Prices and Brands.

[R_P_A_S]

people pay the big bucks most of the time because that particular brand name has better products and workmanship. You can tell something "cheap" to something that was well made, and obviously you pay for the quality at the store!

Under socialism, obviously there would not be private companies that make TVs.. so companies like SONY and MAGNABOX will cease... right?

OK. so lets say I want to buy a TV, so I go do some shopping. what would be my choices? Obviously there's no competition.. no particular brand name is going to try to convinced me to get their TV... my question is i guess a 2 part question.

1. how much would TVs cost? how can the price be determined?

2. How are we to trust they are well made. and have the guarantees we had with like SONY brand?
since there's no options and competition won't the consumer be left with little alternatives and have to settle for the same POS TV his neighbor, and his uncle have?

[Janus]

Just because there is less competition doesn't mean that the products will be of less quality. Capitalism is based on the premise of competition yet everywhere around you, you see instances where companies try to reduce competition as much as possible. In fact, you probably have a better guarantee to quality in a socialist system because your product is made by someone who actually enjoys his or her job.

As for costs, they would depend on the production/labor input towards the item.

Current thread on prices (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63438&hl=prices)

[BobKKKindle$]

Just because there is less competition doesn't mean that the products will be of less quality. Capitalism is based on the premise of competition yet everywhere around you, you see instances where companies try to reduce competition as much as possible.

Indeed, it should be noted that, especially in markets that are oligopolistic in structure (dominated by a small number of firms) producers will often delay the manufcature of new, superior products in order to maximise the profits they can derive from the sale of other, inferior commodities. Products may also be manufactured such that they are non-durable so that the firm has access to a constant market - if such products were durable, then the market at any single point in time would be highly limited.

Any examination of history will show that goods and services have been produced more efficiently when under worker's control. The tram-system in Barcelona during the Civil war is the most commonly quoted case-study; hopefully some members can refer us all to some sources?

[Political_Chucky]

Yea I was wondering the same questions R_P_A_S was asking. In my economics class(which I believe is just feeding me propaganda about Stalinism) my teacher keeps emphazing that a Market Economy is the most specialized and most efficient way of getting products out with the best quality. And in a way, it does kind of make sense that competition would drive a person to create a better item.


Just because there is less competition doesn't mean that the products will be of less quality. Capitalism is based on the premise of competition yet everywhere around you, you see instances where companies try to reduce competition as much as possible. In fact, you probably have a better guarantee to quality in a socialist system because your product is made by someone who actually enjoys his or her job.

As for costs, they would depend on the production/labor input towards the item.

My teacher keeps saying that in a Command Economy, people are forced to do jobs they would not desire or they would not be able to pick their jobs, which I exclaimed when he was talking "thats not true," which I didn't mean because I had been thinking out loud haha.

But yea, I think that the government could regulate in this case for items to be at a particular quality. Products that don't meet a certain lifetime warranty or do not operate efficiently should be made to do so. Is this already an idea? Honestly, I have been much more occupied with the theory and politics of Communism, but not much of the economics of it all. I need to do some research I think :ph34r:

[Tekun]

In school, most teachers pointed out the flaws of the planned economy under the USSR
They're main focus was and continues to be the USSR's lack of a consumer goods, the shortcomings and failure of such an economy
However, as we all know, the USSR is not representative of a true socialist economy
It was poorly managed by a group of cronies, without a connection to the working class, all this while desperately competing with the Americans

An important aspect to remember is that if a society were able to reach socialism, the working class rather than the communist party, should be the class in control of the economy
They're needs and wants would be taken care of by their own neighbors and friends working and involved in the production of consumer goods
The working class would be directly connected and involved in the production of their own goods and necessities
People's needs would be met, and overwork and overproduction would be avoided due to the nature of a planned economy under the direct control of the working class i.e. under a socialism, the countries population
Unlike in the US, where goods are produced for mere profits, and quality is often not taken into consideration (just think of the number of products that Consumer Rights groups have been able to recall, and others that they've only been able to denounce)
Gurantee's aren't intended to help consumers, they're a temporary solution to a flawed system, where profits are made by any means (and in some instances, by selling worthless and dangerous shit) in order to keep the company going, and as we all know these guarantees hit the working class right in their pockets

Under socialism, the working class would provide for itself in order to satisfy its own needs
TV's like all other consumer goods, would be produced by the working class and for the working class
No bosses, no CEO's, no ppl deciding how many units would bump up the company's stock price

[dannthraxxx]

I personally hope that television goes away. Media is really an obstacle to get over.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 04:53 am

My teacher keeps saying that in a Command Economy, people are forced to do jobs they would not desire or they would not be able to pick their jobs, which I exclaimed when he was talking "thats not true," which I didn't mean because I had been thinking out loud haha.


This is a load of bullshit. In the Soviet Union people were free to take whatever job they were qualified to do. The planners simply altered wages of various jobs to tempt people into under staffed sectors of the economy.

That aside though, I do agree that a centrally planned economy will be inefficiet when it comes to consumer goods. But who needs central planning? There is a major difference between firms being worker run and state run.

[Janus]

I personally hope that television goes away. Media is really an obstacle to get over.
In a post-revolutionary society, electronic media will be crucial for communication and contact between various groups for networking, decision making, and general information exchange purposes.

[OddView]

Hello Again!

I have another question related to my previous one,

Is a Teachers union considered one that controls the means of production?

Is a child or a student considered a "product" ?

[Janus]

Is a Teachers union considered one that controls the means of production?
No, unions don't control the means of production; the bourgeois do.


Is a child or a student considered a "product" ?
No, not within Marxist economics.

[( R )evolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 01:19 am
Hello Again!

I have another question related to my previous one,

Is a Teachers union considered one that controls the means of production?

Is a child or a student considered a "product" ?


Is a Teachers union considered one that controls the means of production?

A union is when the workers or proletariats unionize and create a council that seek to improve the conditions of the worker and etc. Unions do not control the means of proudction but rather the bourgeois or the ruling class do. The workers are employed by the bourgeois to create goods or commodities.


Is a child or a student considered a "product" ?

As Janus said, not in Marxist theory.