How exactly would the economy be run under socialism/communism?

[Jacob Cliff]

I know this is a vague question, but I'm asking for how is it run? Running it like under Josef Stalin's regime or that of Mao Zedong would only be centralizing capitalism into state hands, and it doesn't get rid of the exploitive relationships (not trying to start a Tendency war, but that's my perception). So how would a genuine socialist economy work? How does "society" run? We obviously need managers, so do we elect these managers? Or are they appointed? If appointed, by who? A democratically elected appointee board?
How are workers paid under the DotP? Since they are still paid wages, are they still subject to wage-labor? Are they, in some sense, still exploited?
Lastly (sorry for the lot of questions!), is it centrally run or decentralized? I don't understand how a stateless society can run off central planning and I also can't really understand how centralization can allocate resources efficiently.
Please note I'm pretty dumb when it comes to Marxism, so respond as if you're trying to explain to someone who's totally new to Marxism, please.

[tuwix]

First of all, revolution must be worldwide. If isn't, there won't be socialism. Secondly, the power above workplaces must be given to its workers. That means that all decisions must be made by voting or there should be chosen a manager by workers who can be sacked any time.
All other decisions must be taken in referendums. That's my opinion.

[Lowtech]

I know this is a vague question, but I'm asking for how is it run? Running it like under Josef Stalin's regime or that of Mao Zedong would only be centralizing capitalism into state hands, and it doesn't get rid of the exploitive relationships (not trying to start a Tendency war, but that's my perception).

stick with marx and the LTV.


So how would a genuine socialist economy work?

start with economics itself. economics is metabolic and nothing occurs without the labor and natural resources required to realize it. capitalism manipulates this via the concept of capital. whereas capital doesn't exist until one denies others a needed resource in order to contract them to work in exchange for that resource. this is all facilitated via a monetary system. money and capital are human inventions. they are conceptual mechanisms used to socially engineer people into a plutocratic structure. these concepts grew out of early agricultural societies and authoritarian religion. a socialist/communist "economy" would simply be economics with money and the concept of capital removed.


How does "society" run? We obviously need managers, so do we elect these managers? Or are they appointed? If appointed, by who? A democratically elected appointee board?

we don't need managers. managers/middle management etc exist in current businesses because of the menial nature of jobs. there is only a certain threshold of job related stress people can cope with. managers are then needed to ensure compliance. when people don't comply they are issued correctives and eventually terminated. when we shed jobs and instead develop skill sets, work will be naturally less menial. less work related stress and less need for "mangers" to ensure compliance. skill sets are necessary for a human oriented economy. jobs are necessary for profit oriented economy.


How are workers paid under the DotP? Since they are still paid wages, are they still subject to wage-labor? Are they, in some sense, still exploited?

no they are not exploited in an economy free of money and the conceptual mechanism of capital. however in contrast, exploitation in capitalism is mathematically observable.


Lastly (sorry for the lot of questions!), is it centrally run or decentralized? I don't understand how a stateless society can run off central planning and I also can't really understand how centralization can allocate resources efficiently.

what is the point of reference that you use to determine efficient resource allocation? half the population of the earth today lives on $2 a day, 80% lives on $10 or less. concentration of wealth is a tab bit obvious. practically any allocation that isn't profit oriented would be better allocation than we see today.

additionally, technology is a great place to see socialism versus capitalism. technology tends toward standards, whereas capitalism creates unneeded diversity in products. this is why we have overpriced or obscure "quality" products and wasteful variants. also capitalism prefers mass manufacturing of static product designs rather than customizability. this is why a development SoC (system on a chip) that can run multiple OS's is much more useful than a finished device locked to proprietary software. yet the finish locked device is preferred in capitalism.

our current economics is profit, exclusivity oriented and driven by artificial scarcity.

the condition of artificial scarcity created by capitalism is expressed in several ways:

-"need" for capital.
-profit (surplus value)
-being paid less than the value of our labor so it is profitable to capitalists
-poverty

[Creative Destruction]

OP, I have a question: how much Marx have you read?

[Jacob Cliff]

Not enough admittedly. Only the Manifesto, Gotha, & currently working on Capital v. 1.

[socialistlawyer]

Gorbachev's decentralized planning runs afoul with the basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism. No wonder the Soviet Union imploded. A communist leader should be careful not to antagonize his peers because if one does, there will be political ramifications which the Right will exploit. Hence, the disintegration of the Soviet Union. (Gorbachev probably dumped all the intelligence information he gathered while in power hence causing intelligence hemorrhage.) I hope it does not happen to Putin who admitted "that his Soviet coat lasted 30 years"; hence, products during Stalin were durable and of good quality.

[Dave B]

Ironically a good place to start is with Joseph Stalin of all people in 1906 (from page 336) where he gives a passable description of socialism, which he uses interchangeably with the ‘higher phase of communism’.

It is obviously completely different from 1920’s+ State Capitalism and Stalinism.

The thrust of the article is that there was no difference in the final goal of 'Bolshevism' and ‘Kropotkinism’; and the Anarchists accusations that the ‘Marxists’ clandestinely wanted to or would introduce state capitalism was;





...mere tittle-tattle devoid of all foundation...



http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#c3