[ckaihatsu]

Originally Posted by Comrade_Stalin

I’m not saying that workers can’t self-organize themselves in a hierarchy, only that one is need so they can self-organize in it.

So which comes first, then? The workers’ self-organization or the hierarchy? According to you it would have to be the hierarchy -- but then *who* creates the hierarchy? If it is not developed by the self-organization of the workers themselves then the hierarchy will be *imposed* on workers in a top-down manner.

Originally Posted by Comrade_Stalin

I am not saying that lower levels of the party should not have administrative power. No I am saying the opposite. That each level should have administrative power. Let the lower committees write the scheduling, but alone the higher committees to do the economic planning.

I think we can do *better* than this -- "economic planning" sounds too Stalinistic for our contemporary abilities. If we're agreed that mass demand can be readily aggregated on an ongoing basis then *what else* needs to be "planned", really?

Originally Posted by ckaihatsu

All of the individualized demand lists, *and* the communist economy as a whole, can be completely dynamic and flowing, through time.

All that would be needed from each person would be a "shopping list" of political demands and consumer preferences. As the simplest solution, a linear list could work just fine -- the math would be to divide 100 by the ranking of each item to come up with larger numbers for higher-ranked items. So the first item (#1) would be given 100 points, #2 would be 100 / 2, or 50 points, the third would be 100 / 3, or 33-1/3 points, and so on.

By compiling the lists over a certain area -- say by zip code, or whatever -- we would have an automatically generated group list, updated daily, reflecting the ongoing political demands and consumer preferences for thousands of people living near each other. Sorting the cumulative list by points would reveal the overall priorities for the population of that area.

(We could even provide some gray area, geographically, by defining border areas of mixed zip codes, if that was needed -- so everyone might have membership in either one area or one area plus a border area of two neighboring zip codes.)


---


I could even advance a different approach to this solution, which would be a relative-weighting system of preferences. In this method everyone would have to limit their "voting" for political demands and consumer preferences to a set number of "votes" -- say, 1000 "votes" or points per person. These 1000 points would have to be distributed over all of the demands and items being demanded. Those that are meant to be more important to someone would be given more points -- if someone was particularly adamant about getting cornflakes, then they might reserve 500 points for cornflakes alone, with the remaining 500 points distributed among all other items.


Prioritization Chart

http://tinyurl.com/2q48sf