Hello comrades,

I'm trying to understand how a moneyless economy would allocate resources optimally. Here is a silly example to illustrate the specific problem I don't understand.

Let's say that the only vacuum cleaners currently available are corded. A vacuum cleaner company democratically decides to design a cordless stick vacuum cleaner for greater comfort. Consumers are attracted and are starting to choose it over traditional corded vacuum cleaners (for free). Noticing the success of its product, the company produces more of it. Since cordless vacuum cleaners require a lithium battery, more lithium must be extracted from the earth. As we know, lithium is a finite and rare resource. This means a larger portion of the total lithium available is allocated to cordless vacuum cleaners.

The problem is that cordless vacuum cleaners are just a convenience option. People can still clean their homes with traditional battery-less corded vacuum cleaners. But some products strictly require a battery, like electric cars for example (I know hydrogen can be used too but that's just for the sake of the example). To wisely choose the best lithium allocation, we should therefore consider not only the material needs of society (electric cars), but also the adjustable preferences of individuals (cordless vacuum cleaners). We can calculate the total amount of lithium in kilograms needed to produce the electric car batteries we need, but we can't really compare it with the "desirability" of cordless vacuum cleaners. We could say: just reserve the lithium that's strictly required, and use the surplus for convenience enhancements, but we can't predict the total amount we will strictly need ahead of time.

Under capitalism, the rarefaction of lithium is supposed to increase the price of the final product. At some point, consumers will find cordless vacuum cleaners too expensive, stop buying them, and return to traditional corded vacuum cleaners. How would this work in communism without prices? What would stop consumers from grabbing cordless vacuum cleaners until the earth's lithium runs out, when it could have been put to much better use in electric car batteries? And how do we decide when to stop lithium extraction altogether to stop destroying the environment?

I'm not saying that communism doesn't work or capitalism is more efficient, I'm just trying to understand. Some argue that the internal planning systems used in today's large companies could be reused, but I think they are optimized to maximize a single goal, profit, based on prices, so I don't understand how it could work without them.

Of course my example is stupid. There are probably much better uses for lithium than electric cars and cordless vacuum cleaners, and we should probably use as little as possible of finite resources. Nonetheless, the problem already appears in a simplistic economic model with only 2 products. How would it be solved with longer and more complex supply chains, with multiple vacuum cleaner manufacturers, multiple lithium suppliers, where manufacturers would not know the proportion of lithium they consume and lithium extractors would not know the final allocation of lithium in consumer products?

How would it work in centralized vs decentralized economies?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

If you understand that people can plan and allocate resources to meet their needs without capitalist darwinism, then what is your issue? Why can't people collectively decide what to do? They can't talk to one another? All effective large organizations do planning.

A household with multiple people doesn't have to fight and horde the limited resources of the home. It's not a hotel.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    Again, I do believe that people will be able to collectively decide how to meet their needs. My question is about preferences, not needs. Specifically when satisfying those preferences requires limited resources, and might have complex, unexpected consequences on the overall supply chain. As @burlemarx@lemmygrad.ml said, this could lead to conflict if preferences are unequally satisfied. I was wondering if there are ways to avoid them, or at least prevent these conflicts from escalating.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    Resources are limited usually. As I said with my household example, sometimes everyone doesn't always get their own personal bathroom or whatever. You collectively make decisions on who gets what.

    That's life and it didn't require capitalism to make it. Capitalism wasn't around forever. Resources can be allocated without it. Why are resources allocated based on who has the most money? Isn't that fucking stupid with bad consequences?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    sometimes everyone doesn't always get their own personal bathroom or whatever. You collectively make decisions on who gets what.

    Absolutely, but in this case, the total number of bathrooms and the number of people living in the household are usually known, and the decision only needs to be made once. This becomes much trickier when the total amount of resource is unknown, and the needs for the resource evolves unpredictably over time. Even for a single person, there is no way to compute the optimal amount of a limited resource that can be consumed now for comfort after satisfying basic needs if the same resource might be required to meet future unpredictable needs. I think the corresponding scientific model would be the "online resource allocation problem".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    How does that change the collective decision making without money? Why does money make predicting the future any more optimal?

    You're comparing a moneyless communist system vs a money based capitalist system and saying the one with money predicts future lack of resources better?

    The whole point of planning is to consider what you want to have in the future. You collectively make plans with contingencies based on your experience and expertise.

    And if things change, you have to make NEW decisions. Call a meeting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    No, I entirely agree with you. Capitalism doesn't optimize for the future, it's kind of the opposite. I was just wondering if communism proposed a specific method to address this problem on a large scale.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    The public education system is a large scale system where you don't need money to get an education. You just say you have a kid who needs to go to school. They register the kid. The kid attends the school.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago

    One more time, I think we are going to gradually shift from personal preferences to community preferences, and those preferences will be limited by the resources available. Resources will always be limited and not all people will be able to have everything. How are people going to achieve this? Planning, negotiation, and politics.

  • source
  • parent