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
[–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

No single revolution that happened before had broad consensus. If you need the whole society to become Marxist and reach a consensus of what communism should be like before a revolution, then communism will be unachievable. There wasn't even consensus on capitalism itself before it came to be, capitalism itself taking multiple forms throughout history and still developing to newer forms today. We can have a vague idea of what communism would look like, but never a whole model.

This is why we stress so much in understanding the current historical main contradictions and think on ways to progress through them. For example, we can't simply abolish money on day one without having a proper system in place to distribute goods, and for having a good system in place we need to implement a simple form, test it, re-assess it, re-implement it, over and over again. The dialectical process is iterative and requires both theoretical analysis and experimentation.

A practical example, it took years for the Communist party of Russia to transition from the NEP to the central planning under GOSPLAN. Before the NEP we had a set of rationing and requisition policies (known as war communism) which were extremely inefficient and was providing poor output for the Russian economy as a whole. So we had progression from war communism to NEP, and from NEP to 5 year plans centered around GOSPLAN.

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

    I agree with you, but I still have 2 concerns:

    • If we don't immediately distribute the power after obtaining it, there might be a risk of hijacking
    • If we don't provide a clear enough vision to the masses, could we really convince public opinion to destroy the current system and jump into "the unknown"?
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)
    • There has always been a vanguard in every revolutionary process. The Jacobins in the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks in the USSR, even the CNT in anarchist Spain (even though they deny similarities with the MLs), the Viet Minh in Vietnam, the guerrilla in Cuba. The purpose of the vanguard is to smash the resistance to the revolution and lead the other revolutionary forces. However it's simply false to say that this vanguard has no wide popular support, because without it, it would be impossible for a small group within society to take power from the establishment.

    • We provide a vision, based on principles, in common ideals. What we can't do is to establish all concrete rules of the new society beforehand, this is simply unattainable.

  • source
  • parent