Take a pick Zig Forums

Choose wisely:
Market economy
Planned economy
Gift economy
No economy
also ofc say why if you want to

Attached: Screenshot_20180405-192022.png (720x1280, 267.14K)

Planned economy with cybernetic characteristics.

Good choice, too bad cybersyn was never achieved though :(

Well I mean it DID work. Also, have you heard of our lord and saviour Paul Cockshott?

Ofc I have, forever bae. That being said though, I was mainly referring to how cybersyn was unfortunately never implemented in Allende's government. Imagine what they could've done if they never couped him.

Gift economy.

A gift economy is a planned economy with no central coordination and which is thus unable to maintain any sort of supply chain worth a damn. A market economy in it's mature stages is a planned economy where all of the planning goes on in discrete hierarchical agglomerations and all coordination between them must be done very inefficiently using money. No economy is a meme, people are social animals and even in the 14th century BCE there were trade routes linking the British Isles with Afghanistan. Planned economy all the way.

I take it you're an ancom right? This might be extremely obvious, but I don't really know much about the free territory or revolutionary catalonia but did those societies manage to implement a gift economy?

It seems most people here prefer a planned economy. On an unrelated note, market socialism operates through a market economy right?

In terms of most palatable economy, gift economy would be best. As for achieving it in practice, that may be a bit difficult, as it would require a total social revolution, although I do think it is achievable. Market economy would be ok-ish if the currency was based off of the labour theory of value. But even then it would be pretty bad, because you can't make a perfect measurement of how valuable someone's labour is compared to another person's.

As for the planned economy, this would require (as you implied) central planning and coordination, and as such would require some sort of statist system to operate, as opposed to decentralized groups of freely associated individuals. Whatever state model is created, it simply cannot feasibly react to every single human's ideals about how they want their lives (through the economy) to be directed, and as such would require some form of monopoly on violence to function. In which case, you've created a new ruling class in the shell of the old.

The Free Territory and Revolutionary Catalonia only existed for three years apiece, and they were under constant bombardment and embargo by other nations. Considering this, they were probably the two most successful socialist experiments of the past century. In practice, they were able to carry out the idea of "decentralized free associations run off consensus democracy" very well, but the gift economy piece was never established. They mostly ran off of sort of a collectivist anarchist system as opposed to a communist one. They had labor vouchers, but for the most part things like food, clothing, and shelter were provided regardless of contribution to society.

I should probably also state that I think market socialism, and planned economies are without a doubt better than capitalism. I figured this went without saying but idk

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Makhno outlaw all forms of currency?

Planned economy run by AI with as little input from local bureaucracy as possible.

Yeah, but it's very hard to effectively outlaw something with no official state to back things up. I'm sure Makhno would've made all money disappear successfully, assuming they didn't have a Russian SFSR breathing down their necks in 1921 haha

I see. That being said though, labour vouchers did function differently from regular money, so I guess Makhno just tried to work with what they had then.

Okay, lets say you have your social revolution. How do you build a tractor? Freely associating group A is made up of mechanics who think think that building tractors would be a super dandy way to increase grain yields. If there were some mechanism of centralized economic planning, a committee would decide how many tractors could be productively used, calculate the quantities of tractor components required, determine the equipment, resources, and labor necessary to produce those, and so on all the way back to figuring out how much iron, coal, and uranium to mine. In a market economy, if there were a production bottleneck, say a shortage of carburetors, then the price of carburetors would rise, incentivising people to produce carburetors (of course, there is always a bit of a lag on both ends with market pricing). In a gift economy, what do you do? The mechanics run out of carburetors, they call the carburetor free association, they don't have enough die casting machines to make more, they call the machine tool shop, but they don't have enough engineers to assemble and run any more equipment, so they call around trying to recruit engineers from other areas until a shortage develops in some other realm of production or they are forced to reduce the production of some other sort of industrial machinery, creating issues somewhere else. Everything becomes very difficult to sort out, and you end up with either bottlenecks popping up everywhere and as a consequence having shortages of everything with more than a step or two to it's production or with a variety of inputs, or you have to produce at a massive surplus every step of the way, and end up with tremendous waste of resources and time. A gift economy is all fine and well if you would be content to almost completely deindustrialize, but if working in the fields for 12 hours a day and then freezing in your little hut all winter doesn't seem like a good time then some sort of coordination is required.

DEMOCRATICALLY
PLANNED
ECONOMY

So there would be a shortage of workers in some section of the economy under a gift economy, but not under a planned economy?

There would be issues correctly allocating labor, raw materials, and intermediate products to meet consumer demand in both a gift economy and in a planned economy where planners reduce dimensional too much or use arbitrary value functions (see: the USSR after Khrushchev decided to compete with the west by producing consumer goods).

*dimensionality

Well that was Khrushchev's mistake, commodities and the consumerist lifestyle are inherently capitalistic.

But the key difference between a gift economy and a planned economy would be in how they dealt with these problems. It seems that both the gift economy and the planned economy would have a sort of discussion that would be settled by coming to a consensus (no vehement disagreements) decision about the course of action to be taken. However, under a planned economy, this is an outside committee hosted by the state, and under a gift economy it's hosted by the very workers who will produce the goods in question.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

So in a gift economy meetings are held to plan production whenever a bottleneck occurs, people wish to increase output, or would like a new variety of good? I don't know quite how willing people will be to look at linear programming charts twice a week, but if a gift economy incorporates planning like this then any disagreement we have over economic structure seems to be mostly semantic.

Huh I guess you're right. I suppose the difference is in who solves the problem, as opposed to it being two completely different economic systems with two completely opposed ideas for how things should operate.

Cybernetically assisted democratic planned economy aka marxism-leninism-cockshottism

An economy with markets for goods and services, but without markets for labour and capital.

Attached: Y0ReXwXt4qUDBZv_4aO-7f0R7t8HCZJ.png (650x500, 423.66K)

NO ECONOMY

Attached: 8aebdca2c65cb2d4b38abad5c86bd59f9a56757d.png (1000x910, 661.96K)

what the fuck are you on about, user?

Attached: b4ed9bfc47751ee399f0591b7e….jpeg (225x225, 7.61K)

what does "no economy" mean

Gift economy is a premodern meme.

1. Production requires labour time, and labour time is scarce.
2. Efficient large scale production requires specialization, concentration, and scale.

Putting one and two together means that you need a system that coordinates between the labour time inputs, and the distribution of the products of society, which are produced socially and in specialized fashion, where thousands and thousands of workers all contribute to the production of a single class of goods. Gift economy is totally divorced from this necessity, it just assumes that all production takes place in the locus of the individuals (or small communities), who can then decide to girt each other or not. It's a total fraud.

Labour voucher and a planned economy, not subsistence farming and gift economy, ok. Braise Margs

Attached: e416ab30115b6fd5c9a48fdfd0da220bca2071452207097e6ae9b27e2d3ba4be.jpg (581x500, 92.45K)

a society so advanced it has abolished means of production, like Democratic Kampuchea

For any reasonable attempt at transcending capitalism a planned economy is a complete must. While I won't deny that communization and a direct leap to fully communist social relations was practiced under workable conditions in certain areas of Spain on a communal level for instance, I simply don't see how it would be workable for a modern society on a large scale. People need food, housing, electric power, and transportation, and this needs to be coordinated in a rational manner to "make poverty impossible" to paraphrase Wilde. Gift economics are a complete fucking meme, market socialism of any stripe is simply capitalism with a human face. People not on the planning train need to get with the fucking program or they are less than useless to the movement.

I can't believe you posted smug Costanza in response to him, and not any of those who said gifts lol. Market for consumer items means that these things are rationed by price and people have their individual budgets for obtaining these. If something goes off the shelves too quickly, the price is raised; and stuff that can't be sold gets its price lowered. It probably also means that production adjusts to demand, but it is debatable whether that should happen in a more or less automatic way or pass through some sort of voting procedure (the voters would be informed about the demand data, of course).

Without market for capital means that there are not separate players owning the means of production, not even in a restricted sense that to own a share of a company you must work there, instead the means of production are held in common. Nothing in this category is sold from one person or group to another. The stuff is evaluated by voting and indirectly with the demand data from the consumer items it helps producing.

Without market for labour means that your income is not determined by an automatic supply-and-demand mechanism, but some sort of vote/regulation thing. You will still have to work. A not so nice side of this is that if we don't increase and increase and increase the reward for something nobody wants to do because we have some regulation putting a tight cap on that (IIRC Lenin made a guess somewhere that the lowest and highest per-hour remuneration shouldn't be apart by a bigger factor than four), in some extreme situations that means just drafting people who are then forced to do stuff. (We should keep track of draft-work time to roughly equalize that burden.)

Planned gift economy with market characteristics.

planned economy is obviously best. market economies are an obvious no, and 'gift economies' are gift monopolies imply private ownership which is an obvious no as well.

and 'gift economies' imply private ownership which is an obvious no as well.*** what the hell