Bryan, in the Bob model no one bureaucrat like Jim makes a determination over community resources. It’s the entire established community of businessmen that make business decisions, just like medical community makes medical decisions and so on. That way risk is shared and the process is somewhat democratic, although specialized. It’s true Bob doesn’t work just because I say it does, but so far you haven’t convinced me that it ends in a bloody mess just because you say it does.
The fundamental concept of communism does not require central planning. As has been abundantly pointed out Leninist governmental communism was centralized and failed, but communism strictly as an economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all citizens is still a feasible but unproven concept.
The debate here is are people only motivated by personal interest or can their personal interests be mated with the interests of the community in the economic and legal doctrine of a state. Not would USSR part deux fail, we don’t need to debate that.
So, no individual is ever responsible for any major economic decision? Talk about a recipe for inefficiency! The risk isn’t really “shared” under such a system. What really happens is the system gradually fills up with beaurocrats who never take risks and who never let others rock the boat, because their own comfortable positions might be threatened. Eventually, a creative person like Alex will be smothered under layers of mediocre goo. He won’t be able to sell his radical idea and he’ll watch his less-able contemporaries get ahead because they’re perceived as “safer”.
As for medical decisions, I’d really hate for a surgeon to be operating on me and thinking “Should I cut here or should I cut there? I’d better take it to a vote!” Naturally, I’m sure you didn’t mean that individual care decisions had taken to the community (at least, I hope you didn’t) but your line of demarcation between individual discretion and community control is unclear.
As for the bloody mess, I have precedent on my side. All communist regimes have used murder and torture to preserve themselves, to varying degrees. Some of the former East Bloc nations like Poland and Czechoslovakia might have managed a peaceful “escape” from communism when the USSR collapsed, but prior to 1989, the secret police were always on the prowl and heaven help you if you offended the State.
As for Bob ending in a bloody mess, I should clarify: I don’t think Bob will end in a bloody mess because I don’t think Bob will ever exist in the first place. Rather, someone who tried to set up the nation of Bob along the lines you describe will run into a huge number of problems and historically, such problems are typically “solved” in communist regimes by killing people. There will be huge bloodshed long before any of the ideallized goals of Bob are attained, if they ever can be, which I doubt.
Personally, I can see a million capitalist individuals working for their own individual benefit as having a much better result than trying to take those decisions away from them and assigned to a central power. Rather then taking control away from the individuals, give them a legal framework to form temporary alliances (i.e. the corporation), a method to arbitrate disputes (the civil courts) and a law enforcement structure to address harm (the criminal courts) and I think those people will surprise you with how effective they can be. Then tax them just enough to keep your government structures running and to make sure no-one in your society has to starve.
I predict this model to be more effective than the zombified restricted citizens of the entirely implausible nation of Bob, who have no property and no control over their lives.
Actually, it’s not unproven. Small-scale collective farming communities have been successfully run along the lines you describe, but once the number of people and the level of complexity gets beyond a certain point, it’s no longer feasible to take every decision to the community. If a tractor breaks down and a new one needs to be obtained, are you going to assemble 1000 citizens and explain both sides of the decision and have a vote? Would you assemble 10,000 citizens? A million? At what point does the decision process become so cumbersome that community votes no longer work and a central authority has to be chosen, or else everybody starves becuase the damn tractor doesn’t work?
You say that centralization is an anathema, dooming a nation to inefficiency, and then you deem a completely decentralized and democratic decision-making process like the Bob model also as inefficient. So which is it? In Bob when you want to start a business you don’t have a hierarchical corporate system to climb, you have a decentralized community to convince.
Excuse me then, unproven on a nation-wide scale. Also, I don’t think it would go against the spirit of a communist economy to allow for the small emergency purchases of commercial equipment. Most decisions are made by the credible members of the community, aided I think by the near ubiquitous networking technologies sure to be in place 30 years from now, but some amount of personal discretions is prudent for individuals of sufficient social cred.
What part of the phrase “Clear Channel” do you not understand?
Ah, see, that’s where your assertion falls apart. The goal of a socialist society is to create a permanent and general surplus of goods so that decisions under “conditions of scarcity” become impossible.
And besides, what is scarcity today but an artificially created phenomenon? Look at the AIDS situation in Africa. How come those infected aren’t getting the drugs they need? Is it because pharmaceutical companies across the globe can’t possibly make the amount of drugs needed to help these people, or is it because the companies that hold the patents actually sued in court to prevent the manufacture of generic versions in order to safeguard their profits?
It’s also been shown that the system used by the Netherlands as regards food production and distribution, if adopted on a global scale, would be able to feed ten times the current world’s population. So is scarcity of food a natural phenomenon, or the result of agricultural corporations sticking to the methods that reap them the most profits?
I could go on, but to me it’s already abundantly clear that the decentralized market, in which each group of privately owned production, organized into a business entity, competes with every other organized business entity to further its own interests and only its own interests, is entirely incapable of any allocation of resources that could begin to meet the world’s needs completely.
And unless you’ve got a definite rebuttal to my last large post, stop holding the Soviet Union up as an example of a communist economy. I’ve already spelled out in detail why it wasn’t.
cainxinth, I don’t know what you’re defending, but it sure as hell isn’t communism.
Olentzero
Scarcity is a fact of life Olentzero. There is only so much iron ore, coal, wood, marble, salt (etc. etc.) and other natural resources being harvested on an ongoing basis. The amount harvested/mined/gathered is based on the current demand by the market. Thus, each of these commodities fluctuate in supply and volume based on the demand of said commodity. This means that there is a finite amount of a given resource in circulation at any given time. How is this resource allocated?
Do we decide that every household (however we define household) get’s a motor vehicle? If so then that metal used to build all of these automobiles would, by necessity, need to be taken from the available pool leaving less to be used for aircraft, naval vessels, iron based tools, etc. etc.
Obviously everyone can’t have a car without making some tradeoffs. Everyone won’t need cars in the Communist Utopia you say? They’ll use mass transportation? Find. That will likely reduce the amount of raw materials needed for everyday transportation purposes but it doesn’t eliminate the fact that resources are scarce. As in finite. As in “we’ll never have enough resources so that everyone can have whatever material goods they desire”.
Even if we accepted full blown use of nanotechnology in some Science Fiction scenario like Star Trek replicators that still doesn’t eliminate scarcity. Certain things are inherently finite and nothing can change that. Realestate is a prime example of inherent scarcity. There’s a reason that living in San Francisco or New York is more expensive in general then say Boise. If more people wish to live in a particular area then that area has practical space for presto we have scarcity. What about antiques? A book from a limited edition print from a 100 years ago? A baseball signed by Babe Ruth?
Make you a deal Olentzero. When scarcity ceases to exist I’ll become a communist.
Grim
Olentzero, I’m defending a hypothetical model. A communistic state that is decentralized. I don’t see the conflict; I was under the impression that the defining characteristic of communism was the abolishment of private property, not centralization.
cainxinth
As Bryan Ekers has pointed out you haven’t yet given a satisfactory definition of “social credit”. So, a few questions for you that will hopefully make your use of the term a little clearer.
How is social credit originally obtained? Is social credit simply accrued a little bit at a time based on the amount of time you’re alive (sort of like sick days at most corporations)? Specifically, at what point on the continuum of life (from infancy to old age) does a person obtain social credit, how much, and how?
Can it be traded?
How is it measured? (In points? Degrees? Something else?) Or are there multiple different properties of credit each with their own measurement? A sort of multi-dimensional array to indicate a clearer picture of someone’s standing?
If someone decides to travel to a country outside of Bob, how much of a foreign currency are they allowed to use while there? Is it based on social credit?
More questions as I think of them.
Grim
Well, gee, give me a working definition of the term and I’ll tell you if I understand it or not. The nation of Bob as described has quite a few social structures that are idealized but ill-defined. “Clear channel” is one. “Social credit” is another.
Hypothetical models are fine, but if you want to claim plausibility, there should be some credible basis. Ccainxinth is dangling an illusion and telling us that it can be solid if we believe in it hard enough.
Fat chance.
Just off the top of my head let’s say social credit is measured in points. Every activity you do to better yourself and Bob earns you points. Getting a 4.0 in a premed program and working in an ER is worth more points than dropping out of college and becoming a custodian. Working at your job and getting good performance reviews is worth points. Receiving positive feedback from your peers and superiors in just about any task I think should be worth some small amount of points. Basically it’s a number, which describes how much you have given to Bob and thus determines how much you deserve to get back.
Social credit can’t be traded for goods and services inside Bob, its more like an authorization for goods and services. However, I think when Bobians leave the country they can receive stipends from the World Bank fund I mentioned commensurate with their social credit to purchase goods in foreign countries. I hadn’t thought of the multi-dimensional grading system you mention, but that seems to make sense, things like bettering yourself through training and bettering Bob through work could be distinguished, etc.
Sure Bob is entirely idealized and hypothetical, but utopia or even societies with utopian features don’t actually exist and never have so if we can’t use our imaginations to explore it’s potential how are we supposed to investigate it? I’ve done my best to infuse some realism into the model, but you’ll have to pardon me if I didn’t invent the city on a hill on my first try out.
I’ll grant you that there’s a fat chance Bob will exist, but may I ask if you think there’s an equally slim chance of any utopian-style society existing?
Based on that model, I predict garbage collectors will go on strike, claiming that their job is critical to the continuing existence of Bob. They will demand that their job get more “credit” and their workers get more priveleges. If they succeed, other trades will do the same and Bob will suffer from a neverending and debilitating series of strikes.
This was the basis of the Anthony Burgess’ dystopian novel 1985.
The GTUB (Garbageperson’s Trade Union of Bob) demands higher compensation. The community of Bob makes a determination and either settles or holds out and hires scabs until a fair deal is brokered. Fearing widespread cross-industry strikes the Bobians for Capitalism movement campaigns to hold out on GTUB’s demands. However they fail to mobilize public support and the garbagepersons receive a 4% annual increase in social credit points. Contrary to the capitalists warnings other industries do not follow suit and idyllic life in Bob resumes.
BTW Bryan, Clear Channel isn’t a term I used in defining Bob. I believe Ludovic was referring to the Clear Channel corporation. A media company accused of attempting to build a monpoly in the radio industry. As in, “Eventually, a creative person like Alex will be smothered under layers of mediocre goo [like Clear Channel].”
But that demand is met insofar as the corporation that produces the commodity can get an acceptable amount of financial profit from production.
Well, no, not really. Does unsold coal suddenly disappear? How about unsold lumber, or unsold marble? It’s still there, just not being used.
Under current conditions, it’s allocated to the people who can best afford to pay the price asked for it. Which is why it’s possible for people to have to choose between heating their house during the winter and keeping food in the fridge.
Don’t confuse the amount of a product currently being bought and sold for use with the entire supply of that product. Scarcity on the market (i.e. the availability of a given product at a certain price) is not the same thing as scarcity in general.
Nonsense. Here’s one recent example.
So you’re saying homelessness is a result of scarcity of real estate? Again, nonsense. The DC neighborhood I lived in before I moved to Arlington was chock full of abandoned and decaying houses. Some of them are now being renovated - but as luxury apartments and condos. Housing itself isn’t scarce. Affordable housing, however, is.
And how are either of those necessary to ensure survival? Old books and autographed baseballs are scarce, yes. Housing, food, clothing, and education aren’t.
cainxinth - allow me to quote from Marx’ Principles of Communism (1847):
“According to a common plan.” “Abolish competition and replace it with association.” “The common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement.” In other words, a centrally planned economy. The abolition of private property must be accompanied by the centralization of production and distribution.
looking at your last post “hires scabs”?! Now I know whatever it is you’re defending isn’t communism.
More questions about the nature of “social credit”.
Ok, I’m imagining a relatively small committee making the decision of whether or not to allocate resources and workhours (and by necessity remove them from some other less deserving project). I’m guessing that this committee was elected by the people who work in the industry locally. If for instance the widget was one based on a computer program I’m imagining a group of say 20 (scaled up or down to the size of the local population) software engineers, designers and programmers who have been elected to do a feasibility analysis, a second group to determine demand and perhaps a third program management group to prioritize and weigh the importance of projects. If the newly proposed project is determined (after analysis and research) to be more important via it’s benefit to society and/or demand by the populace then another project then resources are allocated and work begins. These 3 groups (the technical group, demand analysis group and the project management group) would be elected from the much larger group of said professionals that live in the area and would represent the group as a whole. Their service in this capacity earns them some extra credits. Please correct me if you’re envisioning this differently.
Some more questions.
-
Once resources are allocated to Alex’s widget making project who organizes, maintains and runs the widget producing factory?
-
If Alex is dissatisfied with the quality of some of his workers does he have the capability of “exchanging” them for workers more to his liking from other projects?
-
If Alex thinks that “Bill” (who was hired on as a night janitor) can do a better job designing the next version of the widget then one of his current engineers does Alex has the authority to promote the janitor to widget design? If so how does he fill the now vacant position of night janitor?
-
If widget demand exceeds factory capacity but the project management team has decided that no more resources can be allocated to widget making what recourse does Alex have to supply the widget demand?
-
Is it the benefit to society, the exhibited demand of the widget, or a combination of the two (or something else altogether?) that determines the amount of social credit Alex gains from the widget production? What if the widget was the “Pet Rock”. Very popular during it’s hay-day but pretty much useless from a practical standpoint. Is there a difference between the social credit gained by such a widget vs. if the widget was a new type of moderately more nutritious catfood (an obviously practical widget)?
-
Is the amount of credit Alex obtains affected by the efficient running of his factory? In other words if Alex produces X number of widgets from Y resources is he rewarded with more social credit if he is able to produce X + Z widgets from that same amount of Y resources? Conversely is he penalized, social credit wise, if the amount of resources he is using is producing a woefully low number of widgets?
Grim
Olentzero, I’m not arguing for Marxism, in fact I don’t believe classical Marxism is a viable form of government or economic system. What I’m advocating is more along the lines of decentralized, post-structuralist communism with personal as well as communal incentives. Marx and Engels invented communism in some sense, but it’s still evolving.
No, I think the committee is a very large but it’s weighted. Alex sends out an e-application to a listserve of the entire business community ranked higher than him on the social scale. The committee members are weighted by their rank and the closeness of their industry to Alex’s project.
You’re way ahead of my thoughts so far, but that sounds plenty reasonable to me.
Alex and his engineer friend were the principles who risked their credibility on the project so I think they were be the CEO and CTO respectively. The different groups you mentioned or "boards” if you will, however I think should be made up of members of the business community of sufficient rank who apply and are accepted by the community. A staff drawn from the general employment pool runs the factory.
Sure, poor performance reviews don’t net social cred points for a worker, if his colleagues considerably outpace him he would lose authorization for a job of the caliber he is currently in.
I think Alex has the power given his position and cred to make a strong recommendation for a break in protocol like that, but ultimately it would be up to the board members. The new janitor would come from the employment pool. But like I said, it’s 2031 and blue collar positions like janitors are being replaced by automation… yes robots. (if we’re talking about a pie in the sky it might as well have all the bells and whistles right?)
None, if the board determines that Bob at large wouldn’t benefit from maximum saturation of widgets production proceeds at its current pace. I suppose he could try to appeal the decision thouhgh.
Very interesting question. I assume both the actual benefit of the product and its positive effect on the economy by creating jobs and such are factored into the analysis. Pet rocks create jobs but have little practical use and therefore would be less essential than the all-purpose widget.
Another novel idea… sounds logical. Maybe you should be writing Bob’s constitution. 