Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 09:38:54 +1000 From: sjwright-AT-vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Steve Wright) Subject: Re: Economics of Communist Society Graeme wrote: >Now although I reject individual remuneration as defined above [and I am >not impressed by the assertion that labour vouchers 'do not circulate' - >almost anything will be used as a store of value, if peoples consumption is >not 'free'], I do still think that we need a unit of calculation for a >communist economy. This is because initially, at any rate we need to avoid >the massive waste of resources which would flow from a rejection of any >attempt to co-ordinate our activities. But this unit of calculation only >needs to operate at an aggregate level - individual enterprise to whole >society. That is it will tell us how much of whatever type of product, our >present level of technology will deliver, and on that basis we can choose >the aggregate level of consumption. > >Looking further ahead [or if you like from a lower stage to a higher stage >of communism, and doing away entirely with any notion of transitional state >and any intermediary economic forms] we know that technological development >in a capitalist society is not neutral, but that it is a function of the >capitalists need to re-assert their control over us. As early as possible >therefore, we would need to make decisions on which technologies to >dispense with for whatever reason, which we might retain and which we might >need to develop. In the parlance of modern economists, we will be faced >with 'opportunity costs' which may restrict present consumption for a >projected future social gain. A single, simple unit of calculation will >enable such a choice to become transparent. Above all it will reveal the >unity of a fully socialised productive process, so that any centrifugal >tendencies can be 'costed' and if required resisted. This is not an >'automatic' process, merely a tool, whose results can be ignored if we >wish, but the costs of such ignorance can be predicted in advance. Having rejected the idea of *renumeration* via labour-time vouchers for similar reasons to those expressed by a range of people on this list, I must say that I have never thought of retaining (hopefully for only a very short time) the use of labour-time as a measurement for "planning" in the sense suggested by Graeme. So I'm also curious what others think of this . . . And Michael and Chris: you've made me intrigued enough about Vandana Shiva to follow up your comments with some reading. Anyone else have thoughts on this writer? Steve --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005