So, yes, picky.
But, as that is what we are doing here,...
No one is. You're not compelled to go to work, you choose to. You are not a slave, (excluding Libya of course, but generally speaking).
A wage slave is your own imposed slavery, no one is imposing it on you.
If the crapitalusts control all the food, the choice is submit, to exploitation by not receiving the full value your labor creates, or starve.
Hardly a free choice.
But, lets put aside the words of those that have failed to resolve this difference of opinion, eh?
As long as the workers continue to do the work, the goods are available for consumption, yes?
There is no over arching control of food in free market economies. As long as one can produce enough capital formation, they can rent or own land and produce plenty of food.
To get full value of your labor, you have to own a means of production/existence. YOU have to own your own to get full value..... not the state/collective.
CHAPTER 22:
"Monopoly and the private ownership of the means of existence are therefore eliminated as an abridgement of the equal opportunity of all. "
Here is the fundamental flaw. Not the monopoly part, but the supposition that a person wants to be separated from their means of production to create some fiction of equal opportunity. (also a point here, how are you going to 'eliminate ownership of the means of existence'..... every time it has been the state, so, not much anarchy in that scheme)
and later it literally says:
“But why not give each according to the value of his work?”
Which goes against what you are proposing as 'full value for your labor'.
It continues to churn away at the problem of determining value. That problem has been addressed by the Subjective Theory of Value that was pretty much solved decades ago, yet this antique of a notion that somehow communism is some sort of answer, persists.
It persists because academia is a socialist job, and the teachers pedaling this crap require socialism to have jobs.
freeborn, I have read many good things about you and I think your heart is in the correct place, but communism is repeatedly a bad concept.
First, the incentives are screwed up when you remove people from their means of production. (The workers don't continue to do the work because the costs and inefficiencies of central planning will always degrade the value of their work worse than a free market.... they defect and start producing on the black market where their labor is worth more, or....defect to a free market country where their labor is worth more)
Secondly, as the saying goes, each according to his ability, to each according to his need, has a fundamental flaw. The needs of man are infinite, and the abilities of man are limited. That makes Communism a SCAM! It's a really bad pyramid scheme cloaked in the clothes of 'good intentions'.
(Where did you find communism, and why did you start endorsing it?)
Ok, thank you for your kind words.
Im gonna ask you the same question, for the purpose of moving past failed past endeavors.
As long as the workers continue to do the work, the goods continue to be available for consumption, yes?
Yes, as long as someone finds those goods of more subjective value than other goods, and as long as the workers find more subjective value (incentive) in continuing to work at that job and not another.
Either of those things fail, and the answer changes to no. So the question is directly dependent on subjective values.
Communism is antithetical to subjective value as subjective value is more based in individualism than collectivism.
Ok, so as long as the work continues to be done the goods are available whether accounting accounts, or falls in a lake, yes?
As long as the workers continue production the warehouses are full.
If work continues on products that nobody subjectively values, the goods that system produces ends up as waste.
Just because work continues doesn't mean that the work is producing something that is wanted.
It's not useful looking at it from the production side only. There has to be demand. Not some collectivist central planning, guess of what demand is, but acknowledgment of what each person values in a product.....subjective value.
If you look at it solely from production, you are simply pushing a rope. It's what's called a 'push system'.
What you want to see in efficient systems, is a 'pull system' so there is demand signaling of what to produce, how much to produce, at what price, at what quality, and how quickly. Again, that demand signaling is based around subjective value.
When your production is matching close to subjective value, there isn't a lot in the warehouse. Many production operations ship directly without hitting a warehouse therefore they don't have that cost associated of a product setting on a shelf.
The warehouses only order what they have demand for.
If you cant give your products away its time to make something else.
So, we have agreed that as long as the people that did all the work today to fill the shelves continue tomorrow that things go along without much change at all?
Hold on here, do you, or do you not, agree that subjective value is what's driving demand, and that demand is specific to quality, price, and speed of delivery?