Question: Non-necessities in a Centrally planned society

[Marl Karx]

From an empirical standpoint I agree that a planned economy, without markets or wealth and private property is ideal, and would work towards everyone's best interests and well being. I have no doubt that this would be more effective than capitalism, as well as more ethically and morally proper.

However, from a pragmatic standpoint, I can't understand how modern day people, especially emerging from such a consumerist culture, could live without certain leisure items and forms of entertainment. I absolutely don't mean to say "Thanks Capitalism!", but the reality is I wouldn't have an Xbox or this computer with a planned economy right? I wouldn't be able to go out to eat in Manhattan on the weekends, or even enjoy some musical equipment I own. I was reading about how Venezuela feeds its people, and though I see its effective and affordable, as well as probably pretty satisfying, it must get boring? I know this seems trivial, but it would be foolish to ignore the fact that these materialistic things have become apart of almost everyone's lives.

I'm not saying this would never be possible in a socialist society, I'm just posing the question, How?

[Geiseric]

Everything is already overpriced, i can't see how that would get worse with a planned economy. You're mixing up war communism with the whole idea of nationalization under a workers state.

[Thirsty Crow]

Everything is already overpriced, i can't see how that would get worse with a planned economy. You're mixing up war communism with the whole idea of nationalization under a workers state.
It's simply untrue that "everything is overpriced". It's a casual matter that some commodities are sold even below their value.

[Marl Karx]

Everything is already overpriced, i can't see how that would get worse with a planned economy. You're mixing up war communism with the whole idea of nationalization under a workers state.

I'm not talking about the prices of things, I'm just saying without a private sector, wouldn't society lack any form of entertainment or leisure.

How would this sense of creativity be fostered?

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm not talking about the prices of things, I'm just saying without a private sector, wouldn't society lack any form of entertainment or leisure.

How would this sense of creativity be fostered?
If anything, I believe it a reasonable assumption that human creative activity would explode and flourish within the framework of the communist relations of production (forget about ramblings about nationalization).

To ask a kind of a counter-question, what makes you think that leisure and entertainment are completely dependent on private property (e.g. producing entertainment for profit)?

[Marl Karx]

If anything, I believe it a reasonable assumption that human creative activity would explode and flourish within the framework of the communist relations of production (forget about ramblings about nationalization).

To ask a kind of a counter-question, what makes you think that leisure and entertainment are completely dependent on private property (e.g. producing entertainment for profit)?

I understand how human creativity would flourish under this type of economy in the sense you speak of, and I am entirely behind it, but I phrased it wrong.

I'm asking how would things such as TV's, musical instruments, and other electronics or seemingly trivial forms of entertainment would be produced without capitalism. Is there a way to produce such things, and open restaurants and stores without using profit as an incentive. I'm in no way saying we "need" capitalism, but I don't see how a worker run economy could do this. This is my main doubt with an entirely planned economy.

[ComradeOm]

However, from a pragmatic standpoint, I can't understand how modern day people, especially emerging from such a consumerist culture, could live without certain leisure items and forms of entertainment. I absolutely don't mean to say "Thanks Capitalism!", but the reality is I wouldn't have an Xbox or this computer with a planned economy right? I wouldn't be able to go out to eat in Manhattan on the weekends, or even enjoy some musical equipment I ownWhy not? Even the Soviet Union, hardly a shining example of socialist abundance, didn't abolish leisure time or prohibit the production of consumer goods. (Admittedly, Stalin did what he could in that direction.) If goods weren't available then it was due to the malfunctioning economy more than design.

Which leads to the key point: communists are not for so-called 'barracks communism' that requires that everyone live in equal poverty. Instead the consumption of goods is to be encouraged; the ultimate goal of Marxism is a society of abundance. And yeah, that includes Xboxes and Nikes.

If a planned economy can't deliver that then there's something wrong with the economy in question. As there was with the USSR.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I've actually seen a Soviet-era arcade machine - wasn't allowed to play on it at the exhibition (unusual among the other machines there) because there are hardly any of them :( Apparently most of the internal electronics are cobbled together out of leftovers from other industries (particularly aircraft production) and almost all them are unique.

Bizarre and punishingly difficult to play, apparently.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Markets actually stifles and retards innovation. I also don't see the correlation between the xbox and market demands for the latest and greatest console. There is absolutely nothing to say that under a gift economy or planned economy that an Xbox or better product could have been produced.

[ckaihatsu]

I've actually seen a Soviet-era arcade machine - wasn't allowed to play on it at the exhibition (unusual among the other machines there) because there are hardly any of them :( Apparently most of the internal electronics are cobbled together out of leftovers from other industries (particularly aircraft production) and almost all them are unique.

Bizarre and punishingly difficult to play, apparently.


Brought this to mind.... (grin)


Ubckx7X2Nd4

[ckaihatsu]

[I]'m asking how would things such as TV's, musical instruments, and other electronics or seemingly trivial forms of entertainment would be produced without capitalism. Is there a way to produce such things, and open restaurants and stores without using profit as an incentive. I'm in no way saying we "need" capitalism, but I don't see how a worker run economy could do this. This is my main doubt with an entirely planned economy.


Let's put it this way: If you were suddenly freed from all concerns about the well-being of your person and self, what, then, would you do with yourself -- ?

What would be *worth doing*, other than that which is demonstrably necessary for the continuation of one's existence -- ?





The Soul of Man under Socialism

The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely anyone at all escapes.

Now and then, in the course of the century, a great man of science, like Darwin; a great poet, like Keats; a fine critical spirit, like M. Renan; a supreme artist, like Flaubert, has been able to isolate himself, to keep himself out of reach of the clamorous claims of others, to stand ‘under the shelter of the wall,’ as Plato puts it, and so to realise the perfection of what was in him, to his own incomparable gain, and to the incomparable and lasting gain of the whole world. These, however, are exceptions.

[...]




http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm asking how would things such as TV's, musical instruments, and other electronics or seemingly trivial forms of entertainment would be produced without capitalism. Is there a way to produce such things, and open restaurants and stores without using profit as an incentive. I'm in no way saying we "need" capitalism, but I don't see how a worker run economy could do this. This is my main doubt with an entirely planned economy.
You are effectively saying we need capitalism since you don't even see a possibility for the mere production of TVs in a different way society wide.

Why do you think profit is the only effective incentive in people making stuff? After all, cave drawings weren't made for profit, and production of the necessities of life went on for thousands and thousands of years without any kind of such an incentive.

People will probably want to play music instruments; what makes production improbable here?

[Slavic]

When you are free from the daily grind of figuring out how to pay for housing, food, and medical, than you will have more free time to devote to leisure and innovative pursuits.

Imagine how many brilliant and creative minds exist the world over that spend all day trying to find food instead of creating and innovating.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think the issue comes down to distribution, not production. We know how to produce these commodities in large quantities, but how do we actually distribute them without a currency system? That is a far more interesting question. Especially when we include the distribution of upgraded technology (which XBox owners get the first load of XBox 360s, for instance)

[robbo203]

From an empirical standpoint I agree that a planned economy, without markets or wealth and private property is ideal, and would work towards everyone's best interests and well being. I have no doubt that this would be more effective than capitalism, as well as more ethically and morally proper.


Socialism will NOT be a centrally planned economy and cannot possibly be a centrally planned economy because the very idea of a centrally planned economy with one single vast plan , planning in apriori fashion, all of the inputs and outputs of the entire economy is just utterly absurd and totally unworkable.

All economies including even the most free market version of capitalism involves "planning". All capitalist enterprises "plan". So it is absurd to counterpose a so called "planned" economy to one in which there is no "planning". Centrally planning is the utopian idea of merging all the millions of separate plans that occur in the economy rather than allowing for the spontaneous adjustment of these separate plans to each other.

In capitalism that happens through the market'; in socialism it will happoen through the self regulating mechanism of stock control using calculation in kind. "Central planning" is just one huge big red herring. Forget about it. Its a dumb idea from start to finish

[FSL]

but the reality is I wouldn't have an Xbox or this computer with a planned economy right? I wouldn't be able to go out to eat in Manhattan on the weekends, or even enjoy some musical equipment I own.
No, that's not the reality.

There were no gaming consoles a few decades back but when it comes to going away on the weekends or owning musical equipment, I'm pretty sure they had more of both in the planned economies.



I'm asking how would things such as TV's, musical instruments, and other electronics or seemingly trivial forms of entertainment would be produced without capitalism. Is there a way to produce such things, and open restaurants and stores without using profit as an incentive. I'm in no way saying we "need" capitalism, but I don't see how a worker run economy could do this. This is my main doubt with an entirely planned economy.
The "profit motive" isn't a raw material for any of the products you mention or for any other product in fact, as far as I know.

Their production wouldn't be different to how a hospital produces treatments for its patients or how a steel factory produces steel.
After all the profit is the incentive of the owner. Mcdonald's workers don't see any of the company's profits, shareholders get those. But it's the workers who are at Mcdonald's everyday, preparing food and cleaning up tables.