the land....how do you figure out how it should be used?

[danyboy27]

According to the most basic communist principles, the land belong to everyone right?

how do you allow people to build up small shop and house then?

For exemple, i want a start a small shop to manufacture local strawberry jam, and for that i need a space?

[Crusade]

I'm asked this question by my friends all the time and I don't even know. Hopefully you get your answer.

[IcarusAngel]

People own the land collectively so all decisions regarding land is done democratically.

Once the commune has control of the land, he produces in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/worker-cooperative-vs-t124981/index.html) fashion.

If a commune is holding land and wasting it (the way capitalists are doing, where so much land is now out of development with no one producing on it), then another people must figure out what must be done with it.

If a commune is producing something, such as jam, naturally you wouldn't want to destroy them, as people want jam in society. It would be in everybody's interest for them to keep producing. But if people wanted to make a change, they would do so democratically, perhaps moving to another area where it is easier to produce jam.

In other words, society as a whole works out what needs to be produced, who will produce it, and so on. And once they start producing, it works in a cooperative, not an exploitative, manner.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think you will always find it is difficult to get a definitive answer on how people may or may not do things in the future. It would be like asking a New England "son of liberty" in 1770 about what the fate of property owned by the crown might be after a revolution.

So at best we can speculate based on what people have done in the past or based on what we would personally argue for - the only thing that we know for sure is that it would be up to whatever people democratically decide at that point.

[Green Dragon]

I think you will always find it is difficult to get a definitive answer on how people may or may not do things in the future. It would be like asking a New England "son of liberty" in 1770 about what the fate of property owned by the crown might be after a revolution.

So at best we can speculate based on what people have done in the past or based on what we would personally argue for - the only thing that we know for sure is that it would be up to whatever people democratically decide at that point.


But such an answer always the point. It isn't that people cannot democratically decide on a course of action. Its that once a decision has been made, what sorts of information is used to help determine whether the decision was correct, and the best way forward in applying that decision.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But such an answer always the point. It isn't that people cannot democratically decide on a course of action. Its that once a decision has been made, what sorts of information is used to help determine whether the decision was correct, and the best way forward in applying that decision.Um, based on if the proposal that people voted on played out as argued to begin with. If there was a vote to grant some land to a Jam factory based on the argument that people like jam and that this particular piece of land produced good material for jam, then the assessment would be made later based on the original argument and proposal. So if a group of people had been granted land to grow berries and didn't grow any, then I think people would probably vote to use that land for something else instead. If land had been granted to produce jam on the basis that people like jam, but then the jam sat on shelves un-purchased because people didn't like jam after all or didn't like that particular jam, then yes people may vote to use the resources differently.

The point is that people would democratically decide under what criteria to grant land or resources and then also be able to democratically assess if this was beneficial or not. It's called planning the economy and free-market capitalists, state capitalists (ussr), and a potential worker society all do it. In the free-market planning is decided by corporations/banks/investors and the basis of the planning is profit (usually the next quarter's profits). In state-capitalist countries, planning was usually done by appointed bureaucrats and done on the basis of production. If planning was done by workers democratically, the basis would be on what their needs and wants are.

Where you are trying to go with this is that capitalism is naturally the best way to decide how resources are used. This is true if the aim is always profit; it's not true if the aim is meeting human needs and wants. The housing crash in the US and the crisis a couple of years ago when inflation in costs of staple foods caused widespread riots and starvation are clear proof that what's profitable is not what best helps people have their needs fulfilled.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Jimmie Higgins;1667370]Um, based on if the proposal that people voted on played out as argued to begin with. If there was a vote to grant some land to a Jam factory based on the argument that people like jam and that this particular piece of land produced good material for jam, then the assessment would be made later based on the original argument and proposal.

Yes. People can say "this land is best for a jam factory." Question remains is whether or not the land is not better for a corn field.


So if a group of people had been granted land to grow berries and didn't grow any, then I think people would probably vote to use that land for something else instead. If land had been granted to produce jam on the basis that people like jam, but then the jam sat on shelves un-purchased because people didn't like jam after all or didn't like that particular jam, then yes people may vote to use the resources differently.

As above.


The point is that people would democratically decide under what criteria to grant land or resources and then also be able to democratically assess if this was beneficial or not.

Yes, but saying a "criteria" will be used still requires an explanation as to what that "criteria" is.



Where you are trying to go with this is that capitalism is naturally the best way to decide how resources are used. This is true if the aim is always profit; it's not true if the aim is meeting human needs and wants.

Where I am going with this is that "profit" is the method by which capitalists make their decisions on production. Its the information and knowledge they employ.
Where I am also going is asking, What is the information the socialists use? How does the socialist know that they have succeeded in satisfying wants and needs? Saying the people will vote only describes the process used in making a decison. It doesn't say amything about how they determine the land is best for a jam factory or something else.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes. People can say "this land is best for a jam factory." Question remains is whether or not the land is not better for a corn field. Do people need and want corn more than they need or want jam?

The profit motive doesn't tell us what a resource is "best suited" for - only (and only at best) what is most profitable. So resources are misused all the time in capitalist societies. In a worker society, maybe a field that could produce great corn is used to build a house on, but that is because people decided that they need houses more than crops.

What is more important in both kinds of society for determining the potential for resources would be the science and research. Capitalists do this by looking at investments and projecting sales and so on. A worker society would also probably want to save good farmland for crops and not build housing on it as well as look at statistical data to determine what demands might be and how fast food and resources are being used. This would be far superior to profit deciding these things in my opinion.

For example, profit leads to very short-sighted and quarterly planning - especially for large corporations who are not dependent on one piece of land or one source of raw materials. So when lakes get overfished, fields overused, hills over-mined, capitalists usually just pick up and move to the next field, hill, or mineral deposit. Production for use would mean that communities would have more incentive in figuring out the easiest (in terms of labor and resource demands) and most long-term ways to meet their needs.


Yes, but saying a "criteria" will be used still requires an explanation as to what that "criteria" is.The same criteria capitalists now use (scientific research, projections of how well the resources can be used and so on), but most likely for different purposes. In modern society, you would go to a bank or get investors and argue why you need capital, what it is for and how you will produce a profit. If you start to go over budget, don't make any returns, or if the bank/investors just decide they no longer think the venture is profitable, they will stop making further investments and will demand that the investment is repaid or they will just liquidate what you have created so far.

It's would be the same process in a worker society except that the decision would be made through a democratic process rather than from the decision of a bank, board of investors, shareholders, or whatnot. Also the criteria - the basis the decision is made - would be based on what resources are available to the community and what is needed by the community.

If someone asks for land to grow crops on they would probably have to argue for and justify why that land and why that much and for what reason. If voters or representatives agree to the proposal, I doubt it would be a blank check unless the resources in question are not in demand or are nearly limitless - so there would probably be a review after some point - were the resources used as described in the proposal? If not, were the results predicted met? If not why and can things be turned around?

So rather than only granting resources based on profit, it would be based on needs and wants. If people were starving and needed corn, then land probably wouldn't be given to make jam until after high priority crops are taken care of. If people have staples and jam, then someone or a group might propose to set aside some wild land - or set aside land for a park - or propose a new housing community is built on land because the old houses are small.



Where I am going with this is that "profit" is the method by which capitalists make their decisions on production. Its the information and knowledge they employ.Yup.


Where I am also going is asking, What is the information the socialists use? How does the socialist know that they have succeeded in satisfying wants and needs? Socialists in the sense of organized political parties should not be deciding these things - voters or democratically elected and re-callable representatives should.

[ComradeMan]

According to the most basic communist principles, the land belong to everyone right?

how do you allow people to build up small shop and house then?

For exemple, i want a start a small shop to manufacture local strawberry jam, and for that i need a space?


No, the land does not belong to everyone, nor does it ever belong to everyone.

The right to use the land (sensibly) is the same for everyone.

In my system- :D - you would request the local work committee to help you, they would find you a building and help you out.

I do think that a hell of a lot of new buildings wouldn't be needed if the old ones weren't wasted so much. A drive through the Italian country and you see building after building abandoned in the countryside and falling to bits or in the town you see buildings whose bottom floor is a shop and whose tops floors are seemingly unused. Such a waste.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Jimmie Higgins;1667391]Do people need and want corn more than they need or want jam?

The profit motive doesn't tell us what a resource is "best suited" for - only (and only at best) what is most profitable. So resources are misused all the time in capitalist societies. In a worker society, maybe a field that could produce great corn is used to build a house on, but that is because people decided that they need houses more than crops.


Yes, because the land is more valuable, can turn a greater profit, by using it for houses than for food.



What is more important in both kinds of society for determining the potential for resources would be the science and research. Capitalists do this by looking at investments and projecting sales and so on. A worker society would also probably want to save good farmland for crops and not build housing on it as well as look at statistical data to determine what demands might be and how fast food and resources are being used. This would be far superior to profit deciding these things in my opinion.


"Profit" is a statistic. If you do not wish to use it, what is used in its place?


So when lakes get overfished, fields overused, hills over-mined, capitalists usually just pick up and move to the next field, hill, or mineral deposit. Production for use would mean that communities would have more incentive in figuring out the easiest (in terms of labor and resource demands) and most long-term ways to meet their needs.

Capialists will certainly figure out the easiest ways of using its resources (like sometimes its easier to use labor in a foreign country).

But what I am saying is that once the worker community has figured out its needs, it still needs a way to get to it.


The same criteria capitalists now use (scientific research, projections of how well the resources can be used and so on), but most likely for different purposes.

OK. So the socialist system will rely upon capitalist methods.
Ever give any thought to what that might mean to the socialist system?



In modern society, you would go to a bank or get investors and argue why you need capital, what it is for and how you will produce a profit. If you start to go over budget, don't make any returns, or if the bank/investors just decide they no longer think the venture is profitable, they will stop making further investments and will demand that the investment is repaid or they will just liquidate what you have created so far.

It's would be the same process in a worker society except that the decision would be made through a democratic process rather than from the decision of a bank, board of investors, shareholders, or whatnot. Also the criteria - the basis the decision is made - would be based on what resources are available to the community and what is needed by the community.


So in other words, the worker community would decide whether or not to continue to shovel its resources down a rattrap, or to just liquidate a failing firm.
Fine.
So what exactly have you changed? A worker owned industry in NOT uncapitalist.



If someone asks for land to grow crops on they would probably have to argue for and justify why that land and why that much and for what reason. If voters or representatives agree to the proposal, I doubt it would be a blank check unless the resources in question are not in demand or are nearly limitless - so there would probably be a review after some point - were the resources used as described in the proposal? If not, were the results predicted met? If not why and can things be turned around?

So rather than only granting resources based on profit, it would be based on needs and wants.


Since profits cannot be accrued without meeting needs and wants, there is no conflict.
In the above example, that fellow would have to argue that the lamd should be used for corn rather than homes. Seems to me the easiest way of making the determination is which use would be more valuable, that is which would turn the greatest profit, to the community.


If people were starving and needed corn, then land probably wouldn't be given to make jam until after high priority crops are taken care of. If people have staples and jam, then someone or a group might propose to set aside some wild land - or set aside land for a park - or propose a new housing community is built on land because the old houses are small.

Yes. High priorities first. But once identified, how does the community know whether they are using their available resourcs in the best manner possible?

[Jimmie Higgins]

OK. So the socialist system will rely upon capitalist methods.
Ever give any thought to what that might mean to the socialist system?

The main difference is how they will use these tools and materials and for what purpose. A hammer can be used to build a home or it can be used to build a jail - the material and tool itself do not matter - what matters is who wields the tool and for what purpose.

Yes, a socialist system will also use hammers which capitalists now use - socialist systems will still look at classical art or art from the feudal era - and people will still study engineering developed in the capitalist era just as people now still study/improve engineering developed under feudalism or by ancient societies.