaries of other producers and thereby their own salary. Services are "hypothetically deposited" if you see what I mean. For every transaction that is made, they can calculate the supply (goods or services deposited) and demand (goods or services withdrawn) and put this up on a database that is easily accessible to by producers. The producers can use this information in order to produce whatever they are likely to be paid for. If a good or service deposited is not purchased, they are not paid. Paperwork must be submitted to the public eye to prevent corruption.
Basically, as you put it quite succinctly in another post, people "police" each other.
What if the x hours required to clean cannot be covered by the deduction of labor vouchers from those who caused the spill?
Any given syndicate will either be a cooperative group of producers or a self-employed individual. Lets say the self-employed individual "accidentally" dumps a tonne of nuclear waste in a lake which takes x hours to clean up; the necessary procedures are employed to make sure it is this individual that is to blame. He must pay back x. But his salary alone won't cover x.
Firstly we must consider his basic means of subsistence; that is the lowest living standard he can live on. Secondly, citizens working in the commune may employ a militia to seize his assets - if he does not oblige (by force, if necessary) from his company which can be used to deal with the nuclear waste material. Thirdly, the "bank" employees deduct, I don't know, x/10 from his salary every month for 10 months until the amount is paid off, leaving him only with the basic means of subsistence (i.e. the cheapest means to live on). Basically, he pays the amount off slowly over a long period of time. In the case of a co-operative group of producers it is the same deal bt the responsibility is shared. Then, these people would need to also deal with the wrath of their neighbours; they'd be living locally after all. No-one would want to do that, me thinks. Finally, nobody would let him do that in a system of co-operative production anyway where its easy to tell what people are trying to do with land.
And how many more labor hours is cleaning up nuclear waste worth as opposed to...anything else? Like making caramel apples, or something.)
Lets say on average it takes 1 hour to make 5 caramel apples. Lets say on average it takes, say 1 hours to clean up x amount of nuclear waste.
Cost of cleaning up x nuclear waste = 5 caramel apples = 1 hour's worth of work
Pay = cost of production of labour-power + socially necessary labour time - negative externalities (that can be taken into account) + positive externalities (that can be taken account) + small percentage calculated according to low supply/high demand - low percentage according to high supply/low demand + cost of mode of production (including cost of raw materials, etc.) +/- other variables
Believe it or not, it is not so different from capitalism; the difference is it works out so there is no surplus value for private entities and externalities can be included in the value. I explain in my blog post why externalities are not counted for under capitalism: http://syndicalistlibertarianism.blogspot.com/2011/02/private-property-and-environmentalism.html
But isn't that just demand, not quality? It might not be quality just because it is being bought. Beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all, is what I mean in this case.
Yeah, there are some externalities that admittedly cannot be taken account for under socialism. However, in this case I mean something different; namely that if it is being bought, it must be useful in some way to the consumer. If they don't buy it, it is because it is no good and the producer will have to take this into account (since he is only paid on the consumption of goods).
But that doesn't help if the event that caused the slow in demand for X was unpredictable. Certainly there will be things that are unpredictable, especially in a work force that is largely producing voluntarily. And what is meant by syndicates handling funds autonomously? Isn't the entire system of funds (labor vouchers) autonomous in nature?)
What I mean, is that syndicates would still receive investment funds so that they can actually improve the mode of production themselves; they receive this from the "bank" workers. But only if they can prove they have done their research through a business plan. What they do then with their investment funds is their business (but they will crash if they do not invest wisely) which would have to be paid back over time. So basically the bureacracy is not handled by a centralised planning agency but is handled by the syndicate itself. They'd have to present their research when asking for investment funds and they'd be less likely to receive spending during periods of low consumption levels. That's because (a) the investment funds are provided for by a deduction from labour vouchers during purchase so the bank have a "supply" of investment funds and (b) they must then pay back the investment funds which get added back onto the value of labour vouchers. Basically, during periods of low supply of investment funds, the "bank" deduct a percentage from the labour vouchers and during periods of high supply of investment funds (once they have been paid back) they add back on the percentage.
The reason why this is relevant to your question is because the syndicates would have to keep up with trends of consumption levels (e.g. low trends when people go on religious holidays) or they would crash and make losses.
What are extraneous costs? Who decides what is extraneous? Isn't adding "any other variables" not only insidiously ambiguous, but leaving a lot of questions as to how this formula produces any usable numbers?
Extraneous costs are costs shifted from the cost of production. They can have a positive or negative effect on society.
I have to go so will deal with other points at a later stage...
Well, under contemporary British society people can claim benefits if they are deemed physically disabled; that doesn't mean everyone goes around smashing up their legs and deliberately causing themselves physical harm. Plus, there is often inspection to deem whether an accident was really an accident. This is the same scenario. And yes, the group of producers have an obligation to pay anyone who was injured on their site if they have not invested in the proper health and safety procedures. I believe you have your private law courts under voluntaryism/insert libertarian propertarian ideology here.
But who gets to call it unjustifiable? Who enforces this? Why do shoe makers care about the problems of medicine makers? Sure, the effects hit them personally in tiny ways, but in a population of thousands, millions, and billions, the use of medicine by one person won't make or break an entire society. And if they were worried about it, wouldn't they be spending their vouchers to stock up on bandages and medicine? Wouldn't the medicine makers have their work cut out for them? And wouldn't the increased percentage of labor time payout due to any inability to meet the demand for medicine make the field very lucrative anyway?
Recognised procedures can be carried out, perhaps by inspectors employed by the bank of the exchange under circumstances like these (I need mention that they ought to have some form of funding this, perhaps by deducting a percentage from labour vouchers - voluntary "taxation". I say voluntary because the producer need not distribute his goods in the "bank"; its entirely his/her choice). The producers responsible are the people to pay unless no-one is responsible in which case medicine is another form of produce that ought to be free ("taxation"); people in society would care because they would want the same treatment for themselves under such circumstances. If they see someone else not getting the necessary provisions then this could mean the same scenario for them personally. The injured body may take the case further.
Also, in addition to inspectors, we have a whole system of producers keeping an eye on each other; everyone has a good idea of what's going on.
Quality of medicine can be ensured by only providing wards with funds on the provisio that patients are willing to use those wards. Its the same with education; the school gets a fund for every pupil - no more and no less. I personally think that medicine and education ought to be free for practical, if not moral purposes.
How are the proper measures drawn up? Taught? Enforced?
Like I said, syndicates do their own research and deal with their own paperwork and the "bank" measures consumption levels and puts them onto a database system.
The assumption, though, is that by simply saying there is a freeflow of information, there will be. How can one make sure information is not being withheld? I'll volunteer to be part of the community organization. How do you prevent me from giving out false information, or making others think that someone else might be doing just that? How do you stop me from fudging things? And what is meant by "calculation of goods" here? Just the numbers meant to be used in the calculation of the amount of labor hours on labor vouchers?
Everyone will know if you are hiding paperwork. When a consumer purchases a product, they expect to see you writing down the transaction just like with tills in supermarkets where you can see the price of the commodity when it gets swiped. Imagine the community bank as a massive bustling town hall where every one comes to purchase and deposit goods. You write down the transaction and prop it up on a display board so every one can see. Then there is other organisational processes; a similar process where the offices are open and people can walk around and take a look at the paper work.
You can come along and risk giving out false information but just like with, say, wikipedia, some nerd will spot the errors and report the matter. Also, as a volunteer, you sign yourself up to be recallable by petition, that's part of the arrangement. If you are incompetent or fraudulent you no longer have the right to participate in economic coordination, simple as. A vote can be taken from time to time in regards to important structural changes (you've signed yourself up for that as well) but otherwise the activity remains as voluntary participation.
Certainly this is the case, but there is a stark difference. Namely the responsibility of individuals in each circumstance. For instance, in the scenario described above, what if the real situation is that Group A produces 20 computers, but Group B has agreed amongst its members to rob Group A by 1/2 their production, then hang around the shop for 2x hours, chatting it up or whatever, and generally goofing off. Cleverly, it appears that they are not as productive a group, so when Group A complains to the community, Group B says this is just a nonsense rumor. Group B has members volunteer for community organizational duties constantly, making sure to give the appearance via all the free paperwork that they are just not very productive, but always manage to produce A's amount in twice the time. Now A starts joining the community organizers, and the whole organization structure is at odds with itself. A begins distorting the paperwork as well, perhaps in self-defence, but lying nonetheless. In the end, the best way to handle B might be for A to defend their production facilities. But how many labor vouchers is each individual going to give up to purchase the ability to defend the group? What if someone feels they are giving up too much? Won't many of them find it more profitable to just do other work, which in turn will raise the percentage of labor hour value that B receives, giving B precisely the incentive to do exactly what they did? Compare this to capitalism, where the owner of the company can direct profits earned towards defense of his industry, without having to sacrifice his work force or argue with every single worker on an equal footing.
*Rolls on floor laughing* You do bring up some amazing scenarios, e.g. "what if my product randomly catches fire, magically jumps out my hand and falls in the lake, how do you calculate that?" or "what if everyone decides to smash up their legs so they don't have to work and can just doss around?" or this is probably the best one: "what if groups of producers start robbing each other so they can sell their product and not have to work any more". Think about it, lol.
In all seriousness, they can't just rob people like that; firstly we do have voluntary citizen's militia groups to deal with crime and so forth (and this would count as a crime), secondly group B would have just as much difficulty proving a blatantly obvious theft like that as they would under any other system, thirdly group B can defend their produce themselves (e.g. guns and so forth). All systems have theft and all systems have to deal with the issue of proving theft. Also, they'd have to make break an entry to make a theft like that.
As far as management issues go, the producers will come to an agreement amongst themselves how the profits are to be shared. They might have one person take the responsibility of management and give him his fair share at the end of the day. The key here is that he is accountable and they can participate in management too if they want to. In fact, they'd probably end up sharing management duties and production duties.
You say that "there is a stark difference. Namely the responsibility of individuals in each circumstance": I'd like to point out that individuals would be equally responsible (if not more so) under a social anarchy.
People, in general like to gossip and report things to any one and everone. Those responsible for management duties are delegates and recallable by petition. It isn't just the case that people can see what's happening, they can become suspicious if a person is throwing lots of parties, etc. Someone at the end of the day is going to count up all the labour vouchers and the produce available. If you think about it, the labour vouchers and value of produce (which have to be tagged) have to add up or something ain't right.
Also, if you think fraud isn't possible in the capitalist banking system, you're wrong, big time, and the fractional reserve system is a legal form of fraud (yeah, I know you want a gold standard but consider the fraud that happened even under that system where more loans were lent out than there was gold in the gold supply to extract more interest; it was what lead to the fractional reserve system in the first place because of the massive inflation and devaluation of the pound against the value of gold. Even under that system people got suspicious by the luxury the banker was living in and there were bank runs, etc.). Plus in these capitalist banking systems the consumer doesn't get to see or understand the bulk of what goes on inside. In my bank, I'd have an open management system but with a heavily secured vault containing the investment funds.
So how, then, did you come to the conclusion that corruption is not likely under the system proposed above? I said nothing about fraud not being possible in a given system. I asked how this system approached it, following up the statement that it wouldn't be likely. How is it not likely?
Basically, we would try as hard as possible to make vouchers that can't be forged but, just like under capitalism, we can only do our best.
That said, if money doesn't have the watermark symbol it is fradulent so we can do the same for vouchers. In fact, vouchers would only be stored off in the bank where they check for the watermark with a machine unlike in shops where they are less likely to have the necessary watermark.
But what if they just...don't? What if no one participates? Or what if everyone who does lies?
Firstly, I think its in people's nature; they do like to get involved in these sorts of projects and help out the community. Secondly, they'd be paid if no one wants to do it. Also, I've been through the "what if people lie" question about a million times ;)
If you think about the commune as being another cooperative where its producers have an equal say in things, it is legitimate for there to be a vote for certain issues. The idea is that someone comes up with an idea ("I know - for position x, people should have at the very least a degree in Maths"), they discuss the idea, then the idea is voted on and a sufficient qualification is decided. But, apart from structural changing (which is made by a vote and includes; qualifications for certain positions, decisions over how to spend [in the syndicate] and distribute [in the bank] investment funds, sick leave systems, etc.), decisions are made only by participating individuals as is the case in life, generally.
Then isn't this no longer a voluntary labor system? And who enforces these things?
Recall by petition is only enforced in so far as people sign themselves up to be recalled by petition. People will enforce these things. Just like with a democratic state, if someone tried to make it an elitist oligarch, people would resort to violence, take up guns (if they were allowed them), strike, protest, etc. It would be the same with participatory politics; people would get bothered by changes in the system that made it less *participatory*.
Again, if people burn up accounts/destroy accounts, the figures won't add up at the end of the day. Also, people won't be able to discretely take accounts way, let's say the account is nailed down onto a vertical board; they have to get up to write down the digits and the digits are there for everyone to see.
I volunteer. I also think the rules should be changed so that there can only be one volunteer at a time, for as long as that person likes. What exactly is the extent of the power of a volunteer, is my point? How are those limits enforced?
You'd have to go through long processes and if you made the system less participatory, people excluded would take up arms.
No, I wouldn't personally have people laughing at each other's failures (but then humans are humans and not faultless so I can't guarantee that). In any case, if you were illiterate, would you try to deal with complex bank accounts or get people to help you out? They wouldn't be able to get positions they're obviously not qualified for but that's fair enough, really. There'd be an open system of education where people can transfer themselves freely from workshop to workshop or go and do independent study in the library freely. Well, that's how I imagine it but then its down to the producers who manage the education syndicates at the end of the day.
How in god's name are you going to calculate subjective values that exists in every individual? You wont. The only objective value that exists of subjective values is the price mechanism. Even then it only serves as guide to a willing buyer and or sellers as a estimated cost of a service or good needed in the future. The price mechanism is the product of competition and calculation done by subjective individuals. This can not be argued and for that reason a supreme planner would have to reflect his personal subjective values on the many. These systems never work as meeting everyone's varying needs cannot be planned to perfection. The only system that can meet everyone's needs is one that lets the individual pursue it themselves.
Promoting Liberty at the expense of Tyranny.
www.e-renegade.com
Nice. I've just spent about twenty minutes explaining this.
Answer to the calculation argument is along the lines of particpatory politics, producer managed workplace [syndicate] autonomy, transactions with a banking system, calculation according to LTV and yes, competition [that *capitalist* construct] between syndicates.
Anyway, I probably won't be able to answer any more questions than that for the time being (no more info, have to read some more).
EvilSocialistFellow:Answer to the calculation argument is along the lines of particpatory politics, producer managed workplace [syndicate] autonomy, transactions with a banking system, calculation according to LTV and yes, competition [that *capitalist* construct] between syndicates.
All your doing is rebuilding Capitalism from the top down, into a system that suits your own personal preferences.
Your trying to:
In every attempt your trying as best you can to mimic the efficacy of the market.
In your market system, how are fleeting subjective ordinal preferences handled by the proletariat calculatory system? How do people know the costs of goods and services, so that they can adequately plan for their own personal consumption?
How is money earned? How does your monetary include interest(Time discrepancies). How does your monetary system of use-value price goods and services? Do those prices represent the concerted collective subjective preferences of the individuals that desire to use them?