What type of distribution does socialism usually imply?

[UnknownPerson]

Is it usually distribution based only on fulfilling people's needs, or based on how long they work, or how much value they produce?

[Decommissioner]

I would say based on need, but how this distribution is carried out is up to the working class to decide when the time comes.

I would think that all would be provided for no matter if they work or not, I personally am not a fan of the "dont work, dont eat" approach that I have heard people espouse before. Perhaps there should be a calculated amount of labor (the minumum required from each individual to maintain society) that one can work over the course of their lifetime (one can choose to do it all at once or here and there), and provide incentives for those that do their labor rather than punishing those that don't. Necessary labor of course being things such as construction, food kitchens, maintaining infrastructure etc etc.

One example of an incentive I can think of is maybe allowing small co-ops or councils (however you want to word it) to have dibs on "commercial spaces" (lack of better term) to start a music venue or a bar or something of that nature, a space to conduct a labor of passion. But thats just one example, I am sure people could think of many other things for incentives.

[GPDP]

I think eventually, once we achieve post-scarcity, distribution will inevitably be based purely upon need and even want. But until then, I'd say at the very least the basic necessities (food, clean water, housing, health care, etc.) would be provided to everyone for free, and stuff beyond that (luxuries such as TVs or cars) will depend on contribution.

Already production is such that we can easily feed and clothe everyone in the world. Once we switch to socialism and the entire world develops on par with the first world, and we get rid of useless jobs such as marketing, can you imagine what we'll be able to do? At that point production may be such that we could realistically put a giant-ass TV in every household that wants one, whether they worked for it or not.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' -Karl Marx

[Blake's Baby]

I agree. Needs first, then wants, assuming post-scarcity, which is completely achievable, but unfortunately not completely likely or perhaps entirely desirable, at least in the short term.

OK; capitalism produces enough stuff to make everyone on earth's life comfortable, and for around 90% of earth's population materially better than it is now; for about 10% of earth's population, materially about the same as it is now (but I'd argue culturally/socially better) and for maybe 0.1% of the earth's population materially worse than it is now (essentially, the very rich).

But, that production comes at the cost of massive environmental degredation, and a huge human cost - not the horrors of the inability of capitalism to provide for the needy, which are a distribution problem, but the burnout of workers who are worked 14 hours a day or in hellish conditions or both. So maybe after the revolution we wouldn't want production to continue as it does at the moment. This may introduce a degree of scarcity into the system, until we get rational production sorted out. Also of course the aftermath of the world civil war will be pretty horrofic and we'll need to rebuild the positive aspects of the civilisation that the capitalists are going to destroy on their way out.

In this case, I'd advocate rationing by need (capitalism is rationing by price, labour-time vouchers are rationing by work). We should decide who needs what and make sure they (and we) get it - ie, communities should decide what that community needs and be responsible for distributing it on the basis of who needs what the most. Until such time as we re-establish a society of plenty anyway.

[RemoveYourChains]

Is it usually distribution based only on fulfilling people's needs, or based on how long they work, or how much value they produce?

The particulars will have to be decided by the revolutionary society in question.

BUT since you pose the question, you're obviously soliciting opinions of what we think "would be best" and why.

I would propose...

- Basic necessities are made available immediately according to need.
- Availability of scarce personal luxuries should be tied to labor contribution.
- The measure of "labor contribution" should be fairly equitable, regardless of profession.

On the last point, I mean that when all is said and done, doctors should not have higher incomes than janitors. Individual "right" to goods for working persons would, in practice, be fairly equal. The justifications for this are many...

i) "Investment in education" will not be an argument. While it is true that certain fields (let's just keep using "doctors") are very education intensive, in a socialist system people training in such fields would not be required to pay for their education, and would be materially cared for by the community though spending much (if not all) of the normal "working day" in classes.

ii) "Unskilled" work is often highly necessary work. It does not follow that society needs the doctor anymore than the sanitation worker.

iii) Tasks that are especially taxing (one way or another - either because they involve back breaking labor or high levels of stress) will be divided across more persons, and people will be educated/trained to be multi-disciplined.

[ckaihatsu]

Is it usually distribution based only on fulfilling people's needs, or based on how long they work, or how much value they produce?


The following post describes the best structuring of it that I've ever seen -- consider that a post-capitalism liberated labor itself could be included in this model and 'distributed' accordingly.








It's about distribution systems. Communism (socialism with communal distribution) is usually conceived as a gift economy, but I think a democratic-community model of distribution is a much more accurate depiction of what the intent is. Hypothetically you could have various cities democratically deciding to have different distribution models for different product groups. That seems the most workable model to me.

- Market
- Labor vouchers
- Communal-Democratic
- Gift





This is an excellent point, one I'm surprised we haven't seen earlier. You're placing these various, differentiated methods of distribution on a sliding scale according to the relative *abundance* of the component goods and services produced within.

Perhaps, then, one of the major tasks of a mass collectivized political economy administrating all of this would be to simply categorize *all* goods and services according to their abundant availability, on this sliding scale -- I picture it as a circular bulls-eye centralized point of (all) production, radiating its production outward, with gift distribution closest to the center (indicating abundance), then a bulk-pooled communal-democratic method outside of that, followed by a ratio-based labor voucher system outside of that, with a market-type system (of floating exchange rates) on the outlying peripheral area for least-common and more-specialized items.

[RichardAWilson]

Distribution should be based on work (contribution) and need for the disabled. In other words, he who doesn't work doesn't eat (unless he is disabled, in which case the State will provide the basics of life and a fixed income). - A Fixed Income which should be indexed with the Average Wage Index.

Production will increase around the world as hundreds of millions of unemployed men and women that want to work and can't find jobs begin contributing to the world's material wellbeing. In certain cases, putting the unemployed to work and eliminating unproductive jobs (the Armed Forces, the Arms Industrial Complex, Etc.) will lead to a serious shortening of workweeks. In other cases, it'll lead to serious increases in production and allocations toward public infrastructure. Still, in even more cases, it'll lead to a much greater emphasis on education, health and culture.

In the short-term, it could mean more work. We have much to do to make the economy sustainable. (Converting the world to cleaner and renewable energy, mass producing and distributing hybrids and electric cars, building high-speed railway systems and monorail systems, investing in conservation and more labor-intensive organic farming)

As a believer in Democratic Market-Socialism, I believe production and distribution will still be based on consumer (and) State demand. The workers and the state would own and control the means of production, which would be geared toward meeting consumer demand. Central-Planning wouldn't be a common feature of this method, thus allowing it to avoid the plague of problems that faced the Soviet-Union, Mao's China and even Modern Cuba and North Korea. Nonetheless, the public-sector (I.e. the State) would still provide direction for the economy.

Profit would no longer be profit in the sense that it is with capitalism.

The Profit-Motive would still be used for accounting and managerial purposes. (Such as for minimizing expenses and maximizing revenue)

However, instead of going to enrich the shareholders, surplus value would be returned to the workers and distributed to the state for providing benefits and services to those workers.