How would a policy of production for use be implemented?

[Themself]

Part of communism and socialism is the concept of production for use. But, how would we implement this? Do we socialize next generations to believe it's ideal or make it a legal policy?

[argeiphontes]

Production for use happens as a consequence of the communist system. There are no markets where goods can become commodities, so they are produced only for use. edit: And not for exchange in a market.

[Chris Hansen]

Production for use isn't a consequence of the communist system, it's an important prerequisite for complete communism.

In a nutshell, due to their materialistic outlook, communists predict that the introduction of production for use is an inevitable step that the proletariat will take after it has captured power and overthrown the bourgeoisie. Clearly, it must either take this step, or society will regress back into bourgeois norms.

The details of this process are hard to calculate and anybody that pretends to have anything more than an abstract design is quite frankly a charlatan. The exact implementation depends on a variety of factors that we can predict only on the eve of and during revolutionary. Class consciousness, the progressiveness of the culture, the level at which the forces of production stand, as well as international factors, and so on, all these factors need to be evaluated when the working class has actually prevailed.

[argeiphontes]

That doesn't make any sense to me. How can the distinction between use and exchange be anything but the result of the economic system in which these actions take place? I'm joining the OP then and also asking how this is to be introduced?

In communism, there is no market and no exchange value. The only thing that remains is an object's use value, for which it is produced alone, because the influence of exchange on production ends. Every package of cereal in the grocery store becomes a black-and-white box that just says "cereal" in Times New Roman 72-point font. ;)

[Popular Front of Judea]

Every package of cereal in the grocery store becomes a black-and-white box that just says "cereal" in Times New Roman 72-point font.

Who knew that generic goods were part of the transition to communism. :grin: (Ever see Repo Man?)

[Creative Destruction]

Who knew that generic goods were part of the transition to communism. :grin: (Ever see Repo Man?)

I always thought the white bags with black lettering saying "POTATO CHIPS" (sometimes with a random red stripe somewhere on the bag) were better than Lays.

[Creative Destruction]

Part of communism and socialism is the concept of production for use. But, how would we implement this? Do we socialize next generations to believe it's ideal or make it a legal policy?

I'm fairly impressed with Michael Albert's conception of production for use/need under parecon. I'm not sure I completely agree with the entire structure, but it seems to hit all the right spots for me.

[argeiphontes]

I always thought the white bags with black lettering saying "POTATO CHIPS" (sometimes with a random red stripe somewhere on the bag) were better than Lays.

I remember those from the late 80s / early 90s IIRC. I don't see them anymore, so I guess they had no exchange value. Didn't see Repo Man so I don't know how it ties in to all this.

[A.J.]

Every package of cereal in the grocery store becomes a black-and-white box that just says "cereal" in Times New Roman 72-point font.

Perhaps going off-topic here; but during socialism-communism, I was thinking, brands logos from hitherto existing capitalist society(or at least designs reminiscent of such logos) may be retained for the purpose of product recognition(?)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Perhaps going off-topic here; but during socialism-communism, I was thinking, brands logos from hitherto existing capitalist society(or at least designs reminiscent of such logos) may be retained for the purpose of product recognition(?)

I've thought about this. But ultimately why bother?

Let's use Coca-Cola as an example. Under conditions of global communism it would no longer exist as a corporate entity, and considering the terrible things done in its name, combined with the greater weight that would be given to a proletarian historical viewpoint, it seems doubtful that the scattered groups of workers controlling the former assets of the corporation and its partners would want to be associated with such a tarnished brand, even assuming that those workers are still interested in producing sweet brown fizzy water. True, many other brands and no-label supermarket knock-offs use branding and packaging that effectively apes those of global brands such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi, but that is done now for the same kind of reason that actors in TV advertisements wear lab coats; they're trying to trade in on the impression and recognition of those more well-known brands (obviously they can't do it too closely or they get set on by squads of attack lawyers). But since Coca-Cola would no longer exist, and products themselves would no longer be graduated along economic lines, there is literally absolutely no need for that kind of half-arsed imitation.

The only differentiation along "brand-like" lines that would make any kind of sense in a global communist society would be in terms of geography, unusual flavour variations that aren't universally loved but have sufficiently devoted consumers to ensure production, or some combination of the two. So there could be variations like "Euro-Cola" made with sugar from beets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_beet) that are more easily grown in the climates of Europe than sugar cane, or perhaps it might turn out that additional flavourings like lemon or vanilla are just about popular enough to justify mass production.

In any case, even assuming that a communist society wishes to retain anything remotely resembling the product branding we have today, there's no reason to suppose that society would miss the opportunity to build their own identities and narrative by unimaginatively recycling the old. Why couldn't a communist society create their own "brands" which truly reflect the values and priorities of the producers, as well as those of the society they simultaneously serve and form a part of?