Distribution of Goods in a Socialist State

[the last donut of the night]

Well, the title says it all. Under a capitalist economy, goods are distributed based on profit for capitalist expansion through the accumulation of capital. If a commodity can be sold, it will; but even if it is useful yet not viable to sell, the capitalist won't budge. That is why we are socialists. We want a society in which human needs are served over profit. Yet how will goods be distributed if there is no way to account for who wants them? My thinking is based on this: a few key industries have to be nationalized and given over to the workers, who would control these democratically. The rest of industries would also be taken over by workers but separate from entire government control. These workers would own the means of productions and thus get their fair share, which they don't under this miserable system. Yet how would this system exactly work out? Your opinions.

[ZeroNowhere]

"We shall either have Socialism -- and that means that the State shall have vanished; or we shall preserve the State, and then we shall have no Socialism."
Anyways, my view generally resembles De Leon's as expressed here (http://slp.org/pdf/de_leon/ddlother/fif_ques.pdf).

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Yet how will goods be distributed if there is no way to account for who wants them?

Do you think the methods used to account for demand in capitalism just disappear? Workers aren't going to just stop stock keeping if we implement socialism.

[Nwoye]

It depends on what you mean by socialism. Post-scarcity communists will tell you that goods can be made abundant through technological development and cooperation, and that goods can be distributed through a gift economy. Collectivists argue that goods should be distributed based on labor in the lower stage of communism, and based on need in the higher stage. Market Socialists however (mutualists), support worker cooperatives operating within a market, distributing goods (wages) among workers most likely based on contribution.

[JammyDodger]

An ending of infinite variety also helps matters

[the last donut of the night]

It depends on what you mean by socialism.

Well, what I mean by socialism is what Marx described. I am not an anarchist. Socialism will be a state in which workers democratically control their own means of production.

[the last donut of the night]

I don't get what you mean, SocialismorBarbarism.

[JammyDodger]

Well, what I mean by socialism is what Marx described. I am not an anarchist. Socialism will be a state in which workers democratically control their own means of production.

I run the risk of getting blasted as being a know nothing but I will take a stab at answering your original question.
I base my answer on the above statement plus im going to take into account a lot has happened since Marx was alive, his theories still stand true but we have advantages these days he would not have known about.

A good portion of how goods are distributed will be the same as today, there is still a consumer and a provider to meet that consumption.
The emphasis will just be different is all.
Basic needs met first and after they are met the rest of our collective abilities will be put to providing beyond our basic needs to the finer things in life (like a Cricket bat and a set of stumps;))
Point is, everyone will get to live in dignity.

Distribution is the link between demand and provision, in order to provide best you need to know demand, hence the planned economy.

How will the movers and shakers know what the demand is?
We will tell them.

How will we tell them?
Society (I guess) will fall something in line with a commune system, lets say a commune=1000 people, those thousand people will organise themselves elect people to be responsible for certain things, this commune knows better than anyone else what resources and items it needs.
They will pass that info up the chain and then the movers and the shakers will no exactly what they need and where it needs to get to.

The means of production freed up from making crap will meet that demand not sweat.

Staples and energy is different, ie simple statistics and logistics techniques based on population and how its spread can work those
things out, and it may be a case that your town, villiage or district will have a place where individuals can collect these things.
Still a one stop shop maybe, but it will not have tesco or walmart on the doors

All the small railways can get put back in for greater transport links and carriage, and without the carriage of needless crap the roads will be clearer.

With planned economics large projects aimed at provision will get the go ahead, if fish in the north sea needs a break for instance government could address that by building more fisheries,
Commercial fishing companies will simply bleed it dry as its the most profitable.
Planned economy under a communist government has free licence directed by our needs to make changes.
Instead of pumping shit into the sea because its cheap, the can build facilitys where gas can be made from it.
Free range to do big things when cash profit is not a concern.

Given modern production systems which can be much increased under a communist system nobody will go short.

I know a lot of folks in the middle may look to the ussr's bread lines and tut at that, but they started on a sticky wicket were not democratic for the most part and were engaged in an arms race.

In a democratic communist system democracy will actually count for something.

Ive spoken simple here on the topic

[( R )evolution]

It will be during the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, hence the needs of the proletariat will be apparent because they are in power. The workers will take over the means of production, then the needs of the masses is re-assessed and production is adjusted to meet those needs. Some have argued that the structural base will be organized in communes or soviets.

[Psy]

Capitalists currently plans production based on trends in demand. The problem is capitalists don't coordinate their plans for example JVC, Sony,Panasonic and Pinoeer (the major manufactures of professional audio/video equipment for studios) don't get together to plan how to best meet studio's need for A/V equipment as each tries to expand their marketshare even when that marketshare is other captialists in this case (meaning the commodity is means of production).

In a socialist society we would have a coordinated plan based on trends in demand.

[h9socialist]

I think the best way to envision a truly socialist distribution of goods and services is found in the concept of "the commons." Or to make that a little more specific "the economic commons." A commons is a place of free access to all -- this is in direct contradiction to the market where goods and services are commodities and access is mediated by money. The problem with a commons is that it has to be adequately stocked AND people must not be greedy. I suspect that Comandante Guevara's idea of "the new socialist man" becomes particularly relevant when the commons replaces the market.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I don't get what you mean, SocialismorBarbarism.

Y'know..taking stock of the supply left at the distribution places. When they fall below a certain set amount they simply order more. I'm not sure why anything more would be required just because we have socialism.

[the last donut of the night]

Thank you guys very much.