What "things" will cease production under communism?

[tooAlive]

I understand that under communism, everything will be freely available.

Will there be anything produced today that will inevitably have to cease production under a communist system? If so, what will those things be?

I would assume that automobiles would be on that list, as you seem to favor public transportation. So cars are off the list.

What else?

My guess would be that items with a very high scarcity or complexity to manufacturer would also have to be scrapped, seeing as if a very large portion of the population demanded said items, realistically they would all not be able to acquire them in a timely manner, if ever at all.

[Remus Bleys]

i don't know, you can't really know, mapping out what communism is to the specifics is utopianism, but what the hell are you on about? Why would we stop producing things that people wanted?

[tooAlive]

i don't know but what the hell are you on about? Why would we stop producing things that people wanted?

30 hour work week = less production.

Would it be realistic to think that all the items available for purchase today will be able to be mass produced at a rate to meet the demand of all 7 billion people currently in the world without mass exploiting the population?

[Remus Bleys]

30 hour work week = less production.
Ah yes but everyone working, needless work removed, and random crap that only exists for capitalism and wastes labor is removed so you're wrong.

Would it be realistic to think that all the items available for purchase to day will be able to be mass produced at a rate to meet the demand of all 7 billion people currently in the world?
What things are you referring to specifically? Some certainly would, some wouldn't. Not everyone wants everything, etc.

[Ele'ill]

environmental impact related to increased demand and production would be the biggest obstacle

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

30 hour work week = less production.

Not really. Higher hours = less productivity, there's a lot of literature on that, especially in the Industrial Economics sphere, check it out. Plus we will be able to make full use of automation because it won't lead to a loss of jobs - if there are no wages/unemployment to worry about, we can just share out the hours among everyone with no commensurate loss of access to goods and services.


Would it be realistic to think that all the items available for purchase today will be able to be mass produced at a rate to meet the demand of all 7 billion people currently in the world without mass exploiting the population?

1. If class relationships disappeared, then that means there would be no mechanism by which to 'exploit the population', since a population cannot exploit it self. Of course, that is a long way off and I don't think that's something that will happen 'tomorrow', but certainly the end goal of communism is to move towards a society where exploitation (of someone's labour) becomes a practical impossibility.

2. If you think about the waste that goes in under capitalism (think about food that is wasted, goods you see in factory outlet and discount stores because they do not meet the quality standards of the rip-off branded companies), and the fact that distribution under capitalism is rarely efficient or equitable, as the goal of capitalist production and distribution is to produce a surplus via profit (which means that the fabled 'equilibrium' is rarely met), then you can start to understand that we won't need to rely on continuous economic growth to meet the needs (and importantly, wants!) of the population. In theory, food production problems that appear under capitalism every time there are extreme weather conditions should cease to be a problem under a social system where production is for use, not for profit, and so we can focus more attention (in terms of time, innovation and therefore productivity) on producing cool consumer goods.

[tooAlive]

Ah yes but everyone working, needless work removed, and random crap that only exists for capitalism and wastes labor is removed so you're wrong.

Please elaborate.

Are you saying that under capitalism, workers do "needless work" and "random crap" that wastes time?

I would've assumed that workers would be worked much harder and productively (for the capitalists) under capitalism, seeing as the bourgeoise are trying to squeeze as much profit as they can out of them. It doesn't make sense that labour would be wasted under capitalism, wouldn't you agree?


What things are you referring to specifically? Some certainly would, some wouldn't. Not everyone wants everything, etc.

Then that would make things even more complicated.

I don't have any specifics really, just trying to get an idea of what could possibly be mass produced to meet the demand of everyone, and what couldn't be.

[Tim Cornelis]

UK: The ‘three-day week’, 1974
For the first two months of 1974, the Conservative government under Edward Heath imposed a three-day week to save energy during a time of soaring inflation, high energy prices, and industrial action by the National Union of Mineworkers. Commercial users of electricity (with exemptions for essential services) were limited to three consecutive days’ use with no overtime. Some people went on working by candlelight but altogether 1.5 million joined the dole queues. The miners launched an all-out strike on 9 February. A general election was held at the end of February and Heath lost his majority. Labour’s Harold Wilson became Prime Minister, a deal was struck with the miners which finished the strike, and the three-day week was officially ended on 8 March 1974.6 When the crisis ended, analysts found that industrial production had dropped by only 6 per cent. Improved productivity, combined with a drop in absenteeism, had made up the difference in lost production from the shorter hours.7 More than 1.5 million people registered as unemployed as a result of the three-day working week.8

I assume this means a 24 hour workweek, yet only a drop of 6% in industrial production.

From: 21 hours: Why a shorter working week can help us all to flourish in the 21st century

If we are to believe this thinkthank the 21 hour work week is possible in capitalism today. Add in the obsolete labour as it exists in capitalism, including PR, finance and banking, retail, and the end to unemployment, as well as the application of productive technologies that go unused today due to low labour costs in many countries and we can lower it even further.

[tooAlive]

1. If class relationships disappeared, then that means there would be no mechanism by which to 'exploit the population', since a population cannot exploit it self. Of course, that is a long way off and I don't think that's something that will happen 'tomorrow', but certainly the end goal of communism is to move towards a society where exploitation (of someone's labour) becomes a practical impossibility.

Are you saying that even if the workers had to work 10x hard to meet demand under communism (assumption) that it would not be considered exploitation since the fruits of the labour would be shared directly by the workers?

So, would you all be willing to work much harder, so much as to not have a boss, than to work less and get paid the same (hypothetically) even if someone else was directly profiting from your labour? I'm curious about that.



2. If you think about the waste that goes in under capitalism (think about food that is wasted, goods you see in factory outlet and discount stores because they do not meet the quality standards of the rip-off branded companies), and the fact that distribution under capitalism is rarely efficient or equitable, as the goal of capitalist production and distribution is to produce a surplus via profit (which means that the fabled 'equilibrium' is rarely met), then you can start to understand that we won't need to rely on continuous economic growth to meet the needs (and importantly, wants!) of the population. In theory, food production problems that appear under capitalism every time there are extreme weather conditions should cease to be a problem under a social system where production is for use, not for profit, and so we can focus more attention (in terms of time, innovation and therefore productivity) on producing cool consumer goods.

Well, all that waste you're talking about means the capitalist (business owner) is taking a loss. Waste = loss of capital. Those clothes at outlets stores were a loss for the capitalist that had them produced, since he couldn't make a profit on them and sold them at a discount.

(Ironically, his workers got paid the same amount regardless if he made a profit on the clothes or lost money)

Are you also implying that under communism, the quality of goods will also go down? For the sake of using that "waste" you mentioned in the capitalist system of products that don't meet quality standards.

[tooAlive]

I assume this means a 24 hour workweek, yet only a drop of 6% in industrial production.

From: 21 hours: Why a shorter working week can help us all to flourish in the 21st century

If we are to believe this thinkthank the 21 hour work week is possible in capitalism today. Add in the obsolete labour as it exists in capitalism, including PR, finance and banking, retail, and the end to unemployment, as well as the application of productive technologies that go unused today due to low labour costs in many countries and we can lower it even further.

That isn't taking into consideration the demand of items in a communist society, though.

Everyone may want an iPhone today, but since not everyone can afford one, not everyone buys one. So capitalists assign production relative to the demand.

Under communism, since you're taking away that price barrier to acquire items and everything is freely available, naturally demand will rise. I don't think you can expect production to lower and be able to meet the demand of a society where everything is theoretically available to everyone.

[Remus Bleys]

Please elaborate.

Are you saying that under capitalism, workers do "needless work" and "random crap" that wastes time?

I would've assumed that workers would be worked much harder and productively (for the capitalists) under capitalism, seeing as the bourgeoise are trying to squeeze as much profit as they can out of them. It doesn't make sense that labour would be wasted under capitalism, wouldn't you agree?
No I don't agree with you, if I did agree with you, I wouldn't have posted something that was the opposite of what you are saying.
I mean, is selling a product to one company that sells it to another to sell it to a retail store really "productive" or useful in any way?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=tooAlive;2702944]Are you saying that even if the workers had to work 10x hard to meet demand under communism (assumption) that it would not be considered exploitation since the fruits of the labour would be shared directly by the workers?

Nobody would have to do anything, that's the point. In capitalism, supply and demand are treated separately. Whereas, in a democratic system of production, those who decide what is made are the ones who consume, not the capitalists. Thus, we can decide amongst ourselves, democratically, what we want and need to produce, and work out the best way to realistically achieve such a level of production.


So, would you all be willing to work much harder, so much as to not have a boss, than to work less and get paid the same (hypothetically) even if someone else was directly profiting from your labour? I'm curious about that.

There would be no 'paying', or 'profiting'; the system we strive for is moneyless, and stateless. We decide what we want to consume, we work out how we can produce it. We produce it, and we consume. No money, no exchange, no price mechanism, no wages. Just decide, democratically, produce together, take what you need. Live.



Well, all that waste you're talking about means the capitalist (business owner) is taking a loss. Waste = loss of capital. Those clothes at outlets stores were a loss for the capitalist that had them produced, since he couldn't make a profit on them and sold them at a discount.

What are outlet stores? They're not fucking food banks, they're profit-making operations just the same.


(Ironically, his workers got paid the same amount regardless if he made a profit on the clothes or lost money)

Ironically, whilst the loss probably doesn't affect whether he can take his 6th holiday of the year, the workers will get paid at or below the poverty level whether the firm makes a profit or loss.


Are you also implying that under communism, the quality of goods will also go down? For the sake of using that "waste" you mentioned in the capitalist system of products that don't meet quality standards.

No, i'm implying that under capitalism, goods produced by sweatshop labourers for less than $1 are sold for hundreds of dollars on the pretence of quality, and anything not matching this perceived necessary level of quality is rejected on some shallow grounds.

When I talk of quality, I am thinking about quality of life: for those producing goods, for those consuming goods. Quality of food, quality of distribution, happiness. I am not really thinking of a stitch or two out of place meaning hours or sweatshop labour being wasted.

[Tim Cornelis]

That isn't taking into consideration the demand of items in a communist society, though.

Everyone may want an iPhone today, but since not everyone can afford one, not everyone buys one. So capitalists assign production relative to the demand.

Under communism, since you're taking away that price barrier to acquire items and everything is freely available, naturally demand will rise. I don't think you can expect production to lower and be able to meet the demand of a society where everything is theoretically available to everyone.

Personally, I propose a work point system.

[tooAlive]

Nobody would have to do anything, that's the point. In capitalism, supply and demand are treated separately. Whereas, in a democratic system of production, those who decide what is made are the ones who consume, not the capitalists. Thus, we can decide amongst ourselves, democratically, what we want and need to produce, and work out the best way to realistically achieve such a level of production.

Oh okay, I'm starting to understand you a little better.

So by democratically you mean, what the 51% decides is best to produce is what will be produced? Or is there another method you aim set in place?

Sounds like communism is more of a need system than a want system. The things that people actually need will be prioritized and produced. Wants will not be prioritized, as they may vary significantly from person to person.

[Remus Bleys]

What exactly is a need? A "need" is a thing that is required in order to live. But we don't need to live, we want to live. All a "need" is is a want that has higher priority.

[tooAlive]

What exactly is a need? A "need" is a thing that is required in order to live. But we don't need to live, we want to live. All a "need" is is a want that has higher priority.

Now you're just getting ultra philosophical simply to disagree with me.

We need food, water, shelter and oxygen to live. Everything else like Xboxes, Plasma TV's, designer purses, iPads, ect.. Are wants.

So from the looks of it, only "needs" will be given priority to be produced in a communist society, since we can't realistically make enough iPads, Xboxes, TVs, ect.. for everyone on earth at the same time.

Thanks everyone, that's all I wanted to know. :)

[Remus Bleys]

Now you're just getting ultra philosophical simply to disagree with me.
No Im not. Don't flatter yourself.

We need food, water, shelter and oxygen to live.
Why do we need to live? You are basically ignoring what I wrote and going "AHA I got you!" when I had addressed them already.

Everything else like Xboxes, Plasma TV's, designer purses, iPads, ect.. Are wants.
Low-priority wants.

So from the looks of it, only "needs" will be given priority to be produced in a communist society, since we can't realistically make enough iPads, Xboxes, TVs, ect.. for everyone on earth at the same time.
1. Why not? Your entire argument has been "Oh you can't." and when asked why you go "Oh you can't"
2. Would people still want this?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=tooAlive;2702975]Oh okay, I'm starting to understand you a little better.

So by democratically you mean, what the 51% decides is best to produce is what will be produced? Or is there another method you aim set in place?

I guess it depends on size, composition, and what is being voted on. By democracy, I think we can extend this definition from just 'rule of the majority', because clearly that needs to be balanced out by the rights of minorities, too. Perhaps it is more appropriate that important changes taking place at a local level are subject to consensus, or a super-majority. But that's not really something i'm going to speculate on because that is something that will be dictated by social conditions in the future, not by my own personal whimsy.




Sounds like communism is more of a need system than a want system. The things that people actually need will be prioritized and produced. Wants will not be prioritized, as they may vary significantly from person to person.

It's neither, it's a social system, like capitalism, like feudalism, like slavery, the difference between socialism and the other systems being that socialism is classless, and so exploitation by class cannot result under that system.

It's neither because needs and wants aren't separate. We might need food, water, shelter to live, but IMO we also need more than that to live a good life. We need satisfaction in our work, we need the opportunity to leisure, we need a good quality of life, we need access to cool shit, basically. So I don't think we should sit back on the old dichotomy of needs vs wants, because:

a) they are not easy to separate;
b) they are not desirable to separate;
c) it is not necessarily the truth that wants are more difficult to produce than needs.

We already have the capability to fulfil the basic living needs (food, water, shelter, clothing) of every human on the planet, no excuses. That we don't is not a problem of productive potential of the workforce, but that under capitalism, production decisions are made for profit, not for use. Which is why on Christmas Day, 80,000 British children went homeless despite there being more than enough potential living space for them around.

Under a system of production for-use, we could thus solve the 'needs' problem quite easily, I believe, and begin to address the best way to produce what we want to consume.

[tooAlive]

Why do we need to live? You are basically ignoring what I wrote and going "AHA I got you!" when I had addressed them already.

That's what I meant by ultra philosophical.

You assumed that staying alive was a choice between a want or a have simply to disagree.

There's a fine line between needing something to survive and wanting something to make life more enjoyable.


1. Why not? Your entire argument has been "Oh you can't." and when asked why you go "Oh you can't"

I stated my opinion that it was not realistically possible to produce 7 billion of everything so that everything would be freely available to everyone.

Since that notion hasn't been refuted, I was curious to know if any of you had already thought through what things currently in production would have to be sacrificed if order for everyone to have free access to whatever was produced.

[Remus Bleys]

oh yeah thanks for ignoring the rest of my post

That's what I meant by ultra philosophical.

You assumed that staying alive was a choice between a want or a have simply to disagree.

There's a fine line between needing something to survive and wanting something to make life more enjoyable. Not really. Shit like living vs living healthily makes that line blurry. Its still a question of wants, just higher priority wants.



I stated my opinion that it was not realistically possible to produce 7 billion of everything so that everything would be freely available to everyone.And you never said why! Guess what, your opinion is wrong!


Since that notion hasn't been refutedThe notion can't be refuted because you never said why, unless it was the work thing, in which case fucko, read the thread.

I was curious to know if any of you had already thought through what things currently in production would have to be sacrificed if order for everyone to have free access to whatever was produced.thats stupid

[tooAlive]

I guess it depends on size, composition, and what is being voted on. By democracy, I think we can extend this definition from just 'rule of the majority', because clearly that needs to be balanced out by the rights of minorities, too. Perhaps it is more appropriate that important changes taking place at a local level are subject to consensus, or a super-majority. But that's not really something i'm going to speculate on because that is something that will be dictated by social conditions in the future, not by my own personal whimsy.

Well the current size of the world is 7 billion. And I use that number because I assume communism would have to be a global system.

Unless local committees got together and simply produced what they decided was best for them. But then that creates problems, as some areas are unique to the production of certain goods, and would be essential they be used to provide for many other localities as well.


It's neither, it's a social system, like capitalism, like feudalism, like slavery, the difference between socialism and the other systems being that socialism is classless, and so exploitation by class cannot result under that system.


It's neither because needs and wants aren't separate. We might need food, water, shelter to live, but IMO we also need more than that to live a good life. We need satisfaction in our work, we need the opportunity to leisure, we need a good quality of life, we need access to cool shit, basically. So I don't think we should sit back on the old dichotomy of needs vs wants, because:

a) they are not easy to separate;
b) they are not desirable to separate;
c) it is not necessarily the truth that wants are more difficult to produce than needs.

That's subjective. The Mayans didn't need internet, although someone could certainly say they "need" internet today.

The line between needs and wants can be drawn the the point in which something becomes essential to ones survival. Without television we'd probably develop other means of leisure, as well as with many other things.

All I wanted to know was if there was already a predetermined number of things you had already decided would cease in production under your system, seeing as like I said before, you can't realistically produce 7 billion of everything in production today for it to be "freely available" to everyone.

[tooAlive]

Not really. Shit like living vs living healthily makes that line blurry. Its still a question of wants, just higher priority wants.


And you never said why! Guess what, your opinion is wrong!

Does it need explaining? You can't produce 7 billion of everything currently in production. Why? Because there's not enough labour power available for that, especially with you wanting to cut the work week to 30 hours. It's physically not possible. Not on paper, not in practice.

So some things have to be scrapped from production. I asked if you had thought that through.


The notion can't be refuted because you never said why, unless it was the work thing, in which case fucko, read the thread.

You sound pretty young so I won't take offense to the name calling. I just said why, btw.


thats stupid

What, that you would have already figured out what would be possible under communism in practice?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

A thought: probably a whole lot of shit will cease to be available because, like, who, without coercion, says, "Yes, go ahead, mine bauxite in my backyard!" or "I totally want to destroy my community's landbase because, damn, the world needs petroleum.

I don't think it's possible to predict the particulars mind you, especially considering the amount of already-existing junk it will be necessary to sort through once we've expropriated it all from the ruling class.

Meh. Anyway, que the accusations that I'm a primitivist.

[Remus Bleys]

Does it need explaining? You can't produce 7 billion of everything currently in production. Why? Because there's not enough labour power available for that, especially with you wanting to cut the work week to 30 hours. It's physically not possible. Not on paper, not in practice.
I like how you pulled 30 hours out of your ass and attribute it to me. And again, why would we produce 7 billion of everything?


So some things have to be scrapped from production. I asked if you had thought that through.

What things?

You sound pretty young
and that takes away from my argument how?

And I just said why, btw.
fuck you
that has already been refuted though.



What, that you would have already figured out what would be possible under communism in practice?
thats utopianism.


I don't think it's possible to predict the particulars mind you, especially considering the amount of already-existing junk it will be necessary to sort through once we've expropriated it all from the ruling class. Pretty much this

I'm a primitivist. thank you for acknowledging this

[tooAlive]

I like how you pulled 30 hours out of your ass and attribute it to me. And again, why would we produce 7 billion of everything


The 30 hour comment is something I've read on here quite a bit. Not attributing it to you, simply communists in general.

And there are 7 billion inhabitants on this planet.

If you say "everything will be freely available to everyone," which I've read here countless times as well, you're implying there will be 7 billion of everything to go around for everybody.


and that takes away from my argument how?

Because with age you gain experience. Not saying your argument isn't valid, you just don't have a lot of experience.


that has already been refuted though.

A few of you have already agreed that some things will inevitably have to be scrapped. So no, it isn't refuted.

[tooAlive]

No need to get heated when someone points out the flaws in your system.

Capitalism has many problems and you don't see me trying to deny it.

[Sinister Intents]

The 30 hour comment is something I've read on here quite a bit. Not attributing it to you, simply communists in general.

And there are 7 billion inhabitants on this planet.

If you say "everything will be freely available to everyone," which I've read here countless times as well, you're implying there will be 7 billion of everything to go around for everybody.



Because with age you gain experience. Not saying your argument isn't valid, you just don't have a lot of experience.



A few of you have already agreed that some things will inevitably have to be scrapped. So no, it isn't refuted.

Under communism most likely a lot of machines will be utilized rather than people, we already produce more than enough now to take care of the needs of all. Age means nothing and doesn't always have anything to do with experience. Indeed some shit products will be scrapped and specifically those commodities created for profit solely.

[Ele'ill]

No need to get heated when someone points out the flaws in your system.

Capitalism has many problems and you don't see me trying to deny it.


the difference is that I think the flaws within capitalism aren't actually flaws in the system itself, those are things required in order for it to function, there are of course the 'flaws' present, whereas the flaws you are pointing out here are so abstract and far in a distant future that we can't even begin to analyze what they would be exactly or how 'we' would respond and it isn't necessary to be able to right now

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=tooAlive;2703014]Well the current size of the world is 7 billion. And I use that number because I assume communism would have to be a global system.

Unless local committees got together and simply produced what they decided was best for them. But then that creates problems, as some areas are unique to the production of certain goods, and would be essential they be used to provide for many other localities as well.

Agreed it's not perfect, you can't have a vote of 7 billion people, but equally you can't atomise every neighbourhood, street etc. But there are of course compromises, and ways around this. It's not a system of perfection, or at least I can't iterate a perfect solution, but the point is that as long as the system of decision making is rooted in democracy and production for use rather than exploitation and production for profit, we can work around the specifics.


That's subjective. The Mayans didn't need internet, although someone could certainly say they "need" internet today.

The line between needs and wants can be drawn the the point in which something becomes essential to ones survival. Without television we'd probably develop other means of leisure, as well as with many other things.

This might be your view, but I would advise that there is a vast literature on needs and wants (sorry i'm not going into my loft to dig out the specific papers, but you can search it yourself if you're interested - most of it is a good read), and the literature itself is generally very divided on what constitutes a need, a want etc. It's not as simple as what they teach you in school - that a need is only food, water, shelter, clothing, and everything else is a want. In fact, that's a very bourgeois mentality - it attempts to ingrain in us that we should be grateful for having our needs met, and that we should be thankful that we are given a shitty, alienating, degrading, low-pay, insecure job by the 'job-creators' so that we can buy a few 'luxuries'. They call gucci, and prada, and superdry, and iPads luxuries, but I say that they are only 'luxuries' because of the price mechanism. They cost pittance to make, and should be freely available. The only reason they are luxuries is because the capitalist makes a huge buck off them by charging extortionate prices.


All I wanted to know was if there was already a predetermined number of things you had already decided would cease in production under your system, seeing as like I said before, you can't realistically produce 7 billion of everything in production today for it to be "freely available" to everyone.

Humans are social creatures - we interact. As I said, i'm not going to pre-determine anything. I don't know what will be possible in the future, I don't know what the social fabric of society will look like in the future, I can't speak for people in the future. All I can say is that, if we produce for use rather than for profit, and production and distribution are democratically decided, then we can at least decide what we are producing, rather than being subject to the whims of capital and their marking/advertising lackeys which bombard us with their over-priced crap all day, every day. I'm not saying I don't want luxuries, i'm saying they are only 'luxuries' because they are over-priced for what they are. In a system of no prices, no wages etc., many things we consider 'luxuries' and unaffordable today would become more freely available.

[tooAlive]

[QUOTE]

Agreed it's not perfect, you can't have a vote of 7 billion people, but equally you can't atomise every neighbourhood, street etc. But there are of course compromises, and ways around this. It's not a system of perfection, or at least I can't iterate a perfect solution, but the point is that as long as the system of decision making is rooted in democracy and production for use rather than exploitation and production for profit, we can work around the specifics.

Thanks, that's pretty much what I wanted to understand from your side. :)

[Klaatu]

Will there be anything produced today that will inevitably have to cease production under a communist system? If so, what will those things be?


I don't think we can call this "a thing which is produced," but I think there will be no need for a "Wall Street" under the new communist system.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Will there be anything produced today that will inevitably have to cease production under a communist system? If so, what will those things be?

2014 New Year glasses, tears, copies of Atlas Shrugged, iPhone lanyards, etc.

[Klaatu]

2014 New Year glasses, tears, copies of Atlas Shrugged, iPhone lanyards, etc.

I will throw in: the board game "Monopoly."

There is no need to teach children about capitalism. ;)

[Sinister Intents]

2014 New Year glasses, tears, copies of Atlas Shrugged, iPhone lanyards, etc.

All reactionary literature :) also I'll throw in wallets... actually those have more uses than money...


I will throw in: the board game "Monopoly."

There is no need to teach children about capitalism. ;)

There will be the board game Socialism in stead :)

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

Perhaps the best way to illustrate why many items that are expensive today will be quite easy to produce and obtain is to use examples from the past. During the Irish Potato Famine, the cost of food in Ireland was astronomical. But production of food was still enough to sustain the entire population. Why, then, did the Irish starve? Because the landowning aristocracy continued to export grain grown by peasants on the international market.

The food's price was outrageously and artificially expensive because it was controlled by the bourgeosie, who used it to increase their own material wealth instead of to benefit the Irish people. And in the same way, today, CEOs make billions of dollars by controlling the means of production and the prices of products, forcing the workers to foot the price of their extravagant lifestyles.

[liberlict]

Please elaborate.

Are you saying that under capitalism, workers do "needless work" and "random crap" that wastes time?



They do. Workers are engaged in all sorts of socially useless, even degrading, work like manufacturing Miley Cyrus cd's or sex toys while people in underdeveloped countries endure diseases and artificial famines and civil wars. It's enough to suggest a problem with priorities at least.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

I will throw in: the board game "Monopoly."

There is no need to teach children about capitalism. ;)
Actually, the original intention of Monopoly (before, called The Landlord's game) was to show how rents enrich property owners and impoverish tenants.
The creator (Elizabeth Maggie) was married to Henry George who argued that people should own what they create, but that everything found in nature, most importantly the value of land, belongs equally to all humanity.

Pretty leftist :)

[IBleedRed]

30 hour work week = less production. Actually this is completely and totally false. You're forgetting about something called technology. With the advent of steam-powered machinery and mechanization, for example, farmers could increase their outputs because time spent harvesting each hectare was reduced, allowing them to harvest more land. In other words, they needed less work put in for the same yields.

I don't like "citing" Wikipedia, but this page explains it well and there are additional resources at the bottom if you're interested
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanised_agriculture#References

I would also recommend reading Robert C. Allen's Farm to Factory if you're interested in productivity over time in the context of the Soviet Union.


Would it be realistic to think that all the items available for purchase today will be able to be mass produced at a rate to meet the demand of all 7 billion people currently in the world without mass exploiting the population?I think so. There is more wealth than you think on this planet. Of the already-existing wealth (since it isn't a zero-sum game), there is a vast amount being hoarded by few enough people that it exceeds many-fold their ability to consume. Imagine how much more can be produced if some of that wealth is invested in industrializing the Third World.

One of the mistakes you're making is seeing every human being as a liability. Yes, there are 7 billion people: 7 billion mouths to feed, 7 billion people that need clothing, 7 billion people that need housing, and everything else. But that means there are also 7 billion pairs of hands to work, 7 billion people that can further their education (and I mean academic education) and contribute to every field of knowledge, 7 billion people to mix their blood, sweat, and tears in with the earth.

[Radio Spartacus]

Lol, free access doesn't literally mean we have pre-made one of everything for every human being on the planet

[sosolo]

Things that won't be produced:
ATMs
Insurance policies
Advertising
Agricultural products to be thrown away/destroyed/hoarded to drive up prices
Credit cards
Stocks and bonds
Drones, bombs, tanks, etc.

And my personal faves:
Monocles and top hats.

--sosolo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Baseball]

Nobody would have to do anything, that's the point. In capitalism, supply and demand are treated separately. Whereas, in a democratic system of production, those who decide what is made are the ones who consume, not the capitalists. Thus, we can decide amongst ourselves, democratically, what we want and need to produce, and work out the best way to realistically achieve such a level of production.

I have always liked it when socialism is explained as people working together to "work out the best way" to produce goods and services. It is quite vague and says nothing. The only mentioned concrete step people would need to take to "work out the best way" is - "Nobody would have to do anything"

[Sinister Intents]

I have always liked it when socialism is explained as people working together to "work out the best way" to produce goods and services. It is quite vague and says nothing. The only mentioned concrete step people would need to take to "work out the best way" is - "Nobody would have to do anything"

I think you're confused asshole.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I think you're confused asshole.That's very constructive.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I have always liked it when socialism is explained as people working together to "work out the best way" to produce goods and services. It is quite vague and says nothing. The only mentioned concrete step people would need to take to "work out the best way" is - "Nobody would have to do anything" The invisible votes of the workers council is no worse than the invisible hand of the market, as a vague concept. Even if neither describes the particular form, the reader can usually fill in the blanks adequately.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I have always liked it when socialism is explained as people working together to "work out the best way" to produce goods and services. It is quite vague and says nothing. The only mentioned concrete step people would need to take to "work out the best way" is - "Nobody would have to do anything"

Sometimes there's no point in saying too much because it turns into an exercise in theoretical masturbation over this or that formulation of how we can blueprint an unknown society, inhabited by people we don't know, in some future time period we don't know.

I would have thought that having a society where people work together, democratically, to resolve any issues in the production and distribution processes would be a better start than where we currently are. So in that respect it's not meaningless at all.

[Baseball]

The invisible votes of the workers council is no worse than the invisible hand of the market, as a vague concept. Even if neither describes the particular form, the reader can usually fill in the blanks adequately.

Two different concepts

The "invisible hand" of the market describes how and why people act as they do.

The "invisible hand" of the workers council describes how people vote on a course of action. It offers no explanation as to why they are voting the way they do.

[Baseball]

Sometimes there's no point in saying too much because it turns into an exercise in theoretical masturbation over this or that formulation of how we can blueprint an unknown society, inhabited by people we don't know, in some future time period we don't know.

I would have thought that having a society where people work together, democratically, to resolve any issues in the production and distribution processes would be a better start than where we currently are. So in that respect it's not meaningless at all.

A blueprint is not what is being asked.

What is being asked is for an explanation as to what constitutes "a society where people wok together, democratically, to resolve any issues in the production..."

One would think that there would be a rationale for people democratically voting to proceed one way as opposed to another.
Capitalism has a rationale for why things happen; for how things should proceed in a certain manner.
What is socialism's rationale?

[Ele'ill]

Baseball, what is capitalism's rationale/ways things should proceed aka a blueprint?

[Radio Spartacus]

Baseball, what is capitalism's rationale/ways things should proceed aka a blueprint?

The price mechanism. By all measures, an indefensible failure

[Queen Mab]

What is socialism's rationale?

Use value, I think.

[o well this is ok I guess]

The "invisible hand" of the market describes how and why people act as they do. entirely vague


The "invisible hand" of the workers council describes how people vote on a course of action. entirely vague


It offers no explanation as to why they are voting the way they do ever voted before?

We can conjure grand sociological explanations for why people buy as they do, but the concept of "invisible hand" doesn't explain for that, because that's an entirely pointless endeavor. It is not up to the concept of the invisible hand to explain exactly why a product is bought, beyond being desirable for the consumer (vague as fuck, man).

[liberlict]

2014 New Year glasses, tears, copies of Atlas Shrugged, iPhone lanyards, etc.

Is the reason we don't get to read Atlas Shrugged because we are all going to have better taste? Because reactionary propaganda will be censured? Libraries will be worse funded? Something else?

[Queen Mab]

Is the reason we don't get to read Atlas Shrugged because we are all going to have better taste? Because reactionary propaganda will be censured? Libraries will be worse funded? Something else?

I think Vox was being facetious. People could still read Atlas Shrugged if they wanted. But only historians and cranks would really have an interest, much like how no-one today reads The True Law of Free Monarchies.

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

Weapons of mass destruction, products deemed harmful to human health that our current capitalist state deems "A O.K.", fancy toys of war, etc.

[Ismail]

http://theworstthingsforsale.com/

[Lowtech]

I understand that under communism, everything will be freely available.

Will there be anything produced today that will inevitably have to cease production under a communist system? If so, what will those things be?
There's a difference between not produced at all or simply not mass produced. There'd be nothing forbidden except weapons of mass destruction or other things that are deemed very harmful.

things that won't be mass produced:

Music albums
Films on media like DVD, Bluray etc.
specific clothing styles or "lines"
iphones
etc.

Essentially anything that has no use value. If it is vital to meeting the economy's intended purpose of sustaining a civilization, it will be mass produced. Anything else you're welcome to make yourself, with a 3D printer for example.



My guess would be that items with a very high scarcity or complexity to manufacturer would also have to be scrapped, seeing as if a very large portion of the population demanded said items, realistically they would all not be able to acquire them in a timely manner, if ever at all.

like what? in a society based on production for profit, i'm sure you can't name one thing with natural scarcity that actually effects people. We experience more artificial scarcity than we do actual scarcity; capitalists must increase scarcity artificially to inflate price, allowing them to derive a profit.

[Vanguard1917]

i don't know, you can't really know, mapping out what communism is to the specifics is utopianism, but what the hell are you on about?

Exactly so. And the assumption that the range of products available will decrease rather than increase is also false, grounded as it is in an imagination which equates communism with Soviet Russia and N. Korea - or worse, with Western petit-bourgeois 'anti-consumerist' hippydom.

[Lowtech]

under further analysis of the question, i think it more so panders to the assertion that somethings cannot be produced within a communist system. That assertion is completely false. Some things may be chosen to be excluded from mass production on basis of necessity and obsolescence, but nothing would be impossible to produce because of communism, in fact the reverse is actually true.

in reality, production now is restricted to below actual production capacity, to derive surplus value. so in actuality, it is capitalism that cannot "produce" in the sense that it cannot produce at full capacity by design. the amount by which production is restricted is exactly the amount of net income that is derived. this is further mathematical observation of artificial scarcity.

a system devoid of artificial scarcity will produce at full capacity. such a system could produce the same goods as we have now, at a much higher output. mathematically, if artificial scarcity were removed but prices and wages remained as they are (which isn't necessary, we could reduce work hours and maintain the same level of production/productivity), first world quality of life (for the middle class and below) would be extended to the entire planet while simultaneously enhancing infrastructure everywhere beyond the best we have today. we might even begin rapidly terraforming mars within decades.

[BIXX]

Babies will no longer be produced under communism. Because everyone will have abortions and satan will rule the earth.

[ckaihatsu]

What exactly is a need? A "need" is a thing that is required in order to live. But we don't need to live, we want to live. All a "need" is is a want that has higher priority.


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://s6.postimage.org/9rs8r3lkd/10_Supply_prioritization_in_a_socialist_transi.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/9rs8r3lkd/)





Now you're just getting ultra philosophical simply to disagree with me.

We need food, water, shelter and oxygen to live. Everything else like Xboxes, Plasma TV's, designer purses, iPads, ect.. Are wants.

So from the looks of it, only "needs" will be given priority to be produced in a communist society, since we can't realistically make enough iPads, Xboxes, TVs, ect.. for everyone on earth at the same time.

Thanks everyone, that's all I wanted to know. :)


As others have pointed out, it's ridiculous to assume that everyone on earth wants exactly the same thing -- there's no reason to think that a socialist social order would be required to produce one item of every existing product on earth, 7 billion times over.

This is simply willfully accepting the conditioning from the capitalist / commodity system, to think that personal health and enjoyment requires 100% separate private property for each individual. More to the point is what people *would* want, and finding *that* out is as simple as asking, as with the use of surveys on the Internet.


---





Oh okay, I'm starting to understand you a little better.

So by democratically you mean, what the 51% decides is best to produce is what will be produced?


This is taking the current, dilapidated approach to politics and trying to make it fit for the domain of demand-driven liberated production.

A moment ago it sounded like there was *too* much demand from the 7 billions, but suddenly now it's all getting squeezed into a one-time, majority-wins blueprint-approach to the world's total production planning. This is taking the worst representative practice from *politics* and grafting it onto the very granulated *economics* sphere.





[In] this day and age of fluid digital-based communications, we may want to dispense with formalized representative personages altogether and just conceptualize a productive entity within a supply chain network as having 'external business' or 'external matters' to include in its regular routine of entity-collective co-administration among its participants.

Given that people make *points* on any of a number of *issues*, which may comprise some larger *topics* -- and these fall into some general *themes*, or *categories* -- wouldn't this very discussion-board format of RevLeft be altogether suitable for a massively parallel (ground-level) political participation among all those concerned, particularly workers, for *all scales* of political implementation -- ?

I think there's conventionally been a kind of lingering anxiety over the political "workload" that would confront any regular person who would work *and* wish to have active, impacting participation in real-world policy, along the lines of the examples you've provided for this thread's discussion.

But I'll note that, for any given concrete issue, not everyone would *necessarily* find the material need to individually weigh in with a distinct proposal of their own -- as I think we've seen here from our own regular participation at RevLeft, it's often the case that a simple press of the 'Thanks' button is all that's needed in many cases where a comrade has *already* put forth the words that we would have said ourselves, thereby relieving us from the task of writing that sentiment ourselves.

Would concrete issues at higher, more-generalized levels be so different, so inaccessible to the regular, affected person on the ground? Wouldn't the information gathered within such an appropriate thread of discussion "clue everyone in" as the overall situation at that level -- say, from the participants of several different countries -- ?

I'll ask if delegated representatives *are* really required anymore when our current political vehicle, the Internet-based discussion board, can facilitate massively participatory, though orderly and topic-specific conversations, across all ranges of geography and scales of populations.



tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-concise-communism





Or is there another method you aim set in place?


Yes, the quick answer is 'prioritization'....


[17] Prioritization Chart

http://s6.postimage.org/jy5fntvcd/17_Prioritization_Chart.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/jy5fntvcd/)


...But there's a more comprehensive approach available as well, for matching a mass needs-based demand to that of a post-capitalist liberated production:





communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://tinyurl.com/ygybheg





Sounds like communism is more of a need system than a want system. The things that people actually need will be prioritized and produced. Wants will not be prioritized, as they may vary significantly from person to person.


Initially, being able to sustainably supply to the human needs of every last person on earth would be a monumental achievement -- it would be the first time it happened in all of human history.

Wants could certainly be fulfilled as well, especially for anything that can be requested in common, since it could then be produced, according to consistent standards, by a liberated mass production.

As part of my model / framework above, I have these two parameters:





Associated material values

consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily




Determination of material values

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174





I guess it depends on size, composition, and what is being voted on. By democracy, I think we can extend this definition from just 'rule of the majority', because clearly that needs to be balanced out by the rights of minorities, too. Perhaps it is more appropriate that important changes taking place at a local level are subject to consensus, or a super-majority. But that's not really something i'm going to speculate on because that is something that will be dictated by social conditions in the future, not by my own personal whimsy.


Democracy was a *political* concession that the bourgeois class won from the royalty, at the waning of feudal-based rule -- it's not something that *anyone*, especially revolutionaries, should feel *beholden* to. Rather, in the domain of mass industrial production, we're dealing more with matters of consumption-driven material demands which aren't dependent on who is "in charge" or exactly which persons carry out the labor for it.

To prove this point there could be a situation where a broad-scale vote is taken and 'the majority' votes to have menial labor provided on a lifelong basis to each and every person -- doesn't mean that any worker is going to actually *oblige* such a "vote".


---





Personally, I propose a work point system.


*Any* points-type system is inherently problematic because it can't answer the question of where points come from, and how they would be introduced into the proposed system:





My standing critique [...] is that a 'points system' doesn't go far enough because the question of how points are issued in the first place is intractable:





How would points be assigned to individuals in the first place -- ?

If it's on a strictly across-the-board consistent basis -- say 100 points per person per month -- that would be very egalitarian, but it would be an overall (societal) *disincentive* towards new efforts at greater social coordination and experimental / speculative advancements in research and development.

And, conversely, if *increasing* rates of points could be obtained for increased amounts of work effort, *that* would be tantamount to the commodification of labor, since labor would be directly exchangeable for material rewards -- too close to a capitalistic market economy, in other words.

Part of the reason for using RevLeft so much is precisely for this question of a feasible political-logistical approach to a post-capitalist political economy, and why I've developed my own 'solution' for such, at my blog entry, blah blah blah....


---





Two different concepts

The "invisible hand" of the market describes how and why people act as they do.

The "invisible hand" of the workers council describes how people vote on a course of action. It offers no explanation as to why they are voting the way they do.


The journalism that exists around political matters certainly delves into why representatives vote the way they do, what their voting records have been, etc. -- there's no reason to think that such public scrutiny would *cease* once the public sector usurps the private sector, entirely, for good.





Is the reason we don't get to read Atlas Shrugged because we are all going to have better taste? Because reactionary propaganda will be censured? Libraries will be worse funded? Something else?


We will make special libraries everywhere that contain nothing *but* 'Atlas Shrugged', and will then viciously underfund them.


x D

[NGNM85]

Nuclear & biological weapons, border fences, and Big Macs.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Nuclear & biological weapons, border fences, and Big Macs.

If I can't have Big Macs, then I don't want to be in your revolution. :P

[BIXX]

If I can't have Big Macs, then I don't want to be in your revolution. :P


Hear hear!

The proletariat, united behind the glorious Big Mac.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Big Macs are just a brand name for a particular kind of burger. We'd just call them something else, and hopefully use better ingredients.

[Ele'ill]

ÑóẊîöʼn[/COLOR] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=8267)]and hopefully use better ingredients.

like not meat

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

@ÑóẊîöʼn

....OK, I can live with that. Just make sure to get the recipe for the secret sauce from the execs and we're good.

[Ele'ill]

and I can't edit that post so you'll all just have to look at that horrid corruption forever

[BIXX]

like not meat

Hear hear!

The Proletariat, United Behind the Glorious Vegetarian Big Mac!!!

Though, in all seriousness why do so many people value eating meat so goddamn much? I mean, it doesn't even taste good.

[Sinister Intents]

I'd hope things without demand wouldn't be produced, I'm super baked and drunk and feeling very good

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What "things" will cease production under communism?

Who knows? What gets produced will be the decision of the people living in that communist society.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

like not meat

No, like better meat. Lean and properly cooked without being bulked up with starch or water.


Hear hear!

The Proletariat, United Behind the Glorious Vegetarian Big Mac!!!

Though, in all seriousness why do so many people value eating meat so goddamn much? I mean, it doesn't even taste good.

Clearly plenty of people, myself included, disagree and think that meat tastes great.

[NGNM85]

If I can't have Big Macs, then I don't want to be in your revolution. :P

That's, like, exactly what Emma Goldman would've said. ;)


Big Macs are just a brand name for a particular kind of burger. We'd just call them something else, and hopefully use better ingredients.

I vote for; "shit sandwich."

[liberlict]

Expropriation of McDonald's special sauce and the KFC spices should be the first thing on the revolutionary agenda.