First I'd like to apologize if this thread is redundant with previous threads that have been posted on this subject, as well as for any misconceptions and/or spooks left in this post.
I'd like to ask some concrete questions that hopefully you can answer in terms of your favourite system.
0. Hi. What is your favourite system?
1. You wish to become a doctor so you can heal people. However, there are currently more doctors than are needed, and society instead needs mechanical engineers. Do you feel some pressure to become a mechanical engineer instead of a doctor, and what is the nature of that pressure (economic, societal, law enforcement)?
2. Who/what decides how natural resources and labor and real estate should be allocated? For example, if there are multiple conflicting uses for a manufacturing facility (e.g. making car parts versus computer cases versus aiglets), who/what decides scheduling for those uses?
3. You wish to produce an uncommon specialized manufactured item (e.g. dakimakura of your waifu) which is only desirable to a very small fraction of the population. Supposing that you have the knowledge of how to manufacture the item, explain, in detail, what you (and perhaps a group of your like-minded friends) must do to become a manufacturer of that item. Can you "make a living" off this activity?
1. I don't feel pressure consciously probably, but maybe in such a situation there would be more opportunities for and emphasis on training people for these kinds of roles, so subconsciously I would be socially and economically persuaded towards the socially necessary jobs.
2. Democratic decision making by the people, devolved to levels that allow for direct democracy at the base, makes all decisions socially and economically. Final arbiters are elected representatives, subject to the right of re-call by their electorate. Details of the democratic procedures of a society should be decided on by that society themselves.
3. Ask the democratic body in charge of these kinds of things for some resources for this purpose. Your user-base can support you. In socialism, resources for most things are probably fairly plentiful, I can't foresee there being a particular reason why a thing would not be able to be made for x amount of customers if you could evidence that these customers exist. You "make a living" (i.e. it counts as labour-time for the society etc.) if the society decides it does. If the thing you make is considered a socially useful necessity at any point I guess, like a kettle or something. If it is just a novelty item then you might be required to do some extra "state" work on the side. It all depends on what the society decides, and that should be democratically decided by the people of that given society. As Marx said, it is not his job to write the recipes of the cookbooks of the future. Nor should we, if democracy is to be paramount.
Isaac Moore
What do you think those details should be in the society you would like to live in?
Julian Davis
Ignore this idiot.
Honestly, if I was gonna engage in making these decisions I'd want a bit more time to read and think on the subject. All I can say for now is:
- Elected representatives from bodies of
Henry Kelly
Fuck off Holla Forums. Mods please ban this autistic cunt.
OP don't mind this fuckhead.
Bentley Taylor
Thanks for your thorough reply!
> Elected representatives from bodies of
Noah Lewis
I suppose my initial thought was that they would be by geographical region, or maybe by industry/sector/workplace? But yeah, I'm not really sure what would be best. I imagine different regions and localities would want different modes of organization. Sorry I can't be more clear with my answers, but as I say I think that's kind of the nature of discussing hypothetical democracies!
Isaiah Kelly
U triggered m8?
David Jackson
0. Communism
1. Let's be realistic here, as there is no point worrying about a hypothetical that is probably not going to happen. There are seven billion people in the world (there will be more by the time communism comes around) and there will not be a shortage in mechanical engineers, a niche position that is not required en masses. The question of whether someone would be pressured into a position that is needed rather than one that they would prefer to do, in general, is still reasonably unlikely, as automation can easily handle the really shit jobs, but to humour have idea I would say there is nothing wrong with a society encouraging young people to pursue an interest in a field that helps society, rather than one that is either useless or already full. The profit motive is a terrible encouragement for this type of thing, and people are going to be more open to and feel more naturally enthused by society encouraging them into a position simply because it it useful and needed.
2. You are not going to get conflicting requirements for manufacturing facilities like you specify, since car parts are produced in different factories from computer parts. It's easy to have separate factories for these items as we have them already, in a communist society there would be more of them. Resources allocates to these factories would be democratically decided by their need. For example if everyone wanted a certain type of computer hardware then factories would produce it with resources allocated towards that particular part, at the expense of other, less needed parts. The demand for products from consumers is still a useful way to tell where resources are needed. The difference being that capitalism is not interested in the supply unless itl leads to a profit, which means that things will often not get supplied, and useless things will be oversupplied.
3. You wish to produce some kind of uncommon product that you want to enjoy, firstly, it would always be less important to produce than the requirements deemed necessary to survive by society, like food, clothing, housing, or even means to information like computers/tv and means to travel like trains cars etc. That's not going to be a big issue since these things are able to be taken care of already (they just aren't, because of the profit motive) in capitalist society, and will also be able to be taken care of in a communist society. To make your wanted product that is not wanted by enough other people so that it is not already produced on a large scale, I would say either have it custom made at a factory that produces similar items, or if absolutely nothing is similar, then petition your local council for use of a factory to make it yourself. If there is no need to produce the item in massive quantities then there will be no need to continue production, of there is then production will ramp up, and you could be in charge of it or be required to take part in it. There will be no need to "live off" the production of this item since you are already living.
Josiah Cox
...
Gavin Hall
Haha got u good! :^)
Evan Phillips
Could you expand a bit on this? I must be missing something.
Nolan Phillips
How do you determine what's useful?
Matthew Flores
0. Lenin before NEP.
1. Why are there no doctors needed elsewhere in the world? Why does everyone need to stay in one place? If we have covered the need of doctors worldwide, then how come we are short on engineers? In the end, there is only societal pressure. Even economico pressure is societal.
2. muh property.
Production should be localized enough for the needs of each community to be met. First we cover the basics. Then we procede to cover extras.
Also, why have too many cars, when you can have public transport? Why too many PCs when you can go for cloud computing? SOCIALISM 101!
3. No, you cannot make "a living" off this activity. Stop thinking Capitalism when talkng about Socialism!
You make a living by giving to society according to your abilities. TO SOCIETY!
You can create specialised things, if resources are available and not needed elsewhere, BUT you cannot SELL them. You can SHARE them.
It's EXACTLY like banning porn in east germany. You can make amateur porn, you can share it, but once you start SELLING it, as a comodity, you go to gulag.
Tyler King
Sorry, couldn't think of a better term for it.
Public transport may be wasteful (compared to cars/taxis) in areas with low population density.
Privacy and security? Unless you don't consider mobile devices to be PCs, and you were only referring to desktops.
That's what I meant, i.e. you share your waifu dakimakuras with society (which only a small subset thereof will enjoy) and society gives you back what you need/want. I used the "make a living off of" language in my post for compatibility with leftist non-communists, which is also why I put the phrase in scare quotes.
That's actually pretty neat, I didn't know about that. A bit off-topic; when you say "go to gulag" is that just a Holla Forums meme or do some people here actually mean it? Perhaps I'm just dense.
Lucas Brooks
Missing what? Resources are allocated where they are required. We will know where they are required based on the demand from consumers. This could be through online surveys or from product distribution.
If a role fills a need then it is useful. If society has a need for dentists rather than neurosurgeons then one is more useful of a field to get into.
Jayden Ward
And that is why we should strive for decentralization. It's capitalism that creates megacities. It's also the one that promotes cars. If cities only have public transport, the less populated areas can have cars on cost effective public trasport, while connected with cities via trains and so on.
Yes, mobile devices are not PCs. In fact, it's pure capitalism, that we are now encouraged to go for "iphone shoping" and so on. Why do you need to be always online and have a mobile device always with you? Why not have accounts and cloud computing? A) like now it doesn't. B) If YOU are essentialy the government, you are spying on yourself. Again, thinking Capitalism when talking about Socialism.
No! If there is a need for dakimakuras and wifus it will be considered by society and mass produced. (I'd go full supercomputer beurocracy, but Anarkids might beg to differ).
If you start "giving" specialized products for "what you want" you are essentially TRADING. And this leads STRAIGHT to capitalism.
I'd rather not answer that one. … How do 'muricans call it? Take the 5th? I'll do that.
You cannot so glibly dismiss the dangers of mass surveillance; if anything, a socialist government has even more power than a capitalist one, making it even more important for people to keep said powers in check. One requirement for that is for citizens to have some inviolable way of securely storing their thoughts and communicating them with each other. A cheap low-spec PC or mobile device can do exactly that. Hell, I could implement a secure email client on a 10$ devboard. You're scary.
I think we have sufficient resources to give everyone a usable secure PC (and/or mobile device). The issue you're alluding to (with which I wholeheartedly agree) is that everyone nowadays seems to be striving to replace their PC every year (and mobile device every 6 months), which is a massive waste. Planned obsolescence doesn't help either!
How does society consider/decide this? Does this mean items that aren't needed/wanted by sufficiently many people (precluding mass production) won't get manufactured at all?
That's not what I was implying. Is the point you're making that society gives you what you need/want regardless of your specialized product-making and sharing, so the two are causally unconnected?
You're scary.
Josiah Smith
That's some pretty retarded shit there user. Somebody wants a niche luxury item, that only a small portion of society wants, so it's not going to be 'mass produced' for starters, and secondly, trading does not lead to capitalism.
Adrian Diaz
So Tito best grill?
This is not true. Government has equal power under any economic system. Only difference is who controls said power. In State Capitalism and Liberal Capitalism it's the bourgies that do. (be they actual bourgies or nomenclature). In ACTUAL socialism, the people themselves control the government. I never said I'm a saint
So, sharing, IMO, is A-OK in socialism. Demanding to be given something back is not.
If everyone starts wanting to be "compansated" for their "Services" you end up with Black Market 101.
IMO!
Just don't give me power
Benjamin Young
Even in the best-case socialism scenario, you don't personally control the government. Some majority of the people do. You may very well end up sometime on the wrong side of that delineation. When that happens you will appreciate there being some hard limits (e.g. constitutional rules that would require a supermajority to overturn) on the ways the government can interfere with your private life (of which telecoms snooping is but one example).
> I never said I'm a saint What's stopping you from bettering yourself then?
What would be the point in demanding something back if you can get anything for free anyway?
Ah I'm quite familiar with that phenomenon. Good point!
Cameron Lewis
Trading has been around for millennia. If it led to capitalism we would be in a communist future utopia by now.
Evan Rodriguez
None. As the marxist, I know a society cannot 'chose' the system it lives in, in some God-like way; it's actually quite the opposite: a society is defined by the system it lives in. So communism isn't my "favourite system": it's an historical necessity born from capitalism itself. It WILL happen, wether we like it or not.
You have to make a disctinction between lower-stage and upper-stage communism here (the fromer is also called "socialism"). In socialism, we still apply some bourgeois law, because this is where we come from, and we know no other way. Numerus clausus would be a good example here. In (upper-stage) communism, productivity will be so high and ressources so efficiently allocated that working will be a pleasure, not an obligation. Morever, people won't be limited to one career.
How do you supermarket decide what to put in its shelves?
"Make a living" makes no sense in a moneyless society. The only question is: can you spend time and ressources to manufacture your product? If there is a need for it, yes; if not, no.
Ryan Gonzalez
Why?
Wyatt Ramirez
...
Logan Cruz
Communism is tight.
Then just be a doctor, society's needs are just the ruling classes. The pressure is ideology, and it permeates every institution. In general I think it's good to be weary of similar rationalization, capitalist production places this ideal of governing rational principles in the ill-fated attempt of bringing together a totality - which really just leads to contradiction in both economic and cultural spheres.
Well Communism has rather technocratic roots (or other way around I guess): 'administration of things not people.' Though I imagine communities can get along fine with managing their immediate environment, past that remains a heated debate among leftists. However speculative desires are a capitalist symptom and lead to a disconnect between reality (like feel-good capitalism and oops global warming) , in general: Soyons réaliste, exigeons l'impossible
Seems odd to want to match capitalist consumption. It's also pretty hard to explain in detail for something that hasn't really existed, but I guess just more hobby crafts and mutual aid.
Ryder Collins
Who/what decides and how whether there is a need for it or not?
Cameron Hernandez
Not him, but generally the answer is gonna be something like "a democratic body of the people". What that means exactly differs from lefty to lefty
Benjamin Scott
Once again, how do you supermarket decide what to put in its shelves?
Jace Foster
Whoever is running it collects statistics on sales and/or polls its customers to see what they'd like?
I don't know, you tell me. How?
Landon Hall
I don't know either, and my guess is just the same as yours.
Why do you think it should be different in a socialist economy?
Adrian Davis
Market research can be done today and will be done under socialism. It will be done even better under socialism, because democratic structures will be integral to the production process, not an afterthought
Jeremiah Barnes
Supermarkets are already a bad place to find rare/specialty items. Unless they poll every customer (instead of a random sample), it's unlikely they'll fall on the one person out of a thousand who would like dakimakuras to be available.
But the particular details are extremely important! If the democratic mechanism is something like a direct democracy where (a random sample of) the population looks at particular items and votes on whether they are "useful" or not, a lot of minority groups will never get what they want even if there are sufficient surplus resources (and people willing to work to work on them). No media will be produced unless it appeals to the lowest common denominator. Anime would either become mainstream or cease to exist at all!
I don't know what a good system would be. I can propose one (and I predict someone else will likely come up with a counterexample to prove it completely flawed). How about something like a threshold pledge system where everyone gets the same amount of currency number of points every month to spend vote on it, where the threshold cost of a project quantifies the amount of resources/time it would take?
Brody King
First time posting here. Why do this place ban people? Does socially liberal =/= free speech? On what basis are people banned?
Wyatt Martinez
Banned if their posts are affecting the quality of the board. Just posting irrelevant shit or deliberately coming here to shitpost
Ian Foster
You're right. Clearly we wouldn't advocate for systems that produce results that won't be properly democratic or fair, as you say. These are important questions, studying existing and historic, and theorizing new and different systems of democracy, are useful. But ultimately we have to say that different situations will require different systems, we cannot presume to prescribe a flawless and universal method.
Angel Sanchez
Supermarkets are just an example; capitalism isn't limited to supermarkets, neither will socialism. Now to the point: I don't even know what a dakimura is, and yet obviously someone has decided to produce some today. Sorry for repeating myself, but why exactly do you think it would be different tomorrow?
Ayden Rivera
Because today if just a handful of people care enough about something to spend sufficient money on it to cover its production cost, that something will get done. Will the same guarantee hold tomorrow (i.e. in socialism/communism/your favourite moneyless system)?
Justin Wood
In capitalism: - if a handful of people care enough about something to spend sufficient money on it to cover its production cost, that something will get done. - if a handful of people care enough about something but can't spend sufficient money on it to cover its production cost, that something will not get done.
In socialism: - if a handful of people care enough about something, they can request x amount of those things from the bureau of organizing things and given that there is an over abundance of resources and technology like 3d printing available to all, you can get your x amount of things, and at higher priority the greater the necessity or number who want it.
Kevin Robinson
Me again.
Let's see how it works today: 1. I have an idea (make some dakimuras). 2. I make a market study, to see if my great idea match a real need (even a niche, why not?). It does. 3. I find an investor willing to give me money in order to buy the tools and ressources I need. In order to convince him, I show him the results of my market study. 4. I have everything I need: I produce my dakimuras.
Now, tomorrow: 1. I have an idea (make some dakimuras). 2. I make a market study, to see if my great idea match a real need (even a niche, why not?). It does. 3. I ask, say, my soviet, to give me the tools and ressources I need*. In order to convince them, I show them the results of my market study. 4. I have everything I need: I produce my dakimuras.
*: Only if these tools and items are in limited quantities, otherwise I can directly ask to their producers, the same way my costumers will ask for my dakimuras.
"Production costs" have no meaning in socialism.
Blake Ward
*dakimakura
Brody Baker
Wait, who are you convincing? Is this someone who takes an actual decision (and can say 'no' despite the results of the market study) or just someone who checks that indeed the market study is valid?
If project A and project B have the same number of supporters/customers and are equal in every way, except that project A requires 10x more resources than project B, should they be equally likely to "get done"?
It seems to me like one way of accomplishing that would be to just give everyone the same amount of "money"/points to spend.
Nolan Brooks
Sure, why not. If everyone always has the same amount, why bother counting at all. It makes itself redundant.
Nolan Gutierrez
Does it matter to you which investor I am convincing today?
It depends on the amount of ressources available, to begin with. And if a choice has to be made, I guess it will be a compromise between the supporters of project A and the supporters of project B. Why do you think there should be ONE SINGLE criterion (call it profit, money, "points" or whatever) for every production decision in the world?
Robert Cook
There are sufficiently many different investors that you are guaranteed to find one willing to fund your project given that your market study is valid. If the local soviet is too prude-minded to support your electronic dildo project, can you go forum-shopping to find one that isn't? Are there sufficiently many of them? Are soviets themselves elected (can they be replaced for being out of tune with those who they represent)?
Sorry, I was just trying to point out that "production cost" is a factor to consider (among other ones) when prioritizing projects.
You can split points across several projects. I mean, if the system allows it you could also split votes across several projects (and you can do nifty things like single transferable vote to better reflect your preferences). In the limit where everyone gets the same amount and the system is sufficiently clever to express complex preferences, points and votes indeed mean the same thing :)
Brandon Rogers
That implies there are sufficiently ressources for your project anyway. So where's the problem?
Jacob Kelly
0. Market Socialism(?)
1. Yes, economic compensation. Labor should never be coercive in nature. Every economic transaction must by mutually consensual.
2. Effective democratically elected government dictating general policies and regulations of fairness and promoting social good, with checks and balances, and markets to balance supply and demand on the consumer producer level
3. Request a loan of capital from the socially owned and controlled bank, and if it is deemed a reasonable use of resources based on policy guidelines, it will be granted. You may leverage your SNLTUs (socially-necessary-labor-time-units) earned from labor, to be granted temporary control over the means of production. If the bank profits more from you spending your SNLTUs than some other use of capital, then that makes your enterprise more profitable than the alternative, even if you're really just selling to yourself. There is no need to make a living because there is a welfare state that supplies you with a marginal living.
Or if the means of production cost so little, I'd honestly just have a small enterprise exemption with a hard cap on the worth of privately owned capital just to bypass draconian bureaucracy. Say, a limit of 100,000 SNLTUs per enterprise/person and I really think you'd have a hard time manipulating the market with economic muh privilege. Anything above that capital limit and the capital belongs to society, and you are only granted control and stewardship of capital to make good use of your labor, but have no actual property rights over societal capital. You only receive a dividend of SNLTUs for consumer and luxury goods as fair compensation for your labor, as you can not be coerced to work involuntarily. Also this personal capital is non-hereditary, and is taken by society when you die. Each person has to start from scratch and earn their own SNLTUs.
Call me a neoliberal porky.
Josiah Roberts
It sounds to me like soviets are gatekeepers of resources. If there are too few of them (or you're not allowed to petition as many of them as you want) and they all dislike your project for subjective reasons (not because the market study is invalid), then your project will not get done. Hence my questions in >>679467:
Jeremiah Reyes
Why would there be gatekeepers if there are sufficient ressources?
Liam Perez
Because in they seem to act as resource gatekeepers: Stepping back, could you give more detail on the role of soviets with respect to proposed projects that have a valid market study? Suppose that you have a project you want to get done, and you've completely a market study which showed there's customers. You show up at the soviet meeting, and then what happens?
Adam Cruz
I could have sworn I'd replied to this! My previous post disappeared or was deleted, apologies if it's the latter case. Okay, let's step back a little. Could you describe (in a bit more detail) what the role of the soviet is with respect to a project that has a supporting market study? Suppose you go up to your local soviet with your valid market study and you ask them to provide you with the resources. What happens then?
Jacob Clark
Ahh this is insane! I refreshed this thread several times and definitely wasn't there!
You can safely delete as well as this post, comrade Admin.
Brayden Rodriguez
rangevoting.org/RRV.html Under Reweighted Range Voting, people could rate stuff and groups with a particular taste could allocate resources roughly in proportion to the group's size.
Chase Perez
> rangevoting.org/BayRegDum.html Why not just have voters each declare their personal utility function in terms of the possible subset of policies/stuff/groups to be accepted and then do (literally) global optimization to maximize utility? Range voting cannot express complex preferences such as "if measure A passes then measure B should also pass, but if A doesn't pass then neither should B", or "B is more important than A, so B shouldn't pass if A doesn't".
Hunter Brown
I have a stupid question too. Do you people really think that the Soviet Union was (will be) a good idea?
