Workers vs. consumers in a socialist economy

[HeyJustLooking]

Hey, I've been talking a bit with this guy who studies bussiness-something and is a pretty strong supporter of free markets.

He says that letting the workers take control of the production would never work, not only because the workers would possibly work less, but also because they wouldn't want to make the products that the consumer wants.

He says that workers naturally have a desire to be creative and explore their products like an artist, which may be more exciting to work with, but often ends in failure as a product in the eyes of the consumer.
When a person recieves economic freedom, he might continue working, but it will be to fullfill his own personal goals, rather than trying to bring better products to others. As example; the visual artist making abstract art nobody wants to buy or understands, rather than using his skills to spend years studying academic painting to get a job in the entertainment or marketing industry, as he previously would have been forced to by the market to make a living.

He also says that workers have a kind of snobery towards what kind of products the consumer needs. As an example a chef might want customers to eat french mushroom soup with insects, because it is a delecasy, 'healthier', ecologically friendly, ensures good conditions for the animals and keeps chefs happy and occupied.
Whereas in a capitalist economy, the consumer activily chooses not to eat that kind of food, but instead eat at fastfood places, despite the food being unhealthy, the animals living in tough conditions and the workers being treated badly.
Who are we to decide what a person wants from his food, when he says he thinks differently?

Therefore workers are not capable of being in charge of themselves, as they would always choose to be 'egoistic', rather than making products that appeal to the mass market. The market though, is a way to force the workers to make the products that the people want, rather than what the worker wants to produce, as only the products that the most amount of people are willing to spend their hard-earned money on, can survive in the competitive market.

So is this guy onto something?
Are the workers not capable of fulfilling the wishes of the people without a market telling workers what people want?
And if not, could(or should?) the consumers somehow be able to force the workers to make products that they want, even though the workers don't want to make it?

[Railyon]

He says that letting the workers take control of the production would never work, not only because the workers would possibly work less, but also because they wouldn't want to make the products that the consumer wants.

The bolded part made me go DURRR. Now that's a stupid argument if I ever saw one.

On consumption habits, you'd have to ask, who are the consumers? Wouldn'T that be the workers themselves? Production in socialism is based on need, democratically agreed upon. I'd say if the need for something is big enough to warrant capital investment to satisfy a market, it sure as hell is enough for socialized production if we take it that way, isn't it?

Usually it's the other way around - the need is there but the market can't deliver.

[La Comédie Noire]

If you view the free market as a realm of free choice that makes sense, but then you'd be ignoring the billions of dollars put into advertising and corporate propaganda every year to shape people's desires.

Needs and Desires change with each epoch. So it will be with communism.

[Book O'Dead]

The bolded part made me go DURRR. Now that's a stupid argument if I ever saw one.

On consumption habits, you'd have to ask, who are the consumers? Wouldn'T that be the workers themselves? Production in socialism is based on need, democratically agreed upon. I'd say if the need for something is big enough to warrant capital investment to satisfy a market, it sure as hell is enough for socialized production if we take it that way, isn't it?

Usually it's the other way around - the need is there but the market can't deliver.

Also, "consumer" is a euphemism intended to hide the class content and origin of those expected to vainly go out and buy up with their credit cards all that they've produced or with the meager fraction they've received as wages.

[Book O'Dead]

Therefore workers are not capable of being in charge of themselves, as they would always choose to be 'egoistic', rather than making products that appeal to the mass market. The market though, is a way to force the workers to make the products that the people want, rather than what the worker wants to produce, as only the products that the most amount of people are willing to spend their hard-earned money on, can survive in the competitive market.


A statement that places its author in the ranks of "Opposing Ideology".

[La Comédie Noire]

It should also be noted when Karl Marx used the term production, it encompassed consumption, which he considered a very important part of any labor process.

We have this view of consumption as a very passive thing, which it can be under capitalism, but it can be a very active thing as well. For instance a painter consumes paints and canvas and creates paintings.

[x359594]

...could(or should?) the consumers somehow be able to force the workers to make products that they want, even though the workers don't want to make it?

This is another false dichotomy.

Producers are also consumers as others have noted. In a socialist society the necessities of life such as food, shelter and clothing would perforce be made and distributed to all. Any other consumer goods would be made according to demand by the producers themselves in their capacity as consumers.

[Tim Cornelis]

In my view, which is not shared by all, consumers and workers would jointly deliberate on production (through mandated and recallable delegates) in a distribution cooperative. This would ensure consumer goods are what consumers desire.

[Regicollis]

I fail to understand why there should be a huge difference between what workers want to produce and what workers want to consume. A huge part of the pleasure with making something is to see it put to good use.

I also think you provide some really horrible examples. People don't eat fast food because that is what they really want - they eat shit food that destroys the environment and the people who eat it because that is what is available and affordable. I also cant see why an advertising person would be more useful to society than an abstract artist. At least the abstract artist doesn't spend his entire day trying to annoy people by lying and manipulating them.

[HeyJustLooking]

The bolded part made me go DURRR. Now that's a stupid argument if I ever saw one.

On consumption habits, you'd have to ask, who are the consumers? Wouldn'T that be the workers themselves? Production in socialism is based on need, democratically agreed upon. I'd say if the need for something is big enough to warrant capital investment to satisfy a market, it sure as hell is enough for socialized production if we take it that way, isn't it?

Usually it's the other way around - the need is there but the market can't deliver.

No, the workers(producers) in a specific industry aren't the only ones consuming their own products. A painter still needs food and a chef still needs visual stimulation.

What do you mean by democratically agreed upon? Like, if 6 out of 10 says we all need to eat bugs, then that's what we need? What if a niché group needs something nobody else like or want to produce?
The word democratic is used everywhere, liberals claim free market is the most democratic way of distribution and several not-so-democratic authorities have included the word in their name.

And what is it in terms of consumer needs, that the market can't deliver, which will be so much easier to deliver when the market doesn't decide? (I'm mostly talking about the west here)


If you view the free market as a realm of free choice that makes sense, but then you'd be ignoring the billions of dollars put into advertising and corporate propaganda every year to shape people's desires.

Needs and Desires change with each epoch. So it will be with communism.

The guy also claims that advertising and propaganda has a minimal effect on what people buy and that successfull companies succeed by making good products.
People make their choice based on what they like from experience(human nature) and what their friends recommend. They "aren't so stupid they suddenly like something else because of advertisement", and in the cases where they do, it's because the advertisement is part of the product. Choice of brand(whether it is a green brand or some fashion) is also how some people choose to identify themselves. Removing the brand would be like removing part of the product.


A statement that places its author in the ranks of "Opposing Ideology".
Well, it wasn't really my statement, rather a quote of someone with different oppinion than me. I included it to show how consciously anti-worker he is.
Although I did consider posting the thread in the other section. A mod can move the thread if they feel it necessary. I'm just here to learn, not to oppose your ideology or anything.


I fail to understand why there should be a huge difference between what workers want to produce and what workers want to consume. A huge part of the pleasure with making something is to see it put to good use.

I also think you provide some really horrible examples. People don't eat fast food because that is what they really want - they eat shit food that destroys the environment and the people who eat it because that is what is available and affordable. I also cant see why an advertising person would be more useful to society than an abstract artist. At least the abstract artist doesn't spend his entire day trying to annoy people by lying and manipulating them.
Their is a difference because goodselling products require more uninteresting work(market research, education etc) and gives of less personal fullfilments(creative freedom, self expression, experimentation, own personal views on how things should be made and what it should develop into in the future) than bad selling products.

Why do you think you know better what people want than people themselves? Also, people don't just east fastfood because it's available and affordable. Fastfood is also fast to eat, easy to prepare, easy to eat and tastes good. All these things help relieve stress, not all people see food the same way you do.
Advertisements that annoy people rarely work and therefore don't continue in a market economy. If they worked, they would bring in more money to the companies which means it can keep running and keep giving wages to workers. Unlike bad abstract art, that, while it doesn't annoy anyone, doesn't help anyone either.

[Book O'Dead]

Well, it wasn't really my statement, rather a quote of someone with different oppinion than me. I included it to show how consciously anti-worker he is.


I understand.

[Rafiq]

What is a "Socialist economy" and why are we having discussions on "what it looks like"?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Revolution starts with U]

I have seen no argument as to why management and ownership is so much better equipped at meeting consumer demand. Without that, it's really a moot point, eh?

Also "the Consumer" in a capitalist economy is not actually reflective of real demand. "Effective economic demand requires both need and corresponding purchasing power," says Hazlitt. "The Consumer" eats fast food because it is seen as a cheap alternative to actually eating healthy. And why eat healthy when your job doesn't pay enough to do so, and you're going to be stuck in it for the rest of your life anyway?

[Revolution starts with U]

]No, the workers(producers) in a specific industry aren't the only ones consuming their own products. A painter still needs food and a chef still needs visual stimulation.

Right. So why would management and ownership be any better equipped for this job? What is it about having contempt for worker and consumer alike that makes one better at serving their needs?



And what is it in terms of consumer needs, that the market can't deliver, which will be so much easier to deliver when the market doesn't decide? (I'm mostly talking about the west here)

Food and housing for a start. Durable and well crafted goods for a second.



The guy also claims that advertising and propaganda has a minimal effect on what people buy and that successfull companies succeed by making good products.

I actually agree with this, and think it's quite patronizing to suggest the sheeple are just lead around by pretty colors and big tits. It does have an effect, just not as big of one as not having the money to actually buy any of the products you really want.




Their is a difference because goodselling products require more uninteresting work(market research, education etc) and gives of less personal fullfilments(creative freedom, self expression, experimentation, own personal views on how things should be made and what it should develop into in the future) than bad selling products.

Source?

Why do you think you know better what people want than people themselves?
Ok, now you've just jumped off the train into the land of doublethink...
What makes YOU think ownership knows what people want any better than themselves? Again, without an answer to this, the whole question is moot.

Also, people don't just east fastfood because it's available and affordable.
Ok, now watch your checklist. See if you notice anything:

Fastfood is also fast to eat,
It's economical

easy to prepare,
Economical

easy to eat
It's not, but still this is an economic issue.

and tastes good.
It doesn't. But this is the only point on your list that actually is part of your stated cause of the list; there are other reasons to fast food's success than its ease and affordability.


All these things help relieve stress, not all people see food the same way you do.

Stress of what? Perhaps the alienation caused by the wage labor system; ie, "workin for the man every night and day."

I can tell you this about ads tho;
If I have long term payments but I need cash now, I'm calling JG Wentworth at 877 CASH NOW ;)

[Blake's Baby]

....

And what is it in terms of consumer needs, that the market can't deliver, which will be so much easier to deliver when the market doesn't decide? (I'm mostly talking about the west here)...

Almost everything. For a start, power supply, transportation, housing, medicine, water, food, sewerage systems. You know, stuff people need but doesn't necessarily turn in great profits.

It might not be as good at supplying pornography, electronics like Playstations, and fizzy drinks. But almost anything else is going to be better. Mostly stuff that let's face it humanity did without for 99.999999% of its existence (OK, and pornography, which seems to have existed for at least 2,500 years and most probably a lot longer).

[La Comédie Noire]

The guy also claims that advertising and propaganda has a minimal effect on what people buy and that successfull companies succeed by making good products.
People make their choice based on what they like from experience(human nature) and what their friends recommend. They "aren't so stupid they suddenly like something else because of advertisement", and in the cases where they do, it's because the advertisement is part of the product. Choice of brand(whether it is a green brand or some fashion) is also how some people choose to identify themselves. Removing the brand would be like removing part of the product.

I don't think this is true, while advertising may have begun as an awareness campaign it's turned into something entirely different. Advertising not only sells you the product it sells you an experience and an identity. It doesn't necessarily make them stupid, it makes them social creatures open to suggestion.

[HeyJustLooking]

I have seen no argument as to why management and ownership is so much better equipped at meeting consumer demand. Without that, it's really a moot point, eh?

Right. So why would management and ownership be any better equipped for this job? What is it about having contempt for worker and consumer alike that makes one better at serving their needs?


Food and housing for a start. Durable and well crafted goods for a second.


I actually agree with this, and think it's quite patronizing to suggest the sheeple are just lead around by pretty colors and big tits. It does have an effect, just not as big of one as not having the money to actually buy any of the products you really want.



Source?

Ok, now you've just jumped off the train into the land of doublethink...
What makes YOU think ownership knows what people want any better than themselves? Again, without an answer to this, the whole question is moot.

Ok, now watch your checklist. See if you notice anything:

It's economical

Economical

It's not, but still this is an economic issue.

It doesn't. But this is the only point on your list that actually is part of your stated cause of the list; there are other reasons to fast food's success than its ease and affordability.

Stress of what? Perhaps the alienation caused by the wage labor system; ie, "workin for the man every night and day."

I can tell you this about ads tho;
If I have long term payments but I need cash now, I'm calling JG Wentworth at 877 CASH NOW ;)

1. I never wrote companies would be anti-consumer. Quite the opposite, they are supposedly more pro-consumer because they, unlike workers, think more of the demands of the costumers than of the workers.

2. If food and housing is all you hope to see in society, then you have pretty low standards. Social democratic reformism alone, I believe, can easily achieve this.

3. You want a source which proves that well-selling products are the ones with less freedom to the workers?
What is it that you doubt? That big companies restrict workers or that big companies actually make money from their anti-worker products? How well do you think companies where workers are thriving in freedom, richness and creativity is doing compared to the oppressing companies they are competing with? There is a reason companies treat workers horrible, it's to force them to produce cheaper or superior quality products, not plain sadism.
Also, you should be providing a source that the opposite is true. I'm the one who made a thread in the learning section.

4. I never said ownership knows better. The costumers are the ones who do, for according to liberals, the customers are always right and if the companies disagree, they seize to exist. If McDonalds stopped selling burgers or soft drinks, they would go bankrupt. Most of the money the companies make come from selling their products to the workers themselves and workers buy what they think is most important with the money from the limited amount of products they can produce, so the 'workers are too poor to buy products they really want and companies don't give them what they want' doesn't really count here. Companies go bankrupt all the time because their products loose popularity. An independent worker could continue despite not delivering.

5. Money isn't everything; time, energy and whatever a person thinks is a value is a value as well. More time spend preparing and eating food will always mean less time and energy for all the other things some people want in life, nomatter how rich they are, and yes some people think it's easier to eat burger with your hands rather than with knife, fork, spoon and chopping stick and yes, a lot of people prefer the taste of a burger with a can of coke over a musselsoup with herbal tea or any of the other gourmet foods. Plenty of middleclass/rich people eat burgers and french fries, as well as enjoy a can of coke once in a while.

And sorry, but that's a pretty bad ad, I would never listen to some made up person who thinks he knows me and thinks he can tell me who I like. It talks down to me as a person making me think that the company doesn't believe I myself am capable of making independent choices.
Here is a general rule of good advertisement: non-effective commercials say: "Buy our products because we, the workers and the stuff we create, is awesome", effective commercials say: "Buy our products because we, the humble workers, think that you, the consumer, is awesome". Try checking Coca Cola Zero or Apple commercials, they say "you, the consumer, is awesome".


Almost everything. For a start, power supply, transportation, housing, medicine, water, food, sewerage systems. You know, stuff people need but doesn't necessarily turn in great profits.

It might not be as good at supplying pornography, electronics like Playstations, and fizzy drinks. But almost anything else is going to be better. Mostly stuff that let's face it humanity did without for 99.999999% of its existence (OK, and pornography, which seems to have existed for at least 2,500 years and most probably a lot longer).

I already have all the above things and so does everyone I've ever met in my social democratic reformed capitalist welfare-state country. This is not something we are concerned about, as the market and a bit of taxes does the job just fine, even when we are without a job.
I am not an economist, but even the countries without those things could probably benefit from a little bit of industrialisation from market capitalism/state capitalism despite all the bad things it also brings. I don't think their poverty comes from capitalism, but from imperialism, state dictatorships and failed charity.
Also, those fields bring in plenty of profits. Tons of people work in those industries.

Also, the statement that porn, playstation and pepsi isn't necessary to a person, is pretty totalitarian. Who do you think you are to deny a person what she believes gives her pleasure, despite it being available? Also, she probably doesn't give a crap about what people did a thousand years ago and why should she? She wants her products to appeal to her and her concerns right now, not some ideals in the sky or some buddhist philosophy about 'human greed' blaming basic human nature and instinct for all the worlds problems.

[Rafiq]

To post above, "Totalitarian"? This forum isn't for spineless Liberals, none of those are necessary for a person, i.e. It is capital that decides what is "necessary" in luxury life, not "an individial". The individuals actions are merely determined by the mode of production. Fuck "Indivuduality". THAT'S buddhist shit right there. Personally I hate lifestylists but your post is disgustingly Idealist, as if we live in a zero level society dictated by individual free will. Yes, being born into a world in which you are drowned with ads has nothing to do with consumer choice, it's just individual expressions of freeeeeee will!

A persons "pleasure" is artificial. Their "preference' is dictated by their enviroment.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Blake's Baby]

Never mentioned 'human nature' as I don't believe in it. And I didn't say porn would be unavailable under socialism. It probably just won't be as good at providing it as capitalism is.

Find some other strawman to argue with.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, the business student may have a stronger point than the left wants to admit, and this ties into the utter bankruptcy of the "workers control" slogan.

Christopher Read wrote in his Lenin bio:

"One was so-called workers’ control, which would be better translated as ‘workers’ supervision’, which appeared to correspond with Lenin’s plans for transition. However, Lenin quickly turned against the movement because it usually meant the takeover of individual factories by their individual workforce. This then turned factories into support networks for their workers, not efficient production units. It promoted what Lenin feared to be a process of subdividing and sectionalizing the working class into competing micro-units rather than drawing them together as a whole."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59563810/LeninRevLife

Venezuela's "co-management" model should be examined further, because I think it may provide a better left alternative.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

He was debating about utilitarianism which isn't socialism or communism.

"To know what is useful for a dog, one must study dog-nature. This nature itself is not to be deduced from the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he who would criticise all human acts, movements, relations, etc., by the principle of utility, must first deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch. Bentham makes short work of it. With the driest naiveté he takes the modern shopkeeper, especially the English shopkeeper, as the normal man. Whatever is useful to this queer normal man, and to his world, is absolutely useful. This yard-measure, then, he applies to past, present, and future." - Karl Marx

He's a simpleton for not distinguishing the two.

[Strannik]

Bourgeois justifications always end up with the concept of isolated atomic Self. Also, they just love dichotomies. Once I considered all these arguments serious intellectual problems, but at some point I understood that they are all based on arbitrarily established cathegories that are meant to justify a very narrow and simplified sense of individuality.

Socialism has won only when people make no distinction between the interests of workers and interests of consumers or between interests of people in one factory and another factory or between society and individual. This, I believe, is what socialism is about - removing arbitrary distinctions to create a unified society.

If one insists on seeing the society as consisting of atomic individuals, where failure or unhappiness of one can be irrelevant or even beneficial to others, then there is really nothing to criticize about bourgeois worldview or capitalism.

If one insists on systemic approach - we are not just atomic individuals but our relations to other humans and nature are also part of our identities and we become poorer whenever we lose them - then arguments derived from bourgoise dichotomies (producer-consumer, man-nature) make no sense.

[ckaihatsu]

Hey, I've been talking a bit with this guy who studies bussiness-something and is a pretty strong supporter of free markets.

He says that letting the workers take control of the production would never work, not only because the workers would possibly work less, but also because they wouldn't want to make the products that the consumer wants.


This *is* an assumption based on a false dichotomy, as others have noted.

With direct collective determination over the means of (mass) production, it would just be a matter of word-of-mouth, daily news (journalism), and production reports to make production match consumer demand.

(I'll use a dramatic event as an example, for the sake of illustration: If an unpreventable catastrophe hit, like a tornado, and suddenly many people were homeless with several requiring medical attention, news would travel and the appropriate workers could be coordinated to respond to such an event. Also, undoubtedly there would already be procedures in place for such an event with medical-minded types who consciously prepared and trained for that kind of work.)





He says that workers naturally have a desire to be creative and explore their products like an artist, which may be more exciting to work with, but often ends in failure as a product in the eyes of the consumer.


Certainly many would *not* want to dedicate themselves to *mass* production, and would rather do more-individualistic, d.i.y.-type kinds of work -- but others *would* want to address common-denominator, large-scale production issues, as for livable housing, etc.





When a person recieves economic freedom, he might continue working, but it will be to fullfill his own personal goals, rather than trying to bring better products to others. As example; the visual artist making abstract art nobody wants to buy or understands, rather than using his skills to spend years studying academic painting to get a job in the entertainment or marketing industry, as he previously would have been forced to by the market to make a living.


"Making a living" is a concept that is simply not compatible / congruent with a post-capitalist, post-scarcity material environment. No one would *have* to work for sustenance in such an environment.

If there was a *significant* lack of liberated-labor supply for outstanding mass demand, that would be a (revolutionary) political issue and would be newsworthy, to say the least.





He also says that workers have a kind of snobery towards what kind of products the consumer needs. As an example a chef might want customers to eat french mushroom soup with insects, because it is a delecasy, 'healthier', ecologically friendly, ensures good conditions for the animals and keeps chefs happy and occupied.


Or, we might see this artiste chef primarily as a *consumer*, rather than as a producer, if people are that unwilling to sample the creations.





The market though, is a way to force the workers to make the products that the people want, rather than what the worker wants to produce, as only the products that the most amount of people are willing to spend their hard-earned money on, can survive in the competitive market.




So is this guy onto something?
Are the workers not capable of fulfilling the wishes of the people without a market telling workers what people want?




Whereas in a capitalist economy, the consumer activily chooses not to eat that kind of food, but instead eat at fastfood places, despite the food being unhealthy, the animals living in tough conditions and the workers being treated badly.
Who are we to decide what a person wants from his food, when he says he thinks differently?


I, with my politics, actually *agree* with you here -- without a market mechanism to determine these kinds of things, I would say that they would necessarily be *political* issues instead, with potentially competing factional interests from food-service types, healthy-eating types, animal-rights types, and worker-ombudsman types, respectively.

The more standardization and centralization that can be accomplished among these, and other, parties, the better for the revolution as a whole.





Therefore workers are not capable of being in charge of themselves, as they would always choose to be 'egoistic', rather than making products that appeal to the mass market.


No, not necessarily -- it's a presumption. People have widely ranging personal and professional interests.





And if not, could(or should?) the consumers somehow be able to force the workers to make products that they want, even though the workers don't want to make it?


Yes, in a sense -- just as *any* mass-political movement nowadays exerts a kind of public-sensibility-force against business-as-usual, around *any* issue.


[8] communist economy diagram

http://postimage.org/image/1bvfo0ohw/

[Revolution starts with U]

1. I never wrote companies would be anti-consumer. Quite the opposite, they are supposedly more pro-consumer because they, unlike workers, think more of the demands of the costumers than of the workers.

I never wrote that you wrote that so...
The question remains; why are private companies supposedly more pro consumer than workplace democracies and cooperatives, etc; than worker run business?
You have to answer this question or the whole topic is moot.



2. If food and housing is all you hope to see in society, then you have pretty low standards. Social democratic reformism alone, I believe, can easily achieve this.

You believe it. It's yet to be true. Idealism is fun for a while tho :wub:
(Also, where did I say that's ALL I desire?)


3. You want a source which proves that well-selling products are the ones with less freedom to the workers?

Yes. Period. Forget what I do or don't doubt. Source, plz.

What is it that you doubt? That big companies restrict workers or that big companies actually make money from their anti-worker products? How well do you think companies where workers are thriving in freedom, richness and creativity is doing compared to the oppressing companies they are competing with?
Google's actually pretty good on worker autonomy I hear...


There is a reason companies treat workers horrible, it's to force them to produce cheaper or superior quality products, not plain sadism.

I think it's a mixture of the two, but ok... irrelevant. Source plz


Also, you should be providing a source that the opposite is true. I'm the one who made a thread in the learning section.

That's doesn't even begin to make sense! I have to prove your ridiculous claims (I'm sorry, your friends... but you stopped even referring to him... kind of like when I had to ask a cop if you thought you bought a stolen AR15 and didn't know it, could you get it registered and said it was my friend that needed to know)?


4. I never said ownership knows better. The costumers are the ones who do, for according to liberals, the customers are always right and if the companies disagree, they seize to exist.
Right.. so why again is ownership/management better equipped at gauging consumer demand? You're not answering the question, and by not doing so you further prove the point is moot.
If private companies are not better at gauging than worker run companies... what's the point? What are you arguing?



5. Money isn't everything; time, energy and whatever a person thinks is a value is a value as well. More time spend preparing and eating food will always mean less time and energy for all the other things some people want in life, nomatter how rich they are, and yes some people think it's easier to eat burger with your hands rather than with knife, fork, spoon and chopping stick and yes, a lot of people prefer the taste of a burger with a can of coke over a musselsoup with herbal tea or any of the other gourmet foods. Plenty of middleclass/rich people eat burgers and french fries, as well as enjoy a can of coke once in a while.

Good for them. What does this have to do with the discussion?


And sorry, but that's a pretty bad ad, I would never listen to some made up person who thinks he knows me and thinks he can tell me who I like. It talks down to me as a person making me think that the company doesn't believe I myself am capable of making independent choices.
Here is a general rule of good advertisement: non-effective commercials say: "Buy our products because we, the workers and the stuff we create, is awesome", effective commercials say: "Buy our products because we, the humble workers, think that you, the consumer, is awesome". Try checking Coca Cola Zero or Apple commercials, they say "you, the consumer, is awesome".

Wtf... :confused:

When's the last time you told a joke friend?

[Zulu]

So is this guy onto something?

No.





Are the workers not capable of fulfilling the wishes of the people without a market telling workers what people want?
Replace the markets with a vanguard party, and there you go.

[Revolution starts with U]

Replace the markets with a vanguard party, and there you go.

So now it's political oppurtunists that know better what consumers want than consumers?!

When will it end, oh Lord :crying:

[HeyJustLooking]

So what I can gather from the responses is:

Consumer needs will change as we go from capitalism to socialism.

I think a lot of needs will change, like those determined by economic reasons or society, but even if what that guy said about brainwashing ads and no individuality is true, what about the needs determined by basic human psycology and biology? Surely, our subconsiousness must prefer some products by instinct. An extreme example: If both are available, we would never permanently replace food with sand as a preference just because an ad or the state tells us it's the cool thing to do.

In case consumer and worker interest aren't exactly the same:

'Production reports' will decide what the workers create.
Consumers will, in a sense, be able to decide what workers create, even though the workers might not want to.
Not everyone hates massproduction without own influence in what is done.
It's okay if some workers don't produce anything, while also recieving goods from others.
It's okay if some workers only produce products usefull to themselves, while also recieving goods from others.
Different interests will split people into political groups. (potentially competing factional interests from food-service types, healthy-eating types, animal-rights types, and worker-ombudsman types, respectively)

It seems like not all workers will want to create what the consumers demand and that there are two suggested solutions:
Either the consumers force the workers or the workers are allowed to produce what they want.

If we force the workers:
Will that not be against marxist values, or is workers control mostly about recieving the full result of the work? And will the workers not rebell, if they fell like they are being restricted intellectually during work?
Can 'Production reports' not be corrupted, for example by those political groups(in the food case vegans against meat-eaters)?

If consumers let the non-usefull product producing workers not contribute as much:
Will the remainding workers still be able to satisfy needs despite this? I heard that socialism should be much more effective, allthough I'm not entirely sure how, but I also read somewhere that the state will never be able to compete directly with the market, which was one of the reasons socialism had to be global.

@Revolution starts with U
If you want to know more about the liberal view of markets, I suggest you read a dedicated book or debate some liberals. They will probably be able to give you much more precise and appropriately sourced answers than I.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't understand who you think these sperate 'workers' and 'consumers' are.

Consider the Comrade Madonna Sand-cake Factory... where 50 workers make cakes made of sand just because they want to, day after day after. A reasonable assumption in your scenario, yes?

Consider the consumers in HeyJustLookingagrad, a commune named after a particularly clever thinker in the immediately pre-revolutionary period. They have to eat sand cakes day after day after day, because that';s what they're given by the Comrade Madonna Sand-cake Factory. Also a reasonable assumption in your scenario, yes?

As the 'workers' in the factory are also to a great extent the 'consumers' in the commune, why do they keep making the cakes that they don't want? Why do they sit there every evening eating horrible sand-cakes and saying 'those silly fuckers at the Comrade Madonna Sand-cake Factory have made fucking sand-cakes again, I wish they'd stop, no-one likes their sand-cakes. I should tell them when I go to work tomorrow', and then never do anything about it?

Workers control their production. 'Society at large' (that is, people organising themselves as consumers) requests ... what, a million bicycles let's say. The workers (that is, the same people organising themselves as producers) at the Comrade Morgan Freeman Light Engineering works say 'we can make 1000 bicycles a year, we need x-amount of tubular aluminium (or whatever)'. Other factories will make other parts of the order. The workers at the aluminium works 20 kilometres away agree to provide some aluminium. The workers aren't 'told' to make the bikes but as they're part of the process of ordering them they have a direct incentive to get it done; after all, 30 of the 50 are getting new bikes out of it, and 50 people at the aluminium works, and...

It's really not hard. People don't make stuff no-one wants. What would be the point?

Sure, in their leisure time maybe people would enjoy all sorts of creative pursuits that other people didn't care about. I would make collages with dead squirrels, massive ones, then cover them with jam and let wasps play on them. For my own enjoyment, not as part of a contribution to society. I could hardly regard it as 'work' now could I?

[Revolution starts with U]

Good post brother. It is always refreshing to see someone approaching issues honestly, trying to see it from the opponent's perspective (instead of assuming some sort of suspect motive).

Thanks :cool:




Consumer needs will change as we go from capitalism to socialism.

Really they change all the time based on material circumstance. Nowaday's a lot of people have money left over after bills and food... or at least a lot of credit :rolleyes:. So they buy tv's and cars, magazines and computers... some people buy pheasants stuffed in chickens stuffed in ducks, stuffed in some other bird I can't remember and wrapped in bacon... "there's no accounting human nature" ~Mark Twain.
When I go to Giant Eagle (local supermarket) I go through the isles, then go check myself out and leave. Giant Eagle tracks my purchases through this and decides they need to order more International Delight Iced Mocha. The factory makes it. I don't see where in this process necessitates the addition of exclusive title to the fruits of its endeavor. The company already works in a collective. To think there is any right to dominate it is mind baffling.


I think a lot of needs will change, like those determined by economic reasons or society, but even if what that guy said about brainwashing ads and no individuality is true, what about the needs determined by basic human psycology and biology? Surely, our subconsiousness must prefer some products by instinct. An extreme example: If both are available, we would never permanently replace food with sand as a preference just because an ad or the state tells us it's the cool thing to do.

Sure. Men have no need to consume tampons currently... well, you can roll doobs with the paper supposedly, idk, or you could just joke around with them. But it serves no practical consumption value for males. There are innate tendencies. I love mochas. Some don't like chocolate at all. This isn't important. What's important is this:



In case consumer and worker interest aren't exactly the same:

In case of this... what? Sure, not all worker's will want to make chocolate coffee, or tampons. Why is ownership and management any better equipped at this than worker's themselves?


'Production reports' will decide what the workers create.
Consumers will, in a sense, be able to decide what workers create, even though the workers might not want to.
Not everyone hates massproduction without own influence in what is done.
It's okay if some workers don't produce anything, while also recieving goods from others.
It's okay if some workers only produce products usefull to themselves, while also recieving goods from others.
Different interests will split people into political groups. (potentially competing factional interests from food-service types, healthy-eating types, animal-rights types, and worker-ombudsman types, respectively)





@Revolution starts with U
If you want to know more about the liberal view of markets, I suggest you read a dedicated book or debate some liberals. They will probably be able to give you much more precise and appropriately sourced answers than I.
I have. They do. Sometimes they even say things I agree with; like government sucks. A long long time ago, they helped me stop being a minarchist (a leftist minarchist. I wanted to get rid of as much govt as possible, but leave welfare, unemployment, social security, and limited protection of trade routes... more Thom Paine than Thom Jefferson). Now I'm an advocate of worker control however they want, but preferably more libertarian.
Anyway, good luck to you in your search for truth. May you find it post-haste :lol:

[ckaihatsu]

In case consumer and worker interest aren't exactly the same:


We can think of this in a strictly *linear* fashion, as in "A chicken in every pot", which would necessitate *just enough* chickens to be raised and slaughtered to make sure that all empty pots, per day, are provided for, with no excess and no pots left empty, *or* we could look at these things in a more *fuzzy* way (complexity theory), in which we're all conscious intelligent people who can assess reality and work with each other to make things happen, as through revolutionary politics.

Can I promise that in a post-capitalist context *all* workers would agree to fulfill *all* consumer preferences? Or that consumers would love *everything* ever created by *every* person who made something? Of course not, but that's not the point, to only focus on the outlying fringe situations. Our politics are revolutionary because what *currently* exists is a *general* situation of *vast* inequality, and decided lack of economy democracy.





'Production reports' will decide what the workers create.
Consumers will, in a sense, be able to decide what workers create, even though the workers might not want to.
Not everyone hates massproduction without own influence in what is done.
It's okay if some workers don't produce anything, while also recieving goods from others.
It's okay if some workers only produce products usefull to themselves, while also recieving goods from others.
Different interests will split people into political groups. (potentially competing factional interests from food-service types, healthy-eating types, animal-rights types, and worker-ombudsman types, respectively)





It seems like not all workers will want to create what the consumers demand and that there are two suggested solutions:
Either the consumers force the workers or the workers are allowed to produce what they want.


Yes, again, I can't make predictions or address hypothetical future specifics, but overall the solution here is *politics* -- is there enough mass demand to the extent where consumers would either start taking up those respective work roles to get it done themselves and/or use coercion of some sort to "leverage" workers into these more-demanded production roles -- ? Or are the consumers too fickle and, due to a lack of interest on the part of workers, they would have to abandon their demands -- ?

Generally workers would produce what they want, when they want, but since it would be an economically single-interest society, there would be *fluidity* around the roles of worker and consumer -- people would hear of what's going on, journalism would continue to report the news, and people could respond in their own way to the larger societal condition at any given point in time.





If we force the workers:
Will that not be against marxist values,


Not necessarily, depending on the situation, though it would be difficult to imagine a scenario in which *consumers* would know better than the workers themselves. (Since work requires dealing with tangible material realities and sprawling logistical issues.)





or is workers control mostly about recieving the full result of the work?


In a single-interest post-commodity economic context the workers would obviously always have 'first dibs' at the output of their own efforts. And, without private accumulations, all direct acquisitions of work product by the workers themselves would be solely for *personal* possession, use, and consumption -- all excess would *necessarily* have to be left for others.





And will the workers not rebell, if they fell like they are being restricted intellectually during work?


Sure.





Can 'Production reports' not be corrupted, for example by those political groups(in the food case vegans against meat-eaters)?


I doubt there would be such extents of political intrigue -- today's technology alone makes that kind of politics-of-court a thing of the past already, and even today, with vast controlling private interests at play, there's still an admirable level of professionalism from most public-sector institutions. In a post-capitalist context there would be *no* economically competing interests anymore, at all.





If consumers let the non-usefull product producing workers not contribute as much:
Will the remainding workers still be able to satisfy needs despite this?


I don't know, but it would be a *dynamic* thing.





I heard that socialism should be much more effective, allthough I'm not entirely sure how, but I also read somewhere that the state will never be able to compete directly with the market, which was one of the reasons socialism had to be global.


Correct -- the market mechanism is 'hands-off', where aggregates of economic supply and demand are used to determine validity, whereas socialism is 'hands-on', where *workers* consciously determine validity.


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://postimage.org/image/1bxymkrno/