It's a little hand-wavey though.

Who services the machines?

Are the machines centralised in mass-manufacture-scales and products distributed (as they are now); or de-centralised but also less efficient (wrt manufacture and supply chain) as a result. What would the raw materials be, and how are they powered (given the carbon-crisis).

I'd also ask what specifically are the essentials. Food? Shelter? ok. What about healthcare?

I love that you are asking these questions. Indeed I think any writing meant to describe an entire economy in a few paragraphs will necessarily be a bit hand wavey.

I did try to answer one of your questions: the machines are serviced by the members of the collective. In any plan for a society education must be considered. But much the same way that any halfway technical person can learn how to fix a 3D printer, these machines should be designed with repair in mind and along with open source designs there would be freely accessible repair guides.

Production should be somewhat decentralized so there should be many places manufacturing motors etc. but when it comes to putting the machines together I’d expect that different collectives would focus on certain machines and they would trade with people near them. Remember that you can always fall back on “people use money to exchange goods and services” I’m just imagining a model where that isn’t really the dominant way people manage their day to day survival.

I am not sure that decentralization is less efficient.

Getting the raw materials is one of the more serious questions. Generally falling back on non-automated things, firms should be cooperatively run. Also raw material consumption would arguably go down for westerners who move to this model, as there would be minimal waste and the machines would all be designed for repair.

Health care is to me essential but these things would vary from region to region based on cultural ideals and material conditions.

I am an engineer and I love to fix machines. I would rather spend my days fixing machines than working a corporate job to enrich a few executives. People who want to be Doctors or teachers often feel similarly. They need their material needs covered so they can do what they value most - helping others. I basically just think we can really streamline the whole production side of the economy and design things so everyone benefits and actually stops needing to work 40+ hours a week forever.

How would you prevent one of these collectives from, say, inventing an iPhone and monetizing it? And if you don't, aren't you back to square one again?

> How would you prevent one of these collectives from, say, inventing an iPhone and monetizing it?

You don't.

> aren't you back to square one again?

No, why would that be? We live in a world with a million top down owned capitalist corporations. If by some mass movement we get a few thousand collectives to band together, there will always be churn. Groups that dissolve, or change their aims, or seek profit over the cohesiveness of the group. You would do the same thing with them as would have been done at the beginning. Do you best not to trade with them. If you actually need what they have on offer, clone it. But the whole point of this system is to create some semblance of independence. Either people value that enough to stick with it, or they don't. IMO it's worth trying even if it might fail.

But isn't it the profit-seeking capitalists who actually bring innovations to market, to the benefit of everyone? Why would you deprive yourself of the benefit of trading with these groups? "Independence" isn't really a thing in a world with a global supply chain. It's simply not realistic to produce everything that we consume locally for anything approaching a reasonable cost. Economies of scale are extremely powerful.

I think your vision makes sense. It might not be optimal currently but as A.I., automation, and other technologies advance (Fusion fingers-crossed) I can see it becoming plausible and even desirable over the "pure-ish" capitalist economy we currently have.

Just to showcase some of the automation prototypes that makes me a hopeful believer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssZ_8cqfBlE https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/14/weedkill... https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/PlayStation-s-sec...

3-d printed homes too

Thank you. I should say that critically, this scheme is not dependent on advancement in technology. It does take advantage of the fact that computers can perform labor for free, but there are examples of the elimination of hunger and equitable distribution of food without using any advanced technology. Specifically the Sikhs in India [1] serve over 1 million free meals a day in facilities all over India, and in Vienna Austria housing is built by the city and distributed equitably [2].

Advanced technology changes what is possible, but we can do this without advanced technology. 3D printed homes for example don’t really solve the problem as framing a home isn’t expensive: it’s the land and finishing the home that cost the most.

[1] https://youtu.be/qdoJroKUwu0

[2] https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_articl...

Point accepted. Yeah technology isn't necessary, but if tech can do the same amount for the same cost removing much of the labor requirement then that's a tremendous win. Additionally the lower the cost the easier it is to append a welfare or socialist cost on the the tax payer's bill. Providing decent food, housing, and some minimal healthcare at 5% of GDP vs 40% of a nations GDP makes a world of difference.

At thresholds of 5% combined with high automation mean such social programs won't be as vehemently contested and their absence might even be viewed as a unnecessary cruelty.

Some mutant hybrid of what the Sihks do in India, and these automations might be interesting:

https://mobile.twitter.com/TechAmazing/status/14397489959166...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byDmDWq7wc8

+ a quick google of food factory gifs/videos

A hybrid mutant that maximizes yield, minimizes cost and labor, if such a permutation is realistic and technology-wise permitting.

Socialism partially generates such an antagonistic response (at least in the USA) because how much of a burden it is on others, Minimize that burden might change the fundamental collective consciousness to how people view what the government should provide.

Yes!! That is a big motivation. If supporting others is very cheap people are more likely to support it.

And I love that you're on to the food machines. I have obsessed over the idea of automated production based on the Sikh systems. I hope I can build it some day. Or even if I don't, that someone does.

> I am not sure that decentralization is less efficient.

So, maybe your vision of focussing on the essentials - food, shelter etc rules out microchips which definitely benefit from specialised employees, and centralised operations; but that will rules out a lot of future advances wherein microchips are embedded in everything, or at least until a suitable de-centralised equivalent is found.

In the meanwhile, I'd worry of the problem of being over-taken; i.e other free nations that do subscribe to capitalism and the centrally managed resource model outcompete and invade you - which is arguably the fate of many of the American tribes that lacked the weapons to fight colonialism. Not having microchips can cripple any modern army/defence-force, least of all an ad-hoc decentralised one.

Also, things like injection moulding might be out to - modern products manage cheap mass-productions by producing expensive master tools, and using them to churn out millions of items - unless tribes specialise on produce (in which case we are back to trading goods and services) then no more of these items either.

> the machines are serviced by the members of the collective

This limits how complex these machines can be, and or numerous - which in turn limits how prevalent. Also, back to the question; are all the machines going to be bare mechanical contraptions of wood and steel, or can they contain silicon - which unless you have an answer for fabrication/manufacture, cannot be repaired forever, and will need to be replaced. Modern open-source is parasitic to the capitalist economy around it - 3D printers still contain Atmel mcus and intel cpus, not to mention the motors, rotors and precision belt/shaft/bearings.

> Health care is to me essential but these things would vary from region to region based on cultural ideals and material conditions.

Where do the doctors come from? Are we hoping as many people are willing to spend a large amount of time training, or being trained, as surgeons; as there are people who need surgery? Will we still punish negligent doctors, at risk of no-one wanting to bear the burden of liability if we did?

What about law? Would anyone want to be a lawyer if it wasn't well paid? Would many current lawyers do law if it wasn't well paid?

> I am an engineer and I love to fix machines

I feel this is a strong bias colouring your opinion - many engineers love their jobs, and the things they fix/design/repair/manipulate. You seem to be arguing for a society of engineering, based on the manufacture of things (machines and their products) - but society needs more than things, and people are often motivated less by things too; by wealth and status, for example; I'm not sure everyone can find the same joy in engineering as those who select for it.

> Doctors or teachers often feel similarly

Not so sure that's true. Many engineers care more about the things than the help they provide people, and I'm sure doctors are the same too. If feels too much that everyone needs to subscribe to the same philosophy for this to work, and even then there will be some roles that are neglected in favour of more "engineery" ones..

While I do not advocate for a state-based model, I want to point out that the soviets beat the USA to orbit on a centrally planned economy. I see no reason to assume we cannot have machine tools and other high end equipment. Especially because: > open-source is parasitic to the capitalist economy

A parasite harms the host. Open source is symbiotic with the capitalist economy. I do fully expect that these machines will be built by products of the capitalist system at first. The point is that over time these people would rely less and less on the capitalist system for directly meeting their needs. Over time if this works it would behoove them to replace the entire economy they rely on with one they control. But there are first order needs like food and clothing and then there are second order needs like parts for the machine that brings them food. They can gain a lot of freedom by just covering their first order needs with machines they own.

As far as engineering, yes my examples all center around engineering because I am an engineer speaking mostly to other engineers here. But there are other people: therapists, grief counselors, teachers, doctors, librarians, carpenters, etc who would love to provide those services to friends for free if their survival was ensured.

I am imagining communities inside of the USA which simply trade with one another instead of buying from capitalist corporations. So only people who want this lifestyle would actually choose to live there. People who are super selfish and don't want to help anyone can simply keep living in the capitalist world, and see what it's like when no one cares for anyone else.

I’m not sure why you got downvoted. This is completely correct. Providing for everyone by trapping human beings in a giant production machine is inhumane. But machines are (generally) happy to do this for us.