Those who like to talk about the alleged difficulties of economic calculation in a
possible future socialist political-economy do not understand the objective -- and
recognized -- difficulties with calculations of supply and demand in really-existing
capitalism.





Scarcity of employment and poverty of goods serve the profiteering purpose of the
capitalist mode of economy.

Capitalism is organized poverty masquerading as the efficient co-ordination of
supplies with demand. Capitalism is an organized collusion to keep either production
low, or consumption low.  Supply and demand only seem to be harmonized; but merely
because supply and demand are both reconciled and attuned to chronic scarcity --
even artificial scarcity, manufactured shortages, persistent deficiencies. A scarcity of
goods is accommodated to a scarcity of demand.

The capitalist ideology teaches us that scarcity is unconquerable; and then, tells us
that capitalism best regulates supply and demand. And yet, money is a very big part
of the equation. Supplies of goods demand a supply of money; and demand is
measured in units of money.





As a socialist, I do assume and postulate that a socialist society will involve free
exchange between individuals, between cooperatives, and between communities.
In fact, I see the famous communist formula -- "From each according to ability;
to each according to need" -- as a form and kind of free exchange, an arrangement
that entails free exchange. Socialism is a system and method of exchange. As I see
socialism/communism, each cooperative and each community will produce a surplus,
and it is this surplus that will be freely exchanged for the surplus of other cooperatives
and communities.  One could say: from each individual as they are able, to each
individual as they have need. One can also say: from each cooperative or community
as it is able, to each cooperative or community as it has need. I am not suggesting a
profiteering form of exchange, or a free-market form of exchange. Rather, as a self-
declared socialist/communist, I am proposing a cooperative, mutualist form of free-
sharing exchange, a market-free form of contributive and participatory exchange.





I have heard it said that "a socialist society doesn't engage in exchange/trade".
This is not a true and correct reading of what socialism/communism propose or
envision for socialism/communism.  Socialism and communism are all about
mutualism, and mutualism is all about natural reciprocity and free sharing.
The difference between capitalism and socialism is not exchange itself, but the
purpose of exchange.  In capitalism, the purpose of exchange is private profit. 
In socialism, the purpose of exchange is inter-personal, inter-community, and
inter-national aid and assistance.  In communsim, the purpose of exchange is the
mutual welfare of all, the common good of every individual and of every community.
In a socialist community, there is free-sharing exchange, but there is no free-market
exchange.  In a communist society, there is market-free sharing, but there is no
profiteering exhange.

"From each according to ability; to each according to need" means that those who
are able and willing to produce will also be those who are entitled to freely consume
as they have need.

I have heard it said that "volunteering in free association with one another, and taking
freely from all that is produced doesn't incorporate a notion of exchange/trade". 
However, socialists and communists believe that free association is all about people
working together, producing together, in order to provide for themselves as they have
need.  If there is production and consumption in a socialist/communist arrangement,
then there is -- as a matter of course -- an exchange arrangement.  Each individial
produces as they are able, and consumes as they have need, and this is both logically
and necessarily a system and method of exchange.  If there is an organized process of
give and take, then this is both clearly and analytically a more or less complex network
of routine exchange.





In a socialist society, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Freedom of access to what
one needs must be preceded by freedom of access to productive labor. The communist
formula is a moral/ethical formula. If one is to take what one needs, then one must take
only what one needs, and no more than that. And, if we want there to be enough prosperity,
so that all can have what they need, then each and every able person must do their part
to produce the needs of people. It is important that people, living in a cooperative and
socialist society, act responsibly, judiciously, and rationally. There can be no consumption
unless there is production. Responsible consumption must co-exist with responsible
production. This will secure social harmony and peace. If one can produce, then one
ought to produce; if one has needs, then one ought to take what one needs. How much
labor will be necessary to provide the needs of people will depend on how many goods
and services people need. And so, there should be a natural reduction in necessary
labor, if people understand that what they take from the commonwealth has a direct
consequence on the amount of labor people will have to do in order to supply goods and
services. It is obvious that too much consumption is not healthy, because obesity causes
illness, for example. It is also obvious that too much production is harmful to the natural
environment. Enlightened self-interest on the part of an educated population will serve to
curtail both production and consumption.





Value is a function of both scarcity and utility, in that the value of a useful good is closely
related  to the scarcity of a useful good. The value of a necessary and vital good depends
upon the scarcity of a  necessary and vital good. At least, this is one way of seeing value.





When scarcity has been conquered, it may be that considerations of exchange-value
will finally be surmounted. I think this possibility is the basis for Marx's distinction
between early socialism and mature communism, between a system of right based
on merit, and a system of freedom based on need.  This distinction can be thought
of as socialism being a transitional phase or project, with communism being thought
of as a flowering or perfecting stage. However, I do not use this distinction in that I
identify socialism and communism as being the same arrangement, the same
organization. Once socialism has been established democratically, we the people
can then go on to experiment and verify -- through trial and error -- just how far we can
take the libertarian and democratic principles of socialism/communism.

Post-scarcity socialism is often what some call communism. Since I see no substantive
difference between society and community, I also see no essential difference between
socialism and communism.





Opportunity-cost calculation has an important place in any and every rational
political-economy -- including a realistic and sensible socialist/communist mode
of political-economy.





In a post-scarcity environment, in a free-sharing socialist/communist political-economy,
no reasonable individual will be willing to give more than they get, and no responsible
person will take more than they need -- which is equivalent to saying that no reasonable
person will work more than they need to work. In such an economy, the individual person
will work in order to contribute enough to satisfy those needs that only productive labor
can both produce and provide. All individual surplus production must also be seen as
answering the social needs of the individual. In other words, an individual who has all
that he or she needs, will still have the need to live in a social environment of plenty.
The prosperity of one's community/society is also a personal need.





There are objective needs and there are subjective wants. I am not sure how these can
be always classified or differentiated. But, I do believe that educated, enlightened, and
sober individuals will know that the more we want, the more work will be needed to
supply what we want.  If my superfluous wants mean that others will have to engage in
excessive work, then my wants will be thoughtless and unconscionable. If people
immoderately want more than they need, this will require an inordinate use of resources,
and can cause more destruction of the natural environment than can be assimilated by
that environment.




"Inflation is being broke with a lot of money in your pocket."
-- Paulette Brussell




"The ignorance of the world leaves one at the mercy of its malice."
-- William Hazlitt