Allocating labour-power according to the supply and demand curves of a market is exploitation

but couldn't this same logic be applied under lieterally any variant of socialism? wouldn't porkies and fascists try to implement some form of inorganic produtcion that resembles capitalism

No. This is how money orginally was made. You can't just expect us to go back to bartering.

Wew lad.

You would be assighned a job if you couldn't find one yourself.

are you some sort of retarded primitivist?

How not? If the goal is not to have barter but also a gift economy instead of a central plan (because allocating labour-power according to the plan is as exploitative if you claim markets are exploitative) and there won't be the necessary mechanism for a state and a banking system to develop, there would be no way for money to arise

money has value because the state backs it up as legal tender, without a state, money is lost

Do supporting gift and barter makes me one? Have I been reading too much anthropology?

and how is that not as exploitative?

I'm sure that would be very practical in an advanced industrial economy.

It could, obviously a primtive form of barter would be retarded, but lets analyze how a system using technology could work

one option could be that, on a webpage like ebay or amazon, one would upload what they are able to produce, let's say computer software or vegetables, and someone else would log in, upload theirs and engage in trade

the exchange values could be determined by both parties, without the necessity of centralized money

I think you need to keep reading.

Except this isn't practical.

Money is used because it's a reliable medium of exchange that's somewhat easy to store.
In your example, what if I'm a farmer and all I can offer in exchange is spoilable produce?
What if I want to sell something, but I don't want to be stuck with stuff that might rapidly depreciate in value? Or is either extremely niche or has a very volatile market?
What if the exchange involves items that are massive in terms of weight or volume?

not if it's democratic

but even authoritarian socialism is better because at least that is controlled by a human. market economics means that humans are controlled by the market's own logic.

just because it is decided by a human doesn't mean forced labour isn't exploitative

but that system can be as reliable or even moreso than currency, If you are a farmer then you could produce purely on demand, that is I will decide to always deal with you and ask you to produce stuff for me, it won't go bad as I will make use of it,

you can produce on demand

What about it? of course you can't ship a yatch to your house, but there is no point in shipping one to begin with, besides, under central planning you still have such logistical problems

Except central planning has repeatedly failed when applied to the economy as a whole.

I think a lot of people - especially those that have never run a business or studied the global economy and its transportation network - realize just how complex an economy is, even if it's a for a tiny country or a city.
Until someone can actually point out a working centrally planned system instead of just pointing the inefficiencies of market based systems, I'm sticking to markets.

Farming in most cases deals with harvesting and planting seasons.
I can't just decide to let my crop wither or predict what the market will be in a year if it means starving. Look how hard sustenance farmers are hit by changes supply and demand, weather conditions or speculation.

I'm not just thinking about houses. I'm thinking about industrial goods: Steel, fossil fuels, chemicals.

For most industries it isn't feasible to produce everything in house at one location, and especially selling straight to consumers. Which means having to buy from suppliers and sell to exporters, wholesalers, etc.

In this case barter isn't feasible because the end products will likely not be of interest to the suppliers.

planning seasons are rendered moot with hydro and aeroponics

but you claim you will be able to predict what the decentralized planning structure will demand, or how weather conditions will be next year? what if for some reason the planners decide to duplicate the requirement for apples? What if there is a storm that caused conflict in the productve process, these conflicts are outsdie the realm of planning, as:
1.- we cann't plan the weather or the plagues, we can merely control them
2.- A decentralized, non-authoritarian planning system would demand different quantity of commodities, as people do not wish to eat, wear or get ill equally, something that forces the farmer to act in the same wasy as if he were responding to market signals. Thus if we want a planning system that doesn't follow any sort of demand curves we would need a command economy, and these are authoritarian and as alienating, as you are forced to labour according to impersonal decisions taken by the party

You are not arguing in good faith here user, you are purposely evading the fact that your critique would aslo affect a planning system

As for how the production of certain materials would take place, I would say it makes things a whole lot easier, as I would simply need to produce steel instead of producing steel + the car

you meant, "don't realize", right?

Planting and harvesting seasons might be obsolete once it get's off the ground, but contracts sometimes negotiated years in advance won't.

Things like fuel contracts for airlines, or all the minutiae of shipping industrial precursors across the globe.

No I don't. But it's a lot easier if I can build up secure monetary reserves in times of plenty than if I purely live a sustenance existence. I'd have to hope that that my stock of whatever goods I bartered (if any at all) will be able to make up for losses when weather conditions or the market turn sour.

We compensate for them. But due to the monetary system and the way the global economy works shortfalls can be compensated either by build up financial reserves or by finding alternative suppliers elsewhere. Under a barter system this kind of adjustment would be substantially more difficult.
Let's say I have a supplier that I has consistently been providing me with materials for years, in exchange I barter a set of goods that I've exchanged via-via from elsewhere.

Now imagine that supplier is unable to deliver, because of a natural disaster, war, bankruptcy, whatever. What do I do in this case?
Let's say I was bartering an extremely niche type of good, or just something that was tailored towards the consumption market of the country of that particular supplier.

In today's market I'd just go to a business-to-business wholesaler or pick another alternative supplier and keep my supply line running, buying the goods with money.
Under a barter system I'd have to figure out what supplier exists that would be willing to supply me in exchange for the goods I've stocked. Otherwise I'd have to set up a new barter supply line for the goods I want to exchange in return for the materials I need to continue my production.

No making a bank transfer here and getting things running again within 48 hours.

Industrial processes are not going to change on the fly. The range of services, raw materials and different industries required to produce everyday items probably appears staggering to the uninitiated.

Not different than what we have now.

And without a command economy - which is undesirable for numerous reasons - the chances of a moneyless barter economy working go from "close to zero" to "zero".

I'm arguing against the impracticalities of a barter system. I'm also not arguing in favor of a (centrally) planned system. I'm arguing in favor of markets.

Except that again, it already works like that. Except here instead of just selling raw steel (or more tailored end products) and then buying my precursor ores, coke, minerals and other prerequisites with money, I have to barter outside my market to find the materials my suppliers need.
It would add a mindboggling level of complexity.

I did.

Are you retarded?

are you?

Well, there are two ways:
1. Labour vouchers could be given to workers by the organization. The "prices" of commodities would be also decided by the organization. This would be a lot less alienating form of expressing the value of one's labour power because the labour vouchers would be destroyed if they are used by anyone at anytime, thus they won't be able to become capital. This idea has some downsides, namely it would give too much power to the said organization, and even if it was as democratically managed as possible, it still would impose on others their interpretation of the value of a commodity.
2. The other option is making everything free (this version might include some sort of rationing of commodities, although it should be avoided if possible and would mostly be done in the case of emergencies). This would come with a lot less authoritianism and a lot more fun. If you really think about it, there isn't any reason for not scrapping the wage system which arised from the commodification of labour.

In both cases, demand would be calculated easily just by looking at the number of a certain type of allocated commodities per a certain period of time or if they have any means to guess how will demand change in future than use those. Just like how it's done in a market.

You would absolutely have to ration goods. What's to prevent a person or group from simply declaring all goods theirs and daring people to take them back by force?

My number one question for a barter system would be: What problems does a barter system solve that a monetary system creates?

I see absolutely no benefit.

an anarchis system would do away with the necessity of a centralized state that creates the supply of debt-backed currency that allows the realization of the law of value

contracts generated with years in advance are much better for producers than just sticking to what the collective demands on each productive cycle, what if the collective demands a massive engineering program?, the planning you are advocating for wold require the consideration of several productive cycles, and therefore a centralized structure that engages in it, the planning is now less democratic by default

that is only is aeroplanes keep using jet fuel, and besides, democratic planning doesn't solve this, what if the collective decides to spend leee on creating fuel?, it must be done on the basis of supply of demand, if there is demand for fule, then we have to cover it

money? but with money you will have the problem of value-form, using money is simply not socialism, we cannot feed off money, so its essentially useless aside from being used for accounting

but user, if conditions get sour, you don't have to wait for the collective to plan what to do, you simply apropriate land and start farming it

well, the problem here is that such situation can arise under planning production, let's say that we rely on certain prairie for food production, and there is a drought, on a barter system we understand that we could exchange with another producer, but under a planned economy? we farmed as much as society asked for, and there are no incentives to produce a surplus, because I would not be able to produce a surplus, because I was forced to labour somewhere else in order for us to meet production numbers

you will find the same calculation problem under planning, what if you simply fail to engage in the production of certain commodities? there is no reason why someone else will have thel avaliable, because they were also working on something else according to the plan

the other options i that you put them in some form of decentralized pool or database of resources, and can in return demand things fo similar values in return

so why do you claim decentralized planning can solve these issues?

so am I, however it is understandable that markets without states will return to barter, as there is no state that supplies currency

but if society decides that certain commodity demands a lot of value in return, wouldn't everyone rise to produce it, and we would end in a similar situation where market forces dictate production?

.Centralized State
Except commodity money predates central banking.

Why? How does the use of money invalidate the workers ownership of the means of production?
If you want a moneyless and perhaps even marketless system, fix the distribution problem.

Like those South American and African farmers that decide to burn surrounding rainforests whenever they need to expand?
What about some random person overturning years of planning I and my community worked on?
Perhaps I'm planting on a plot that scheduled to become a new factory, houses or a road, what then?
I'm all for making maximum use of unused land and fixed assets, but letting everyone just do whatever they want is a recipe for paralyzing conflict

Then you get a quasi-money system. With the owner/managers(s) of the exchange/pool deciding the exchange rates.

It's not "planning" as much as operating on the basis of market forces. Today's economy is just too vast for any individual to fully grasp, a money based market system might not fix inefficiencies or account for every possible crisis and shortfall, but it makes for a much more flexible system.
It's a self-correcting system, but it does require some coordination and oversight every now and then to prevent disaster. Include a tragedy of the commons type of scenario or massive environmental destruction.

No it's not.

How do you calculate surpluw value without the general equivalent? How do you have value-form without it?

Comodity money, as in gold and silver only existed because a government created the coins

If you want a moneyless and perhaps even marketless system, fix the distribution problem.
I dont think it does, but orthodx definitions of socialism does, as you still have the value-form
I dont think it is a problem, but it will be one since we need a centralized figure to make money valuable,without the US Gov the dollar loses its exchange value
We cannot have money, as in a centralized currency without a state

How fucking dumb are you?

But user, if its the people, not the bourgeoisie, the ones that receive the surplus value, how is production not being allocated for the demand of the people?

Why would anyone want more goods than they need?
Nowadays in most parts of our economy we are able to achieve a slight overproduction, thus rationing wouldn't be needed in most cases because those needs could be fully satisfied.

Let's suppose that there are some guys who want take a lot more than they need, purely because of their comic book-tier evilness (I can't think of any other reason tbh) . I'm sure that people would stop them immediately, because hoarding goods would hurt anyone who isn't amongst our evil conspirators.

How do you determine what Humans need to begin with?

we could figure out the biological minimum, but not the historical one

Neither of those things have ever happened.