Economic Models/Systems For Society Today/Tomorrow

[Canuckle]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

Property held in common is a concept that can't work for everything. How far does this go? Do I give up my bed tonight because you want it? where do I live? what happens when we want the same object?

 

Thats right. It doesnt work for everything. Thats why anarchists differentiate between common property and personal property. Nobody is coming for your toothbrush.

Even for mutualists (individualist anarchists) they based they property scheme on usufructs, i.e. occupation and use property norms. Ancomms don't support that particular idea.

 

But yeah. Nobody is coming for your personal property. You take only what you need, give what you can. That's where the maxim "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" comes from.

 

Of course in such a society one would not be able to hoard resources, say, own more homes they need to live, or exclusive right to some mountain to plunder for some mineral, etc. Speaking of which when you speak of "same object" you'll have to be specific. Let's  say it's some super scarce resource and requires extreme caution to allocate use. Direct democrary, consensus decision making, organizing with councils, planning, all the neccessary steps to make sure it's put to good use.

 

2 hours ago, Bob Long said:

Providing service at no cost minimizes the value of my effort. What incentive do I have to not do the bare minimum to survive?

 

Doesn't minimize anything actually. I suppose my first question to you is do you have any interests outside of your job? Do you put effort into anything outside the bare minimum to partake in those interests? I would think so.  Not everything requires a carrot dangling in front of our nose to want to do things. The difference is we aren't forced to do XYZ things under some form of duress, coercive force in this case vs. what the majority endure today.

 

Is the fear that everyone will just sit back, do nothing and have no economic purpose like a useless socialite or landlord or some owner of some business or stock by doing literally nothing of value by making money on their money?

 

People find joy and purpose in their work when its fulfilling to them. Marx called it species being. And part of the goal in life ought to be finding what were good at, exploring what we enjoy to do, and find a "calling." But most don't have that opportunity or privilege in life.

 

Some enjoy "grunt" work. Some love it. Some aren't meant for some higher cognitive jobs.  Just as the skills of others are better fit for other roles rather than other forms of labour. The division of labour doesn't change so much but rather the allocation of total resources for people and society to function properly and "fairly," as you stated earlier. Whatever job, you get an equal share.  And if your heart isn't in it let's find you something where it will be.

 

I posted this quote earlier, but as Buckminster Fuller stated "We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.

 

People will always want more than the basic. For example you can even see this in the Mincome basic income study that took place in Dauphin Manitoba in the 70s.  People didn't have to go to work to pay the bills.  But they did.  More high-school kids graduated high-school because they didn't have to take on jobs to help pay bills. Etc. Etc.  But people still worked because they have more desires than just the basic.

 

7 hours ago, Bob Long said:

 

You will also not see the kind of innovation needed to create something like a Digital Commons. The level of effort and time it takes to create something like that leaves me no time for subsistence needs. Who's going to feed me in your utopia while I create something like that?

 

So sure are you what is possible. Who's going to feed us? The same people that do now.  Only the field hands also get their fair share which they do not currently get. And with the insane rise in technology and automation, more and more of those "menial" type jobs can fall to the wayside. They already are all over the place.

 

7 hours ago, Bob Long said:

 

The idea you are proposing only works in a bubble that only survives due to the creation of wealth outside of your bubble. It could never work as a solution for everyone.

 

Sure it can. Just a matter of using what we have in more economical ways. We don't have a production problem. We have a distribution problem.

 

7 hours ago, Bob Long said:

Also, there's really no such thing as a non-market economy

 

You're essentially saying that ALL human behaviors and actions are predicated on the notion of exchange in a market place. That's not true at all.

 

7 hours ago, Bob Long said:

This idea of just being able to survive by doing what interests you and brings you joy is not feasible as a way to organize an entire society. 

Under current conditions and constraints certainly no argument there. But our current society and the structures and institutions in place weren't designed for that. But change the conditions of the experiment and it changes the results.

[Canuckle]

3 hours ago, A_G said:

Robert Nozick

 

*shudder.* Studied a decent chunk of his stuff in upper level phil courses. Can't say I'm the biggest fan given his views on property rights but I understand the appeal.

 

Speaking of which, here's a hilarious comic from Existential Comics with him in it:

 

Anarchist Monopoly:

 

Here's a ton more:

 

https://existentialcomics.com/philosopher/Robert_Nozick

 

I definitely get what you guys are saying about education, but change is inevitable either way. Marx once wrote "capitalism carries within it the seeds to its own destruction" for good reason. Speaking of which, if you want a fun quick crash course on Marxism check this out: What is Marxism? 8-bit philosophy. 2014. (3m15s)

 

 

Edited October 28, 2023 by Canuckle

[Bob Long]

2 hours ago, Canuckle said:

 

Thats right. It doesnt work for everything. Thats why anarchists differentiate between common property and personal property. Nobody is coming for your toothbrush.

Even for mutualists (individualist anarchists) they based they property scheme on usufructs, i.e. occupation and use property norms. Ancomms don't support that particular idea.

 

But yeah. Nobody is coming for your personal property. You take only what you need, give what you can. That's where the maxim "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" comes from.

 

Right but who decides the limits? What if I don't want to cede as much to the group as you?

 

2 hours ago, Canuckle said:

Of course in such a society one would not be able to hoard resources, say, own more homes they need to live, or exclusive right to some mountain to plunder for some mineral, etc. Speaking of which when you speak of "same object" you'll have to be specific. Let's  say it's some super scarce resource and requires extreme caution to allocate use. Direct democrary, consensus decision making, organizing with councils, planning, all the neccessary steps to make sure it's put to good use.

 

What if I want oceanfront property? Or own a gun? Or simply want more fire wood than the group leader deems necessary?

 

2 hours ago, Canuckle said:

 

Doesn't minimize anything actually. I suppose my first question to you is do you have any interests outside of your job? Do you put effort into anything outside the bare minimum to partake in those interests? I would think so.  Not everything requires a carrot dangling in front of our nose to want to do things. The difference is we aren't forced to do XYZ things under some form of duress, coercive force in this case vs. what the majority endure today.

 

Sure I do, but I don't feed my family from those other activities. I've worked hard to be able to charge for the time I give to clients. I wouldn't bust my hiney the same way for equal shares with someone that put in a minimum effort.

 

2 hours ago, Canuckle said:

Is the fear that everyone will just sit back, do nothing and have no economic purpose like a useless socialite or landlord or some owner of some business or stock by doing literally nothing of value by making money on their money?

 

Owning stock isn't doing nothing. You are taking a risk you could lose it. You are also putting your money to work in that company.

 

2 hours ago, Canuckle said:

People find joy and purpose in their work when its fulfilling to them. Marx called it species being. And part of the goal in life ought to be finding what were good at, exploring what we enjoy to do, and find a "calling." But most don't have that opportunity or privilege in life.

 

Lucky for Marx his calling was economic theory and not washing toilets.

 

BTW - who will be doing that voluntarily?

 

2 hours ago, Canuckle said:

Some enjoy "grunt" work. Some love it. Some aren't meant for some higher cognitive jobs.  Just as the skills of others are better fit for other roles rather than other forms of labour. The division of labour doesn't change so much but rather the allocation of total resources for people and society to function properly and "fairly," as you stated earlier. Whatever job, you get an equal share.  And if your heart isn't in it let's find you something where it will be.

 

Yes but I won't carry you for just an equal share. Sorry most competent people will not submit to that.

 

2 hours ago, Canuckle said:

I posted this quote earlier, but as Buckminster Fuller stated "We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.

 

People will always want more than the basic. For example you can even see this in the Mincome basic income study that took place in Dauphin Manitoba in the 70s.  People didn't have to go to work to pay the bills.  But they did.  More high-school kids graduated high-school because they didn't have to take on jobs to help pay bills. Etc. Etc.  But people still worked because they have more desires than just the basic.

 

But you can't achieve more than basic in your equal share concept. Maybe one day when all our basic needs are met by something like a star trek replicator.

 

2 hours ago, Canuckle said:

 

So sure are you what is possible. Who's going to feed us? The same people that do now.  Only the field hands also get their fair share which they do not currently get. And with the insane rise in technology and automation, more and more of those "menial" type jobs can fall to the wayside. They already are all over the place.

 

Ok so I've decided to be the group philosophy buff. What time is dinner?

 

2 hours ago, Canuckle said:

 

Sure it can. Just a matter of using what we have in more economical ways. We don't have a production problem. We have a distribution problem.

 

 

You're essentially saying that ALL human behaviors and actions are predicated on the notion of exchange in a market place. That's not true at all.

 

Yes it is all an exchange mechanism. That's what a market is.

 

 

2 hours ago, Canuckle said:

Under current conditions and constraints certainly no argument there. But our current society and the structures and institutions in place weren't designed for that. But change the conditions of the experiment and it changes the results.

 

I think where your ideas are in error is they assume needed social change cant be accomplished under capitalism. They can, it's called a social safety net. We can bring in 4 day work weeks. We can bring in more co-op housing, etc.

[Canuckle]

39 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

Right but who decides the limits? What if I don't want to cede as much to the group as you?

What do you mean? Cede what and what group exactly?

39 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

What if I want oceanfront property? Or own a gun? Or simply want more fire wood than the group leader deems necessary?

That's not how that works. Group leader? I think I explained that ancomm society is consensus decision making, direct democracy.  There no one man with power of authority over another.

 

As for scarce resources, see previous reply.  This is not to say everyone has to live in the same 800 square foot apartment because that's what fair, but if there are some kind of scarce luxury, all should be able to use. It's called sharing.

39 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

Lucky for Marx his calling was economic theory and not washing toilets.

 

BTW - who will be doing that voluntarily

You're cleaning your own toilet now, bud.  That's what that says. Lol.

Unless of course you are physically or mentally unable, where people can obviously assist, but other than that clean your own toilet and wipe your own ass.

39 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

Yes but I won't carry you for just an equal share. Sorry most competent people will not submit to that

 

Carry? No more than we do already. Sure there are always a few that won't want to contribute. All efforts would be made to make sure everyone has a place, has a role, has something they feel passionate about to contribute. Some can't give as much in the same way due to their own barriers. This is true even today. And we help them too.

 

Or is your personal selfishness so extreme you think those with no economic purpose deserve to suffer and die?

 

It's basically a non-issue... well it isn't until it is.  And in that case those individuals can go somewhere else and do their own thing.

39 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

But you can't achieve more than basic in your equal share concept. Maybe one day when all our basic needs are met by something like a star trek replicator.

That's the wrong conclusion to draw. Whats being said is all your basics are covered. You give a bit of time to keep the society going whatever works for you and fits your own skills set, but you can still work on productive, creative, etc. things with your surplus time.

 

Don't need no star trek shit for that. We're ALREADY at a technological place where our basics can be covered. We overproduce food and waste food at exponential rates. There are more empty houses in America than there are homeless people.  The issue is we just aren't allocating the resources properly.

 

39 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

Ok so I've decided to be the group philosophy buff. What time is dinner?

Yeah I don't think you're qualified for that job and neither does the council of your peers. You still have to show your aptitude and skills for a certain roles, man. Sure, you can appeal but we know you haven't even read the intro level textbook yet so good luck with that. But study up and maybe you can get there.

 

39 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

Yes it is all an exchange mechanism. That's what a market is.

 

No. A gift economy is not a market. Not every economy on earth has been centered around a market. I don't know where you heard that or read that but that is false. 

 

Source?

 

39 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

I think where your ideas are in error is they assume needed social change cant be accomplished under capitalism. They can, it's called a social safety net. We can bring in 4 day work weeks. We can bring in more co-op housing, etc.

While I 100% support social Democratic social welfare policies, I understand they are not a solution to the fundamental issues being discussed. No, capitalism cannot be fixed with more capitalism.   Thats like saying you can treat cancer with cancer.

 

Cancer is the problem and removal of the tumor, one way or another, is the only true way to save the infected.

 

Social safety nets, hell even basic incomes are treating the symptoms and not the disease. And sooner or later do all the wound care you want, they will die unless you fix whats really wrong.

Edited October 28, 2023 by Canuckle