Quick Question - that ive been pondering,...

[sabre]

since all businesses are owned by the goverment in a socialist state, what is to keep them from charging insanely high prices on various goods without other businesses to compete for the consumer's money?

[Supermodel]

Customers will only buy what they can afford. The price cannot go above what people can afford or they will a)do without B) ration what they buy or c) obtain it on the black market.

Here's an example: in the US they keep scaring us by saying that by the time our kids are ready for university, it will cost something like $120,000 a year to go to college. My response is that that is ridiculous. If it costs that much, no one will go because you'll never be better off economically after you get your degree.

Nature finds a balance.

Anyway I am just a learner here but I think in a socialist state only monopolies are nationalized, and ordinary trade between small businesses is left to the markets. I may be way wrong on that.

[vox]

Supermodel writes:

"Nature finds a balance."

Here she posits the man-made marketplace as something that is natural and in so doing betrays a belief that capitalist social relations obey some sort of natural law, like gravity or the speed of light. This, however, is not the case at all.

Rather the market demands constant human adjustments. The US gov't recently donated money in the form of coproate welfare to the airline industry, calling it a "bailout." But if capitalism is to be taken seriously, then shouldn't other airlines have sprung up, offering a better price? Shouldn't more "productive" (for capitalists love to talk of productivity) airlines have filled the gap, so the gov't would not need to use public funds for private gain?

Of course.

This did not happen, though. Rather, the working class had its taxes used to prop up a failing capitalist business. There is nothing "natural" about it.

vox

[Cobber]

Recently Ansett Airlines (Australia) suffered financial collapse leaving the majority of its workforce out of a job, loss of entitlements (holiday pay, long service leave etc) - only the high-flying (pun intended) executives walked away will millions.

There was a huge outcry from the Australian people that the Government should bail out this privately owned, free market company - why? because it was the right thing to do by your fellow countryman.

But why should they (and they didn't) after all we live in a capitalist society and sh-t happens. What the people wer suggest was that the Government take control of private enterprise (you can see my point) - my God - a communist state. Tell the anglophiles that their good hearts were suggesting communisim and their blue rinsed hair would turn white in horror....

What was the subject topic...?

[sabre]

Um... none of those have to do with my question. hheheheehe. Could someone please answer my question?

[peaccenicked]

your question misunderstands the nature of socialism.
There are transitional phases. At first we take under democratic control all major businesses. This negates the role of money to a certain extent as commodities are no longer commodities with exchange value and social use value. they lose the character of exchange and the state provides for all. Small businesses find it increasingly difficult to obtain exchange value and have to arrange with the State franchises that assess their social need for the community and provides the shortfall
if it undermines their social needs.
If the business is distributive, it will eventually come part of the planned economy. If it is a small commodity producer outside of
mass production, then I think exchange will take place(also with the State) as there will only be a finite supply of certain goods.
As far as I know, marxists have not covered this aspect of the economy
very well. yet I think it woud be a nice problem to have.
. A mini market inside the dominant law of plan might be a major problem but not outwith the scope of majority resolution. As work becomes lives prime want and the State withers away. Production becomes mechanised and menial work becomes replaced by mental labour, the rare goods become socialised by the universality
of human skills. ie if you want something you will have the skills to produce it or exchange the odd skilled item
by common agreements.

[sabre]

i dont get it. since the state is the only provider of, say, popsicles, what is to keep them from charging $100 for a box of popsicles without other businesses to compete for the consumer's money

[peaccenicked]

remember it is our state we decide, prices become meaningless in a state were money no longer acts as money. There will only be nominal tokens that signify state distribution has been actualised. The social plan
is to fulfil needs not to make an earner.

[MJM]

The idea of individual profit would be obsolete.
Business won't be there for the making of money, it will be there for the making of goods for all the people.

[mdk az us]

Since the state is the only provider of goods there is nothing to stop them from setting the prices sky high. It is not done because it is not "their style". Usually the prices are kept (dictated) by the state at an artificially low level.

While it maybe good for the "everyday Joe" it creates another problem by eliminating any desire for competition based on product improvement. If a janitor and an enginner are equal and both have the same earning potential, why would anyone devote time and energy to studying engineering??? Why would anyone develop a better product if the state is price fixing everything??? I guess it only leaves personal satisfaction of being educated and creative, but that only works for very few people.

(Edited by mdk az us at 4:59 am on April 1, 2002)

[TheDerminator]

mdk az us,

U do not need money in a socialist economy.

Money is only a regulator of supply and demand.

The technology now exists to provide this with a purchase card.

The latter can be linked to working hours practise in a transitional stage of socialism, so people work for equal access to what the purchase card allows.

The ethos is equal work ethos = equal rights as an individual.

In a society where ethos is at the core of social consciousness responsibility to the community is the main incentive.

U might say sitting infront of a set of monitors all day as a security guard is an easier job, than a brain surgeon, but no brain surgeon wishes to become a security guard. There is an incentive in doing interesting rewarding work.

Yep, I do believe the work of the security guard and the work of the brain surgeon carry equal ethical value.

I mean a security guard needs a brain surgeon to help with the brain damage that goes with the job!

May the Force be with U!

derminated

(Edited by TheDerminator at 1:32 pm on April 1, 2002)

[munkey soup]

But what is the incentive for the brain surgeon to become a brain surgeon? besides meaningful work that helps others?

I personally believe that bettering the community is good incentive, but many people would disagree with this. (Of course I am basing this on people I know, but I assume there are others out there).

As for the purchase card, do you mean that the more hours worked means greater purchasing power? I am not clear on this.

[honest intellectual]

Cuba has the best doctor:people ratio in the world (1:165). 5000 to 7000 Cubans become doctors every year. Whatever about the theory of it, it clearly works very well.


But what is the incentive for the brain surgeon to become a brain surgeon? besides meaningful work that helps others?

I personally believe that bettering the community is good incentive, but many people would disagree with this. (Of course I am basing this on people I know, but I assume there are others out there).
Munkey soup, people would be different under socialism. You (a socialist) believe in working for the good of society. It is a socialist idea and belief. So in a socialist society, everyone (well, except the cappie traitors and a few others) will be socialists and therefore have this belief.

[munkey soup]

True, but people are used to working for an incentive, at least here in Northern America.

I think maybe the question I am asking wouldn't apply to an already set socialist State. In a socialist State one would assume the people are all socialists, and believe in community over individual wealth (as in financial status; as opposed to inherent). In a situation such as this, one wouldn't worry about incentive, so my question would be moot.

Instead maybe I should ask how are we going to change those used to the capatalist system into believing in socialism. But is this change wholly possible? Can incentives be totally erased and still be able to achieve goals?

[El Che]

Sabre, in a socialist state the first thing to disapear is profit. You see your question demonstrates that you are thinking in capitalist terms. You are thinking of a socialist state in capitalist terms and this is a contradiction in and of its self. True that socialist states must first exist with capitalist, but in this instance they are a project not yet taken to effect. Once socialist reformation is truely effectivated there is no more profit in the mod of production there for the goverment can not charge anything, it merely distributes wealth, and it should be said that it [the state] may not even have that function. The solution of the state taking over the whole of the means of production is a temporaring one, one taken at the very bening of socialist transformation. The higher the stage of socialism the lesser the role played by the state. Hence the belief that at the higher of socialist stages there will be that which is closer to anarchism. As close as we can get to that utopian notion.

So my friend when u see a "socialist" state that makes a profit, however little it may be, from selling what others have produced, you will know the revolution has been betrayed.

(Edited by El Che at 3:09 am on April 2, 2002)

[honest intellectual]

But there could be incentives other than material incentives.

(can you tell I haven't thought that through much?;))

[munkey soup]

Sure, the incentives would be the betterment of the community. But I know too many people who don't give a s*** about anyone else but themselves. Of course, through a social revolution, these peoples ideas of incentive would hopefully change.

[Nateddi]

Newbie Capitalist. Read the rules