Opening a store in a socialist society

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Hello, comrades!

This is my first of what will inevitably be many questions about how the world, as you see it, will operate after the revolution. I'm young to these ideas, so I hope you bear with me if I slip into the dark zone. :D

Assuming the State takes control over shops, farms, and so on, will buildings which serve no purpose be demolished? Let's say, for the sake of having something to work from, that there are three pizza shops in my city (there are probably more). Would two be torn down, used as something different, or kept?

Also, who would fit the bill for building a car repair shop in the city, the workers of that shop or the entire community? Would the community vote on whether they want a car shop in their city through a community initiative? Who would pay to keep the shop operating and who would determine what the shop needs (funds-wise)?

Could a single individual start a shop in my town out of either a loan or his own pocket money but still give the company decisions over to the workers?

Edit- Tricked you. This thread is filled with questions. ;) Thanks for your time.

[apathy maybe]

Well, it depends on what you mean by socialism. You seem to be using it in the sense of state control over the means of production (rather then worker control), which I wouldn't say was really socialist.

I can't talk about such a situation, because states are varied quite a lot, and a "socialist" state would be no different.


In a post-state post-capitalist society, however, it depends. I am an anarchist, so that colours my ideas pretty much.

I'll try and answer each of your questions from my perspective (that of an anarchist), rather then in a "socialist" state. (Also, money, funny thing, causes a lot of problems. In a communist society, there wouldn't be such a thing.)


Assuming the State takes control over shops, farms, and so on, will buildings which serve no purpose be demolished? Let's say, for the sake of having something to work from, that there are three pizza shops in my city (there are probably more). Would two be torn down, used as something different, or kept?It depends on the building. I would guess that a lot of churches would be pulled down (though I doubt all). Pizza shops? I would think that they would be left, and probably used to make and distribute pizza. Though the workers might decide that they don't want to make pizza any more and close the doors.


Also, who would fit the bill for building a car repair shop in the city, the workers of that shop or the entire community? Would the community vote on whether they want a car shop in their city through a community initiative? Who would pay to keep the shop operating and who would determine what the shop needs (funds-wise)?This question requires a complicated answer, mainly because I'm assuming the lack of a state which your questions were based upon. It depends on the system set up. In a communist system, the community would "foot the bill", though there wouldn't be any bill. Rather there would just be a list of resources used. If there is need of a car fixing place in a community, then the community would try and organise one. The people who would work there would be the ones who know how to fix cars (and want to), or who want to learn. If the shop needs resources, the workers would just head to the distribution point for those resources and pick them up.


Could a single individual start a shop in my town out of either a loan or his own pocket money but still give the company decisions over to the workers?Because any socialist society is by definition not capitalistic, there wouldn't be such a thing as a "company". If a group of workers wanted to start a workshop or a distribution point, well there isn't anyone going to stop them. In a communist society, they would probably discuss the need for such a place with the community before hand, as there is little point duplicating resources or working more then what you have to.

Hope that gives you some idea of what things might look like.

[Dr Mindbender]

things like currency, capital and the means to acheive these are arbitrary in a socialist society so the only establishments that would be 'obsolete' would be things like banks, mortgage brokers, pawn shops and other financial institutions which have no purpose other than the enslavement and exploitation of proletarian labour. The purpose of the revolution is to liberate the working man from the alienating controls of the bosses, so the communist high street would be dictated by the passions and interests of society at large, rather than a few elite economists and money men at the top.

[Janus]

Assuming the State takes control over shops, farms, and so on, will buildings which serve no purpose be demolished? Let's say, for the sake of having something to work from, that there are three pizza shops in my city (there are probably more). Would two be torn down, used as something different, or kept?
I'm sure they could always serve some purpose though there's nothing wrong with having multiple food distribution centers for convenience reasons.


Could a single individual start a shop in my town out of either a loan or his own pocket money but still give the company decisions over to the workers?
I think it would be best if such property ownership were to be abolished early on or soon after the revolution.


Also, who would fit the bill for building a car repair shop in the city, the workers of that shop or the entire community?
I think establishing new buildings or services in an area would need approval from the community.


Would the community vote on whether they want a car shop in their city through a community initiative? Who would pay to keep the shop operating and who would determine what the shop needs (funds-wise)?
The necessary materials would most likely be determined by the respective workers of the shop though the funds would probably have to come from the local government (whatever they may be in this socialist system).

[syndicat]

Assuming the State takes control over shops, farms, and so on, will buildings which serve no purpose be demolished? Let's say, for the sake of having something to work from, that there are three pizza shops in my city (there are probably more). Would two be torn down, used as something different, or kept?

why assume the state takes over things? You're assuming that socialism is state ownership. But the experience is that this just puts in power a bureaucratic class of bosses. so what's the point? if the point to a revolution is to liberate the working class from bosses, then we can expect that all industries would be managed by people working in them. so it would be that workers take over the farms, shops, etc. and administers them for the society. social ownership just means that what is done with these things has to be accountable to the people in some way that ensures social benefit. It doesn't have to mean state ownership. do you really believe that the people really control the state? that's not my experience.

to determine whether there needs to be more or less pizza shops depends on both what the workers there want to do as well as what people in the community want to consume, and how the community wants to put its resources. we would need to develop some democratic system to decide these things. if lots of people continue to want pizza, then we'd want to have places that make pizza. the more general question is the fate of restaurants, of which pizza places are one type.


Also, who would fit the bill for building a car repair shop in the city, the workers of that shop or the entire community?

a self-managed system of social planning should determine how resources are allocated to produce things we want. this includes the use of land and buildings and the allocation of available people for work. but it would be the entire society that would own the assets involved -- the land, building, the equipment. so it is the society that provides the resources via the planning system. there might be some degree of say over use of land and buildings in a neighborhood by a local neighborhood assembly/council.



Would the community vote on whether they want a car shop in their city through a community initiative? Who would pay to keep the shop operating and who would determine what the shop needs (funds-wise)?

one way to do this is to use what is called participatory planning. this requires commuunities and individuals to say what they want to consume, and groups of workers say what they propose to produce, including bidding to use particular resources such as land and buildings to do it. there might not be an initial agreement so there would need to be some process of negotiation, based on what people's priorities are. if a neighborhood or town wants a particular facility such as a child care center or school or a shared car pool these would be proposed and then the costs of doing this would have to be figured out and people would have to see if they're willing to have their limited social resources used that way rather than doing something else. but every community includes people who provide services and make goods and this earns for the community a certain contribution to the total social product.


Could a single individual start a shop in my town out of either a loan or his own pocket money but still give the company decisions over to the workers?

a single individual could propose a new production group or distribution center, and maybe get a group of people together who would agree to work there but the initiator can't remain as boss, not under a worker managed system. if the proposal is regarded as a good idea by the community and enough people want to consume what they propose to produce, then it may get allocated necessary resources to start working. but in a system that empowers workers, resources would only be allocated to groups if workers do collectively manage it, and there isn't some boss hierarchy there.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Thanks for the answers, comrades. I've down some reading and pondering over the subject. :)

The reason I asked is because my girlfriend and I have been looking into starting a book distribution center with some friends of ours in the future. Our community wants a library/book store but instead we got Wal-Mart. :rolleyes: She&#39;s a social democrat leaning on mutualism/socialism, but has agreed that if we ever started a store it would be run democratically with no reference to *ownership*. Of course the laws are downright hostile towards collective assets... <_<

Working against the system, as much as within? I don&#39;t know what you would call it.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 05:22 pm
Working against the system, as much as within? I don&#39;t know what you would call it.
Building the new world in the shell of the old?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I&#39;ve got a new question. :D

Let&#39;s say the community has agreed to a food center. Who/what would determine who works there? If the center would require 30 workers, but 60 present the idea, then what?

At what stage would positions be handed out?

[apathy maybe]

It depends on the community.

I must of course attack the idea that positions would be "handed out", as if there was some sort of hierarchy who decided such matters.

There are a variety of methods of doing things that don&#39;t require such methods.

A randomly drawn roster could be established, or people could agree to work in various shifts, or people could decided not to work there at all or whatever.

People could work only half time at this place and half time at another.

The thing about a post-capitalist, post-state society, it would not be constrained by bureaucratic bullshit. You have to let your imagination flow. Work would not (could not even&#33;) look like what we see work as today.