Running an economy

Alright Holla Forums let's see if we can establish communism right here and now. Is there a viable alternative to a command economy for the purposes of doing so? If I need to hire someone to accomplish something locally, how does an individual do so if they aren't allowed to accrue capital? In this situation the individual isn't some bourgeois asshole (he could turn into one) but is there a decentralized way of creating a small team for an objective without it being capitalism or slave labour?

If this place can figure this out we might as well start the revolution of the 21st century.

Other urls found in this thread:

Why hire? If you need help with your garden, you ask people if they're willing to help you. Without social alienation helping people out this way will be much more commonplace.
If you think your housing block should have solar panels on the roof, you bring it up at your local council to check if anyone else is interested and you can arrange it together.

If you move to a new location and don't know anyone, nobody really has a reason to trust you not to scam them. If you pay some form of currency it's faster than having to foster social discussion in the area you've just arrived in unless freedom of movement is a spook.

As OP I was thinking about an idea to fix the OP problem: have two forms of currency - IOU notes and labour vouchers. If you do work you get paid in labour vouchers, but if you need to pay for something but don't have the funds for it you can write up debit notes. The two currencies will be pegged on each other so if there's an excess of either labour vouchers or debit notes they balance each other's supplies out. In a normal situation the amount of labour vouchers will be lower than the amount of IOUs so it will be worth doing work to have them to use.

The only issue so far is someone could forge labour vouchers.

I guess since we live in the computer age we could just have a digitized means of tracking labour voucher creation so that if someone issues 1000 vouchers for themselves and their friends it would be registered as clearly debasing labour value.

Cooperative economy aka market socialism. Instead of hiring someone and giving him wage you share the profits with your fellow workers.



We should create labour vouchers and exploit workers with them.

I propose a blockchain labour voucher system with FairCoin characteristics.

The Future is Cockshott.


Really butters my prunes.

What do you mean? If you needed something done, say your front lawn mowed, you would contact the lawn mowers and have it mowed, just like you do now? If you didn't want to pay someone, you'd try to get a friend to help you, like you do now.
Bad practice, sage.

What are you proposing? That when the workers rise up capitalism will just overthrow itself?

Well, having some sort of "market socialism" with employee-owned and -run businesses competing fairly in a regulated but still profit-driven market seems nice on its face, but as long as profit remains a direct goal, you can't escape the law of value. The USSR itself was heading towards the same fate even tho the companies weren't even employee-run.

A centrally planned (or collectively, democratically planned one, for that matter) doesn't seem to have a theoretical limit, only practical ones. There's a point where there's just plain too much information to tackle. A single person obviously can't process it, an army could process it but this introduces the crippling hurdle of communication between the people, which would completely deform the plan as it should have been. Obviously, this was the case with all existing centrally planned economies, and every single one of those suffered from the same problems we know so well: underproductivity, commodity scarcity and the infamous blat system. And since the cause of these issues is the communication between planners as opposed to planners' skills, you simply can't solve it by hiring more qualified and more planners. To fix that communication issue, either you a) devise far more complex economic modeling (assuming this is viable in the first place), which not only exponentially increase the amount of information to be handled, but also exponentially increase the chance of introduction of errors and the propagation thereof, or b) invent telepathy so all the planners can know exactly what the other is thinking or some shit.

A way to sidestep the communication problem would be to change the paradigm: abandon the market completely, and have the central plan detail the economy fully, down to the amounts of commodities being traded. The absurdly complex of planning an economy, which is arguably built around setting the right prices to commodities, would be simplified by simply dealings in amounts of commodities without any value or price abstrations, making calculations infinitely easier. This would entail the elimination of currency except maybe in the consumer market, while in every other area, the plan would stipulate how much each company would receive in raw goods and how it would distribute its resulting product, all without the exchange of currency. Essentially, the entire economy outside of the final consumer market would act as a massive meta-company, with each company just handing over its goods between each other according to the plan instead of the mediation of money and prices. These would only remain in the final consumer market, as a simple mechanism to regulate scarcity of consumer goods Or you could eliminatee currency there too and just assign rations to everyone. Needless to say, this proposal is even more radical than regular central planning, and I don't think any country attempted it, for however short a time. And I can't blame them, because it's a high bet with possibly catastrophic costs in case of failure.

Another change of paradigm in order to avoid the communication problem of central planning would be to leave it all to one single megamind. Yes, I'm talking about the cybernetic economic control network that has become a Holla Forums staple. As far as I can see, it solves all the problems above and then some, because they can handle increasingly complex models. You wouldn't be able to tackle overly complex models by throwing more planners at it, but you could do it by throwing more processors at it. In other worlds, the cybernetic model is indefinitely expandable, or at least absurdly more expandable than the planning bureau model, at any rate. I suppose it could be design to work with either price-setting or with commodity quantities, tho I suppose the former would be preferable, simple the main point of the latter would be to reduce calculation complexity, and that's a non-issue when you consider modern supercomputers. And it's important to add, the cybernetic model solves the problem of the law of value by way of simply finding the optimal prices (or amounts) of commodities. In one last note, this model could also free us from the burden of calculating how costly would a social change be, and make us more likely to try them. Remember, socialism was born as a proposal to completely remake society from the ground up, but by the 80s, the USSR was content with being a rather pathetic cargo-cult consumer economy. We simply cannot lose sight of the bigger picture.

tl;dr: cyberplanning is the only choice

No. Markets are innately capitalist. A planned economy (though depending on your definition, not necessairly a "command" economy) is necessary.

I'm pretty sure we can do that if we actually opened up a community for it.

Give each physical labour voucher an unique issue number, perhaps in the form of a QR code so it's easily verifiable by anyone, and track digital vouchers through blockchain technology.


what if it was a socialist market?

I was trying to think of a specific text for this but you know what fuck it, here is the entire website

Have fun


Read Tito, brainlet





What's the difference between currency and "labour vouchers"?




grr, communism is the movement to end work and exchange for free. there is no money in communism. what you're referring to is actually socialism/communism or as i've taken to call it recently socialism plus communism.

Thanks, thought it was always "It's currency, but we won't call it currency"