http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortage_economy
"Shortage economy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Polish meat shop in the 1980s.Shortage economy (Polish: gospodarka niedoboru, Hungarian: hiánygazdaság) is a term coined by the Hungarian economist, János Kornai. This is a term he used to criticize the old centrally-planned economies of the communist states of Eastern Europe. In his article Economics of Shortage (1980), which is generally viewed as his most influential and best-known work, János Kornai argued that the chronic shortages seen throughout Eastern Europe in the late 1970s (and which continued during the 1980s) were not the consequences of planners’ errors or the wrong prices, but rather systemic flaws.
It is important to note that a shortage of a certain item does not necessarily mean that the item is not being produced; rather, it means that the amount of the good demanded exceeds the amount supplied at a given price. (See Supply and demand) This may be caused by a government enforced low price which encourages consumers to demand a higher amount than is supplied. Kornai, however, concentrates on the role of reduced supply, and argues that this was the underlying cause of Eastern European shortages during the 1980s.
"
Originally posted by SoothfastYour answer is too nebulous for me. Too general. I'm interested in the individual citizen. A typical day in the life. Maybe this has not been hashed out yet. Why would i strive to be a good producer if the worker next to me is slacking off? It's human nature to get over. Why should i strive to achieve if there's no extra rewards? So, as of now, i tend to agree with Zeeblebot's explanation, even though Russian and Chinese communism to this point are really ,maybe, just extreme Socialism. I'm sure communism could work on a very,very small scale, as in isolated, small, hunter gather tribes such as in the Amazon>
The driving source in the society will be the production of goods and services that are needed or desired to enable each individual to live a life free of want and the fear of destitution. The way in which this would be accomplished is through workers' syndicates, which are essentially "democratized" corporations in which the member workers elect the leade ...[text shortened]... Some here, some there -- but a Grand Panarama will take much thinking and writing.
1 edit
Originally posted by smw6869I know, and I'm a little frustrated by my lack of time to get into these matters right now. The life of the ordinary citizen in an anarchosyndicalist society would quite simply be the life he or she would want to live -- or at least as close to the desired ideal as can be made possible within the confines of earthly reality and the individual's own innate inhibitions. The building block of this "global society" would be mostly small communities, mainly, though there would still be large towns and cities as well (as it should be, since variety is the spice of life). People would do the work they want to do, and even have the option not to work at all. There would be no money and the basic necessities of life -- food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care, etc. -- would be guaranteed. On various empirical and theoretical grounds it can be reasonably argued that the kind of society of which I speak would be viable, self-sustaining, and prosperous. Unpleasant tasks (garbage collection and so on) would be shared amongst community and syndicate members (by "community" I mean a social unit, like a town or neighborhood; by "syndicate" I mean an economic unit that produces a good or service). Indeed advancing technology, especially in the area of robotics, may make it possible to have virtually all the dirty work in society be done by machine. There would be no underclass of exploited laborers consigned to do the dirty work all their lives until their back breaks. The advent of the Internet, in fact, puts the ideas and ideals of libertarian communism more within humanity's reach than ever.
Your answer is too nebulous for me.
Originally posted by smw6869It's human nature to want to be validated in the eyes of friends, relatives, the community, and society in general. That is the only glue that would hold together a libertarian communist society, because that is the only authority with a legitimate claim to govern human affairs. Some people will "slack off" and do no work, but they would be the tiny minority in society. We cannot cleave to a punitive system of coercive wage slavery because we're afraid that some people will become leeches on society. The current socioeconomic arrangement is rife with leeches anyway, but you have to look toward the top of the food chain to find the fattest and most useless ones. And then again, the innate contradictions of capitalist economics always guarantees that a goodly fraction of a population that is willing to work is denied work. An utter waste, and an indefensible assault on the human spirit to speak nothing of human dignity.
Why would i strive to be a good producer if the worker next to me is slacking off? It's human nature to get over. Why should i strive to achieve if there's no extra rewards?
Doing work worth doing is its own best reward, and in a society in which the necessities of life are guaranteed the ultimately fear-driven need to gain "extra rewards" is largely nullified. In capitalist society getting "extra rewards" is deemed necessary by many because reward is the primary means to being able to do things one wants to do. That is what people really want: to be able to do their own thing. A society should recognize that to be able to do one's own thing (within moral limits, of course) is the foremost inalienable right of every human being. Then the work an individual does in service to a community and society becomes icing on the cake -- an extra reward all the more satisfying because it's an end in itself rather than a means to an end.
Originally posted by smw6869That is the idea, except first substitute the Amazon for the concrete jungle. It's already happening, really--just no flags, silly uniforms or tanks. First step, you have to figure out how you really want to live. Try Oprah if you're short of ideas.
I'm sure communism could work on a very,very small scale, as in isolated, small, hunter gather tribes such as in the Amazon>
Originally posted by Bosse de NageActually, ever since mankind evolved from nomadic groups to sedentary ones that the concept of property evolved.
That is the idea, except first substitute the Amazon for the concrete jungle. It's already happening, really--just no flags, silly uniforms or tanks. First step, you have to figure out how you really want to live. Try Oprah if you're short of ideas.
The thing with small communitarian tribes is that you only see the amount that survived, not those that imploded and were destroyed through the greed of one or more individuals.
Greed is ingrained in our genes. It is the translation of the selfish biological need for survival. Even if this greed is successfully contained for a few generations, eventually the day will arrive where enough "greedy" individuals bring an end to this cooperative society (particularly in periods of crisis, such as famines for example).
A society that is dependent on the goodwill of its members is doomed to fail eventually. This is why Communism has historically progressed towards dictatorships and why it will continue to do so.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaCan't think of too many societies completely dependent on good-will. Most have some chief at least. In fact you'll find that clans within a tribal system tended to respect some cultural law they regarded as being handed down from on high (legacy of ancestors, etc). Point being conflicts, territorial disputes etc were highly formalised, leading e.g. to interesting cases of bloodless wars (like at a certain point in mediaeval Italy). So, they weren't anything like Communists.
A society that is dependent on the goodwill of its members is doomed to fail eventually. This is why Communism has historically progressed towards dictatorships and why it will continue to do so.
An example of this not working out would be the rise of Shaka--inventor of political genocide / nation building in Southern Africa. Exploded like a cancer all over the map.
"Greed is engrained in our genes". Yes, so is the ability to look beyond it. It's called wisdom, or something.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBut that's my point. Eventually, the need for a "Chief" will arise. And when there is a Chief, the greedy will have an extra motivation to be it.
Can't think of too many societies completely dependent on good-will. Most have some chief at least. In fact you'll find that clans within a tribal system tended to respect some cultural law they regarded as being handed down from on high (legacy of ancestors, etc). Point being conflicts, territorial disputes etc were highly formalised, leading e.g. to in our genes". Yes, so is the ability to look beyond it. It's called wisdom, or something.
I never said that we didn't have the ability to look beyond it. But it's all about numbers. Eventually, some just won't be "wise" enough and it all falls like a castle of cards or forceful authority is installed.
Originally posted by PalynkaOf course. The systems I refer to (existing from North America to Gaul) were suitable for quite low populations.
I never said that we didn't have the ability to look beyond it. But it's all about numbers. Eventually, some just won't be "wise" enough and it all falls like a castle of cards or forceful authority is installed.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBut that doesn't solve the problem. As new generations arrive, the issue remains. Not to mention that a low population means less defense from neighbouring societies, which would mean that you'd be also dependent on the goodwill of your neighbouring societies. The castle of cards would topple, it's only a question of when.
Of course. The systems I refer to (existing from North America to Gaul) were suitable for quite low populations.
Originally posted by PalynkaFor many of the societies in question, a symbiotic relationship with nature precluded large population growth. For corn-fed city dwellers like the Mayans, the situation was different, but they had gone beyond the tribal stage. As for the good-will issue, well, yes, that all became clear post-Columbus!
But that doesn't solve the problem. As new generations arrive, the issue remains. Not to mention that a low population means less defense from neighbouring societies, which would mean that you'd be also dependent on the goodwill of your neighbouring societies. The castle of cards would topple, it's only a question of when.
I think the house of cards is always going to topple somewhere, sometime. That much of the toppling takes place under the auspices of capitalism doesn't detract in any way from the success of that system. Wars and famines are probably more profitable for a certain brand of capitalism than peace and stability.