[ckaihatsu]

That is complete, and utter, BS.

You keep assuming you can replace something when you only have a vague understanding of what it is you are trying to replace, and no idea whatsoever as to how your proposal would actually work in the real world.

As I've pointed out before, you need a demonstration project. But I suspect you know you couldn't do it.

Sorry, but this political economy model is *untestable* in the real-world because if it were to conceivably be situated on present-day *public* property then it would be inherently *competitive* with existing authorities / governments, and if it were to be situated on *private* property then it costs money, and would have its own *private* interests within the larger world.


[2] G.U.T.S.U.C., Simplified

Spoiler: show

[late]

Sorry, but this political economy model is *untestable* in the real-world...

You could have stopped right there.

[ckaihatsu]

You could have stopped right there.

(grin)

value

---

You're saying 'supply-and-demand', but you haven't addressed the point about this that I've raised previously, about money having to do a physically-impossible *triple-duty* of valuating these three *different* economic components: [1] manufacture, [2] supply-and-demand, and [3] the consumer's own subjective use-value, or 'utility'.

viewtopic.php?p=15253101#p15253101

[late]

value

When you place a value on something, the mechanism is not relevant. Anything can be money. But the end result is that you have created a medium of exchange, that is, money.

You talk about 'gift economy', but that is simply a UBI with national health care.

[ckaihatsu]

When you place a value on something, the mechanism is not relevant. Anything can be money. But the end result is that you have created a medium of exchange, that is, money.

'Place a value', and 'anything can be money' *both* mean / imply that there's actual value *there*, even if it's unstated / *implicit*.

I have a standing critique of *anarchism* due to this same dynamic, since my understanding of the politics is that it necessarily has a neighborly-lateral reach in terms of material-economic social-organization, and so is restricted to 'Brownian motion', so-to-speak, over *goods*.

TLDR: Anarchistic / 'market socialism' *barter* over the backyard fence still has *implicit* exchange-value (in the ratioing of Bundle 'B', for Bundle 'A'). Full moneylessness should be on the short-list for post-capitalist political-type social organizing.

The 'mechanism' / 'medium of exchange', money, and all commercial-type exchanges, are no longer empirically *required* -- since industrialization. Present-day capital valuations get stretched too thin as capitalism's predictable *overproduction* swings into high gear, and issued valuations struggle to keep-up in *quantity* with the new valuations mass-produced, in the form of *commodities*.

Money / finance becomes decidedly too *elastic*, arguably, depending on which capitalist economic faction you're with, equity vs. rentier.

You talk about 'gift economy', but that is simply a UBI with national health care.

The communistic gift economy, being communistic, has no need for *nation-states*. Private production (and property) would no longer exist -- and hence no need for 'national security'-type nation-states -- with all societal production fully *socialized* and under workers control.

So, *no*, not 'simply' yet-another private-sector-driven 'initiative' and lobbying so that effortless *corporate* practices prevail, with all accompanying social 'externalities'.

Did I 'getcha' with the *corporate* thing, late -- ?

(grin)

[late]

Did I 'getcha' with the *corporate* thing, late -- ?

No, it's still your castle in the clouds.

It has a number of problems, but since no one in their right mind would try to implement it, that is moot.

[ckaihatsu]

No, it's still your castle in the clouds.

It has a number of problems, but since no one in their right mind would try to implement it, that is moot.

Okay, with *that* you're no longer the president of my fan club, late. (grin)

I'll note that your position is *lacking*, since I have a suitable societal / social *replacement* approach for the shortcomings in your namesake, 'late' capitalism.

So here's the challenge:

If you don't *mind*, then, I'd like to try something out.

I developed a *single question* that's meant to be a 'litmus test' of sorts, if you're willing.

The question is 'How would you valuate a factory?'

viewtopic.php?p=15253314#p15253314

---


I'll have to gently remind that what's at-stake here is the realtime definition and implementation of *all social work roles* across the landscape.

[T]he layout of *work roles* would be the 'bottom' of 'top-down' (though collectivized) social planning, and would be the 'top' of 'bottom-up' processes like individual self-determination.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338

[late]

Okay, with *that* you're no longer the president of my fan club, late. (grin)

I guess if you are going to have a delusion, it should be a really satisfying one..

[ckaihatsu]

I guess if you are going to have a delusion, it should be a really satisfying one..

*Gosh* you're fun, but the framework / model isn't even about *my* imaginings -- it's a working-out of various political-economy *components* that are currently carelessly left to the 'market mechanism', and its 'value' valuations, regardless of the *social* cost for those 'hands-off' implementations and flexibility.

[ckaihatsu]

political-economy *components*

labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show

https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338

[late]

*Gosh* you're fun, but the framework / model isn't even about *my* imaginings -- it's a working-out of various political-economy *components* that are currently carelessly left to the 'market mechanism', and its 'value' valuations, regardless of the *social* cost for those 'hands-off' implementations and flexibility.

What you call careless is the result of centuries of work.

You don't seem to realize it, but you've admitted your thingy will never happen.

[ckaihatsu]

What you call careless is the result of centuries of work.

You don't seem to realize it, but you've admitted your thingy will never happen.

Holy shit, Father Time, were *you* there all those centuries, late -- ?

What the hell are you *dramatizing* now, in *this* current stageplay of yours?

Are you the self-chosen spokesperson for Western-fucking-Civilization -- !

[late]

Holy shit, Father Time, were *you* there all those centuries, late -- ?

The part of history that interests me most is economic history.

This didn't happen by accident.

[ckaihatsu]

.

You don't seem to realize it, but you've admitted your thingy will never happen.

How do I *put* this... it's not 'my baby' in the sense of it *resembling* me, or *depending* on me -- it would be its own thing for the people of *that* society, which is obviously not here-and-now.

[late]

.


How do I *put* this... it's not 'my baby' in the sense of it *resembling* me, or *depending* on me -- it would be its own thing for the people of *that* society, which is obviously not here-and-now.

It occurs to me you have no sense of governance, how things work in the real world.

There is simply no way to ever get from your cloud to the street.

[ckaihatsu]

It occurs to me you have no sense of governance, how things work in the real world.

There is simply no way to ever get from your cloud to the street.

Hey, we're on *your* dime, so let's see how far this can go....


---

I'll throw out the following as a tool for discussion -- it has the custom components of 'global syndicalist currency' (workers internal currency), and 'labor credits' (workers internal efforts), but maybe it's a *starting point*:


[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram

Spoiler: show

viewtopic.php?p=15258267#p15258267

[ckaihatsu]

a working-out of various political-economy *components*

---

...Some of the readily apparent *checks-and-balances* dynamics enabled with the labor-credits system are:

- (Already mentioned) One could work for personal material-economic gains -- the amassing of labor credits -- instead of having to 'like' *both* the socio-political aspect *and* the personal-material-economic aspect of one's work within a strictly-voluntaristic, non-labor-credit, communistic-type political economy. (Individual vs. socio-political realms)

- The contribution of one's potential liberated labor to societal objectives would always be fully optional, since the premise of a communist-type social order is that no one could ever be *actually* coerced for their labor since the ubiquitous norm would be that no productive machinery or natural resources in the world could be used on a *proprietary* / private-accumulation basis, while all the material necessities for life and living would always be in readily-available, sufficient quantities for all. Collective social productivity would be *very good* using post-capitalist, communist-type liberated-labor self-organizing, leveraged with full automation of all productive processes, for *huge* ratios of industrial mass-production output, per hour of liberated labor input. (Individual vs. socio-political and material realms)

- Mass demand, as displayed publicly, per-locality, by the daily mass-aggregated tallied rank positions (#1, #2, #3, etc.), will always be an existing social-pressure, specifically regarding liberated labor contributions to the general social good for varying qualities of public consumption. Such active liberated labor may or may not receive labor credits for their valid efforts, depending on such general *implementation* of circulating labor credits, or not, and the specifics of any active policy package. (Socio-political and material realms vs. individuals)

- Active liberated-labor would control all *ultimate* ('point-of-production') productivity for society, but *not-necessarily-working* people of any intra-voluntary collective 'locality' (or localities) could make and agree-on proposals and final policy packages that contain great *specificity*, as over *exactly* who (which persons) are to be included as active liberated-labor, and also their respective rates of labor credits per hour per discrete work role, and each worker's particular work schedule, as a part of the overall project scheduling. (Consumers vs. liberated-labor)

- Any intra-voluntary 'locality' could collectively develop and agree-on any particular proposal or final policy package, with specifics over staffing, rates of labor credits per included work role, and work schedules for all work roles / liberated-laborers, but if the liberated-labor-internal social process *did not approve* of the terms for any given proposal or policy package they would not *forfeit* their collective control over the implements of mass industrial production as a result -- realistically the result would most-likely be a *devolving* of larger-scale work organizing, since no agreement was reached between mass-demand and self-organized liberated-labor. Production could still take place on any ad-hoc basis, with liberated labor always getting 'first dibs' on anything they themselves produce, but it would be far more small-scale, localized, and balkanized than if larger-scale, multi-locality proposals and policy packages could be realized, for material economies of scale. (Liberated-labor vs. consumers)

- Any given finalized policy package will include a formal announcement of key proponents, politically responsible for that project's implementation, if satisfactory participation to cover all the necessary components of it is present. There is never any *standing*, *institutional* administration over everything, as we're used to seeing historically at the nationalist level. If a project *isn't* performing up to formal expectations (as detailed in its policy package), the proponents can be replaced with a mass-approved (exceeding in ranking over the initial policy package) proposal that 'tweaks' those details that need changing, such as which personnel, exactly, are deemed to be the formal 'proponents' of that project. (Consumers vs. administration)

- Proponents of any given active finalized policy package would have considerable logistical social latitude for administrating over its implementation, depending-on / limited-by its finalized detailed terms. In some instances, for example, proponents over *several* localities, of several *similar* policy packages -- say, over agriculture -- or even at regional, continental, and *global* scales -- may cross-coordinate to *generalize* production across many similar policy packages, for the sake of greater efficiencies of scale. (Administration vs. consumers)

- Proponents are meant to represent the exact terms of an active finalized policy package, and by extension, to also represent popular demand for certain material production and/or socio-political initiatives. Proponents may bring attention to certain aspects of the active finalized policy package in the course of its implementation, as with any possible differences on the part of active liberated-labor on the project. (Administration vs. liberated-labor)

- Liberated-labor will always be able to physically organize internally, without external interference. Depending on each active finalized policy package's provisions, liberated laborers may decide on their own the details of *how* they collectively supply their labor, to meet the objectives of that policy package -- as with specific personnel of their own, which work roles are absolutely necessary, the scheduling of work shifts and personnel, what geographical location(s) are to be used, how machinery is to be used, what the supply chains with other factories are, how the bulk-pooled labor credits funding is to be divided-up, if any additional funding of labor credits is needed, or even if locality debt issuances for additional labor credits are to be called-for, what maintenance may be needed on infrastructure / machinery, what education or training may be required for certain workers, etc. (Liberated-labor vs. administration)

[BlutoSays]

Discounts for people over a certain age, or for active or retired military, seem to survive the US Constitution OK. Does the constitution have anything about those being special categories? Or are you saying that it's Democrats who offer those already, and it's a slippery slope from there?

That has nothing to do with pricing based on income. Your premise is rejected.

[BlutoSays]

For *you* and capitalism's middle-layer of *exchange values* the question / issue revolves around the 'independent variable' of *value*, economically -- the *political* aspect, that *you're* speaking to, is separate but related.

Markets:capitalism::central planning:Stalinism

Social-democracy:capitalism::central planning:Stalinism


Not a Stalinist / statist myself -- workers of the world can all respectively co-administrate over proletarian-collectivized means of mass industrial production.


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show

That was tried in Cuba. All you get are black markets, underground economies, people fleeing those locales and feudalism.

[wat0n]

Unconstitutional. Equal protection clause.

But I'm sure democrats will try it.

Income isn't a protected class.

Also, some businesses already do that and would complain if they couldn't. Anything that allows them to price discriminate is going to be something they support.