In this article author argues with Forest and Factory: The Science and the Fiction of Communism, mainly about labor time accounting. I think i find the argument convincing tbh (about the need to continue doing labor accounting)
In this article author argues with Forest and Factory: The Science and the Fiction of Communism, mainly about labor time accounting. I think i find the argument convincing tbh (about the need to continue doing labor accounting)
I'm gonna give this and the original another closer read soon.
I think some of the criticisms fall a bit flat. Mainly about the "utopianism" of the original essay. As far as I can tell, it was intended to primarily be a speculative account of how something might be proposed/produced within a non-capitalist framework. I also saw it as a response to Morozov, whose essay in NLR is likely the best criticism of the various "digital socialisms" and poses questions I dont think a single author has been able to answer. But, I also likely ignored more of the left com stuff in the end notes essay tbh.
(I honestly think we still need more of this "utopian projection". There is a reason What is To Be Done? Is named after a novel.)
However, I broadly agree with the parts about accounting. We will be keeping books until the sun explodes, and maybe after that if we get our shit together. I'm a bit surprised in all the Lenin- and marxology the author didn't mention that Marx himself was not actually a big promoter of labor vouchers. Outside of the critique I don't think it ever appears as a serious suggestion again.
I don't think that simple "labor accounting" via vouchers is enough though. We have an external budget, and it's counted in carbon. Any form of accounting in a socialist future, if we don't want to destroy the planet, would need to take this into regard. It has to be done in cold hard numbers too, a hand wave, "We will not destroy the world" is just not enough. I don't think this potential system can be perfectly described right now, and it will likely many problems as it is developed. But we do have the tools to do it tomorrow if somehow capital gave in and handed over the keys. But therein lies the larger problem.
The best, but imperfect, exploration of this is Cockshott and Co latest book, or even Dapprichs dissertation on it. From ecological to labor accounting, to market clearing prices for good distribution, etc. But their short coming is its lack of imagination (stem brain), which the end notes article has. (Though the latest book reads a bit like a policy proposal for liberals. But the libs don't give a shit about our fancy accounting machines.)
Idk, some random thoughts Ig. I don't fully grasp what the authors politics are, or who this collective is. They cite a trot favorably but cite left coms unfavourably. Hate Stalin, so likely a trot I guess. I do think it's a bit sad that these authors kinda refuse to engage with Actually Existing Economic Planning though. Unless it's Walmart and you are a verso author.
I think main thrust of critique that even with *utopian abundance (taking annoying word here), you need to know what costs what (so a broadside against value form fetishists) and a small one against forest and factory. My main critique against that, is that white collar workers will betray you (in revolution context) over flat payscales. Bottom up council comm you can deal with it with time and solidarity, top down you can’t.
They seem orth marxists (vague label, but I try to keep open mind and don’t sort people into buckets tbh, only ultra trots with their stalinist unions/bureaucracy get a bucket and ultra leftcomms).
Ecologically they seem to suggest flat tax on limited resources, I’m more sympathetic with flat carbon budget (which will still amount to tax in more council solution)
The majority of them would likely not be on our side to begin with. Proletarianization is worse than death to many. Socialism would have to see a massive transformation and relocation of labor (which would also reduce working hours tho).
I don't think that labor vouchers need to result in a completely flat payscale though. 1 hr does not need to equal 1 labor voucher. It likely shouldn't. If you have someone working a dangerous job that is hard to find people for, they would need to be remunerated higher than others. Or a job which requires a significant amount of time to qualify for, like a doctor (though, a public doctor, not an LA plastic surgeon with ten houses lol).
It seems like this essay does assume a flat pay scale where 1hr = 1lv. Their tax plan, which is nested within a statement about how this is a good starting point, has similar issues with this assumption. But also, why institute a tax? Taxation generally happens after production, but the ecological problem will result in many things not being produced. This is a cart in front of a horse situation to me. Maybe I'm reading that uncharitably though, but having to place relatively arbitrary flat taxes on specific goods is odd, because if you have a useful accounting and projection system the tax is unnecessary imo. I guess this can be conceptualized as a "tax", but it isn't really that. It's just an additional cost we have to consider before production. (if we do deal with actual taxes though, it should primarily by appropriation at source of goods which are reserved for common use. Whether that is providing for people out of the workforce or for events, etc..)
This may also just be a problem with the naming of "labor vouchers" because it invites this confusion. We can call them tokens, or even communism bux, it does not matter, but it has to be a useful unit of account.
The more I think about vouchers though, the less I like them. I think it's the best solution for a transitory system where distribution happens according to desire but is also limited. So not a completely full "take from the common fund at will". But also not a great solution with a variety of misconceptions and problems. We will always need to account for resources and labor, but I'm not sure if that always needs to be made into a public facing payment system.
Decommercialization and decommodification are important steps to go beyond this. We will have to do a little communizing.
The job that’s hard to fund should get kropotkin’ed (make everyone participate in it if it’s so shit, sooner or later someone will figure out a better way).
With education, it depends you either pay people during study, or they receive like 25 percent more cause they spent 25 % of working life studying.
Taxes are roughly same as your mention of “labor necessary to clean up”, which is most understandable metric. Sure you spend 0.1 hour getting barrel of oil out, now you have to spend one tree seedling planting and blocked land for 40 years.
Yeah, I dunno, I still like labor hour bux tbh. It’s makes perfect sense as translation layer from porkie economy (if I remember right, coop communes find out the same thing in their gatherings) to commie economy. (You can even feasible do it lib way via laws)
Yeah, like a public works program. Some jobs which require quite a bit of specialization would need to be more limited, but I would gladly welcome a public Works obligation particularly if it came with something like decommodified housing or something.
Prioritizing the reduction of labor is good though, and there should be significant grants/resources to people trying to solve those problems. Maybe a bit like the competitions described in the end notes article.
Yeah, they could, but that would be communism or something. Part of Cockshott and Cos latest book is just trying to remind the liberals that they used to do shit like this during WWII, and the climate is an even larger existential threat than that was.