Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

This is interesting. It makes sense for capitalism to be temporary, as constant growth cannot be sustained. The problem is that all national attempts at communism so far turned into dictatorships/authoritarian governments.

That's completely understandable. Marx's historical materialism is all about how material forces - mainly technology - shape the economics of the society. Capitalism arose because of the industrial revolution, and it was pretty much inevitable that it would. Communism, in Marx's version, is the stage after capitalist technology has evolved enough that the class relationship itself is obsolete. In "communist" countries, they're using the same or even more obsolete modes of production, so naturally the model that applies is the factory boss / factory worker model, which is authoritarian in nature.

Here are Marx quotes on the matter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism#Communist_mode_of_production

Capital employs machinery, rather, only to the extent that it enables the worker to work a larger part of his time for capital, to relate to a larger part of his time as time which does not belong to him, to work longer for another. Through this process, the amount of labour necessary for the production of a given object is indeed reduced to a minimum, but only in order to realise a maximum of labour in the maximum number of such objects. The first aspect is important, because capital here – quite unintentionally – reduces human labour … to a minimum. This will redound to the benefit of emancipated labour, and is the condition of its emancipation.

So he's saying that capitalism, by striving for productivity would eventually do away with the social relation that it's built on - the divide between capital and labor. The final line "and is the condition of its emancipation" shows that Marx sees this development, the material technological one, as the basis for the move into a new phase, which he called Communism.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.

Here's he's saying that communism isn't going to be a break with the past, but be a stage that "emerges" from the current one. He says "revolution", but this is in the sense of "industrial revolution" which is existing terminology he was using. There's no reason to think he meant a literal overthrow of the government since he was already using the term in the technological sense, and he alludes constantly to advanced in technology, not political upheavals.

Also, there's no necessary reason to think that Communism is the "final stage" or anything. Marx was just predicting it as a the successor stage to capitalism. Things like a capitalist society which has automation and brings in a UBI all totally fits with Marx's descriptions of how he thought communism would develop. Marx never goes so far as to claim communism is some final stage of human development, it's just post-automation capitalism.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Boiling this down, Marx said that communism is what happens after you've automated away the need for labor. Having something to do would become "life's prime want". Physical labor is obsolete. And the final line implies that people contribute to this society what they are able, and receive from society what they need.

[scriver]

Yes and no.

Hunter gatherer societies tend to have a nuclear familial unit, in which the parental figures are given deference.  However, there is still drive to stand out with inter-familial meetings, since that is when adult children hook up.

And the fact that hunter gatherers require a whole lot of land, and whenever territory is involved status immediately becomes super important.

[McTraveller]

In order for something like an economy where "labor is no longer needed" to work, you have to devise a system to manage the distribution of goods and services based on something other than labor.

NOTE: sorry this got a bit long... I kept changing / refining as I typed.

The best concept I can think of - which is very alien to just about anything I've seen but has a lot of positive aspects, but tons of "how would that actually play out?" kind of stuff - is this:

Abolish the current concept of money and debt entirely.  Instead, issue on a per-capita basis a fixed number of credits per some time period, maybe quarterly.  Or maybe something like you get 13000 credits at the beginning of the year, and an additional 1000 credits on the first of each month. A maximum of 12000 credits can roll over to the next month, but NOT across years*. You can't transfer them from person to person.  Maybe an exception is that minors have their credits assigned to parents, and just do it equally between parents if there are custody issues.  The key is: every single person gets exactly the same credits.

These credits are then used the same as money to buy goods and services.  But there are no loans or anything like that at all.

Incentive to increase productivity is rolled into being able to want to buy more "stuff" in a period than you were before, by having more things available.

For social programs, also assign a number of credits to the social agencies for public works and public programs. This credit amount would be based probably on a per-capita (for things like schools) and a per-area (for things like roads, utilities, etc.) criteria.

Essentially what this does is give everyone exactly equal access to all the goods and services produced by society.  It eliminates fear of the future.  It eliminates hoarding of credits.  It eliminates rent seeking.  It changes the incentives for productivity.  It still keeps a mechanism for signaling what goods and services to produce based on the short-term purchase habits.  An interesting side effect is that credits should only be used for goods, not services: basically everyone is pre-paid for any services they provide. That is, if you provide a service you don't get any more credits.  Or put this way: you can only spend credits, you cannot earn them.

*EDIT: The idea is you get half the credits in a year up front, for "large" purchases like a house or something, and then the other half is distributed over time, to prevent people getting to the last month of the year and having used up all their credits.

[Naturegirl1999]

In order for something like an economy where "labor is no longer needed" to work, you have to devise a system to manage the distribution of goods and services based on something other than labor.

NOTE: sorry this got a bit long... I kept changing / refining as I typed.

The best concept I can think of - which is very alien to just about anything I've seen but has a lot of positive aspects, but tons of "how would that actually play out?" kind of stuff - is this:

Abolish the current concept of money and debt entirely.  Instead, issue on a per-capita basis a fixed number of credits per some time period, maybe quarterly.  Credits don't roll over from one period to the next, and you can't transfer them from person to person.  Maybe an exception is that minors have their credits assigned to parents, and just do it equally between parents if there are custody issues.  The key is: every single person gets exactly the same credits.

These credits are then used the same as money to buy goods and services.  But there are no loans or anything like that at all.

Incentive to increase productivity is rolled into being able to want to buy more "stuff" in a period than you were before, by having more things available.

For social programs, also assign a number of credits to the social agencies for public works and public programs. This credit amount would be based probably on a per-capita (for things like schools) and a per-area (for things like roads, utilities, etc.) criteria.

Essentially what this does is give everyone exactly equal access to all the goods and services produced by society.  It eliminates fear of the future.  It eliminates hoarding of credits.  It eliminates rent seeking.  It changes the incentives for productivity.  It still keeps a mechanism for signaling what goods and services to produce based on the short-term purchase habits.  An interesting side effect is that credits should only be used for goods, not services: basically everyone is pre-paid for any services they provide. That is, if you provide a service you don't get any more credits.  Or put this way: you can only spend credits, you cannot earn them.

This sounds like a good idea

[wierd]

That wouldnt work, as there is no way to save the notes to make a large purchase.  The only way around that is to have literally ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that can be bought, be capable of being bought on the standard budget you give a person.

That means that if somebody wants to buy a yacht this month, and is willing to forgo getting food for a month to do so, they need to be able to do that with the amount of credits they are allotted.   Otherwise, you essentially make it impossible to buy the item.

Unless you fix maximum price for "Costly to fabricate" or "Items fabricated from rare materials" (EG, a solid gold toilet), so that anyone could purchase one if they really wanted, (which has a whole lot wrong with trying it. Price fixing is bad mkay.) so that this is possible, all your proposed solution will do is guarantee the formation of a proletariat class.

There's another problem with it:

While you cannot hoarde the currency units (because they expire) this is untrue of durable goods, or raw materials, which will need to be exchanged in order for more complex goods to be fabricated.  This includes cottage industry type fabrication (The knitter lady needs to appropriate yarn in order to make her sweaters, etc.) You just offset what items or commodities get hoarded.  Supply and demand are still going to exist organically.

[McTraveller]

That wouldnt work, as there is no way to save the notes to make a large purchase.

Heh I realized that same thing and made an edit while you were posting that

EDITS as I think more:  don't forget, the presupposition was a society where there was so much automation that "labor is not needed" any more.  So "cost to produce" doesn't have the same meaning we associate with it today.

[Naturegirl1999]

I read the edit, this probably fixes the problem, something needs to run it, an AI maybe? But people need to make the AI, unless we made an AI tasked with making an AI, thus eliminating human biases

[wierd]

the same problem applies.  Half the year's credits up front becomes the "Max possible price" for literally anything.  Want to go to mars? Half the year's credits!

Otherwise you ensure nobody can make the trip, because people cannot possibly spend more than that, because the credits expire, and cannot be banked.

Additionally, it means that the person or agency selling the tickets to mars cannot actually use the credits for anything, because the credits are non-transferable. (Making them useless as a means of EXCHANGE)

this comes back to the "hoarding" thing--  A trip to mars has real calculable expense per kg weight sent. Instead of translating it into currency or man hours, it would be in raw "It takes this much fuel". Instead of banking the notes, what the person saving to go to mars does instead is purchase canisters of hydrazine fuel over time, and storing them.  They deliver the necessary fuel for the trip when they embark. (Or, the figurative logistical equivalent-- They pay a number of currency units equivalent to a purchasable quantity of hydrazine fuel in exchange for a voucher for that fuel, then hoard the vouchers.)

It's a system that will be abused, because it leads to a pricing singularity that the "real market" (where actual demand and raw availability of products and services still hold sway) will not be able to accommodate.

[McTraveller]

The credits expire, but durable goods do not.

Going to mars doesn't cost $10B all at once - it costs little chunks of $1000 here and there accumulated over time.  That is: You don't have to buy the rocket for its cumulative price all at once at the end.

Also: there is nothing that says you can't have 10 people agree to each spend 5000 credits for a single 50000-credit-cost good.  But they would be spending on the thing because they want it, not because they are going to profit from it - that is, the profit is inherently in the existence of the thing they are buying, not in the fact that they'll get credits for it.

[wierd]

It's just offsetting what "Rich" people will hoard.  Instead of credits, they will hoard durable goods, or the logical equivalent there to-- vouchers for durable goods-- which do not expire.


"Money" is a universal voucher.  That is what it is.  It is why rich people hoard it.

[McTraveller]

But in this hypothetical system - what would hoarding the durable good do for that person?  They could trade it away later I suppose, but they aren't going to get credits for it.  Hoarding also (by assumption) doesn't prevent other people going to "the system" for the goods and services they need, not the people that have hoarded durable goods.

Unless you are saying that the hoarding there is related to the cultural / psychological need to be distinct?

I feel like maybe we are missing some aspect of the other's arguments?

I'm also probably hoping that you're probing with the intent of making a stronger hypothetical system, rather than just saying "that's impossible!" 

[wierd]

Exploitation of supply vs demand.

Say for a moment that you have hoarded hydrazine vouchers, and can effortlessly give somebody a trip to mars "Right now" in exchange for some service of dubious ethical quality.  The vouchers would have to be "bearer bond" type transactables; The bearer of the voucher is entitled to the use or providence of that quantity of that product, upon presentation. 

Unlimited manufacturing capability is not possible: There are finite resources of material and energy on the planet.  As such, there is only so much capacity for production or delivery. 
The ability to remit a full quantity now, in exchange for an imbalanced transaction (eg, "interest"), of some other commodity, would become the new means of accumulating "wealth."

EG, Random person wants to get to mars sometime in their lifetime.  Tickets to mars are popular, because of AGW. (Thanks previous generations!) There is only so much rocket launch capacity the planet can actually handle; But there are other commodities that can be purchased more freely-- say, bags of flour or sugar.  Logistically, what the "crafty, greedy wealth-baron" does, is look at the price-in-credits per commodity item voucher, and then offset his "prices" so that he gets a logical surplus. He says to the would-be expat--  "Hey, I see you want to leave the planet. Too bad for you the cost of hydrazine fuel is so high due to demand, that you cannot live long enough to collect enough vouchers.  Thankfully for you, I have banked lots of other kinds of vouchers that I can exchange value of, to get you the supply of vouchers you will need...  You just need to bring me X amount of these other, more easily purchased vouchers, and we can make a deal."

where X amount of that other voucher has a value in credits exceeding the costs of the hydrazine vouchers directly.  By manipulating the barter transactions in this fashion, the greedy bastard quickly accrues more and more vouchers of various kinds, looking for interested parties seeking large transactions.  If he can hoard ENOUGH of them that he can swing the supply/demand curve by threatening to remit his vouchers, he has the potential do control market credit pricing. All he has to do is have a means of storing the commodity.  (EG, suppose the guy has enough "bag of flour" vouchers that he can appropriate the ENTIRE YEARLY output of flour production;  He can do that, and cause an instant flour shortage.  He remitted his durable vouchers first, and now people *HAVE* to exchange other vouchers for his flour in his warehouse, because he literally has it all.  Again, he tips the balance and requires more "value" in his transaction than he expends; His power only grows.

(Essentially, he introduces himself as a middle-man.  He says to one person seeking large quantities of say-- "bag of flour" vouchers, that he can do it, at an exchange rate of "one and a half" of another, identically priced voucher that is more available.  He does this with one set of clients, asking for they hydrazine vouchers. He does it for another, with the bag of flour ones, etc.. etc... etc...-- He pays attention to what "Real market" demands are, and seeks to introduce himself as "The supply".  The "bag of flour" vouchers supplied by the yearning expat, go to the breadmaker seeking more than his normally purchasable quantity of flour; with a surplus retained by the exchange baron, in exchange for hydrazine vouchers. The hydrazine vouchers go to the yearing expat, with a surplus retained by the baron.  The value he adds to the transaction is in permitting a transfer of large sums of vouchers. He's a true capitalist.)


There is also the "Rent seeking" angle--  Storing actual product and moving it requires temporary storage while the product gets from factory to distributor.  The greedy magnate says "you can store it here for X kind of vouchers."

You are just offsetting what gets hoarded.


The "hoarding of wealth" is really just "I have very high availability of resources; I can get anything I want, whenever I want."

This translates into the "attractiveness"/"distinction" metric, in that somebody that can get you anything you want is very desirable, compared to waiting.  People are willing to do all kinds of unsavory things in exchange for that kind of service. 

[McTraveller]

Ok, I guess maybe we'd need to say "you can't create vouchers"?  I had an implicit assumption that it would not be possible to create an alternate "off-credit" market for exchanges.  Maybe if you wanted to allow such a thing you tax possession of goods by anyone other than the manufacturer, and levy the tax in the good stored instead of in credits?  (Heck we could do this today and eliminate a lot of the down-sides with market-makers.)

I do see this is as a valid concern though.  Any thoughts on how to mitigate it?

(I will be offline for the rest of the afternoon... so don't fear I'm growing despondent or something if I don't respond for a while.)

[wierd]

Simple:

1) You cannot, as an individual, possess more than X amount of any kind of voucher (to be determined; needs to be based on actual market math which I dont want to do.)
2) You cannot engage in a transaction service for different kinds of vouchers. (No exceptions!)
3) You cannot be in possession of more than X% of yearly production of any commodity.

But that just prevents voucher-capitalism.  It does not address the pricing singularity I pointed out.

[Reelya]

But in this hypothetical system - what would hoarding the durable good do for that person?  They could trade it away later I suppose, but they aren't going to get credits for it.  Hoarding also (by assumption) doesn't prevent other people going to "the system" for the goods and services they need, not the people that have hoarded durable goods

People will definitely hoard physical goods if you don't let them accumulate money. They'll use barter to side-step the limits you've imposed through the credit system. It's naive to think you'll achieve equality by a heavy-handed centralized credit system that doesn't "allow" people to accumulate wealth. Sure, some people will be happy with whatever they're doled out. Others: they'll work hard to circumvent whatever limits you put in place, and then, to reign them in, you inevitably end up enacting police-state like laws, and that's why we can't have nice things.