Under Socialism how would we buy and sell?

[R_P_A_S]

I have no clue how this will change. can someone try to break it down? do we even know?

I feel frustrated and lost. How would i shop for things? what's gonna.. fuck i have no idea what to ask???:mad:

help...

[INDK]

How will we buy and sell?

We won't. The economic function of society is based on the Communist maxim, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need," no matter what form Socialism takes. Buying and selling is how Capitalism functions, Socialism would look completely different. I'll break it all down for you.

Education is recognized by Socialists as not a commodity but a right, for the interested and willing. Therefore, education would be provided, free of charge. Thus, people could contribute to society however they wish, provided they have the educational credentials. This makes up "From each according to his ability..."

Next is "to each according to his need." Theoretically, if all people are making contribution (this would be an enormous increase in employment, mind) to society, there would be an abundance of goods. These goods would distributed by the community, to the community, for the community, in the interests of the community. Of course, there would need to be some rationing, but this would be achieved through democratic decisions by the social organization in place, State or no State.

All people would seek the good of people, and be rewarded by themselves and the people in a collective distribution of economic and political freedoms. Any questions, lemme know.

[jake williams]

I hate to say this, but I think part of the answer is "nobody has any f*cking clue".

For several reasons - the huge diversity of opinion among anti-capitalists/anti-"free-market"ists, the complexity of human need and production, the failures, big and small (and while we shouldn't create our view of the world from capitalist propaganda, they obviously existed), of previous and even current systems, and partly - there is a big part of anti-capitalism which is a whole lot that and not a lot else. The flaws of capitalism are huge overwhelming, so/but it can sometimes be difficult to find their solutions in their shadows.

[INDK]

I think with that post you're speaking on the entire Leftist movement and Anti-Marketeers in general, instead singling out the subject of this thread, and that is of Socialist economic function. In that sense, we do have a clue, and especially here on this little slice of Socialism (RevLeft) we all probably agree on most basic economic principles.

[jake williams]

I think with that post you're speaking on the entire Leftist movement and Anti-Marketeers in general, instead singling out the subject of this thread, and that is of Socialist economic function. In that sense, we do have a clue, and especially here on this little slice of Socialism (RevLeft) we all probably agree on most basic economic principles.
Perhaps. I still think there's a hell of a lot of disagreement though, and uncertainty. How then would goods and services be distributed? What's the mechanism?

[INDK]

Well, again, there's a difference between basics and adjectives, and you're delving into that. As far as adjectives, I must agree that there is much disagreement and uncertainty.

[jake williams]

Alright then, so I think we're generally in agreement.

So let's figure out the basics.

I mean, first, the means of production will be owned in common by the producers. What next? That doesn't get us too far.

[Tower of Bebel]

Money is part of an inequal society of scarcity.

[R_P_A_S]

Alright then, so I think we're generally in agreement.

So let's figure out the basics.

I mean, first, the means of production will be owned in common by the producers. What next? That doesn't get us too far.

I love your initiative! thats what im talking about.. ok so step one..

the means of production are appropriated by the workers an now what? how do we get the goods out for those who need them? etc etc? how do things change?

[spartan]

Every commune has an assembly where all citizens of the communes (Or only those who actually want to take part) are apart of this assembly and will vote on your matter.

Say if you have a wife and a child and you want a two bedroom ground floor property with a kitchen, living room and bathroom then everyone in the assembly (Who know of all conditions, including housing, in the commune) will vote to decide on what best suits yours and the communes intrests and needs.

Perhaps there wont be the sort of property, that you requested, in the commune?

Perhaps they will have to put you in temporary accommodation until the type of property you want is built?

Democracy is about majority rule so the majority of the people in the commune, in which you wish to live, will decide in a Democratic manner, via a simple vote, on what best suits yours and the communes intrests and needs.

[Kitskits]

In this thread there is a gain a mix-up of communism and socialism altogether, let me clarify with something I wrote in a thread some time ago.

Let's not get Socialism in a salad with the highest level, Communism.

Socialism has no "...according to their needs" stuff. In socialism, workers can be paid according to their level of work (whether it is measured in hours, minutes, production etc etc, or perhaps a combination of these factors) a bonus for exceeding a certain level, and up to this level, work should be compulsory. Of course in socialism this level would be much less than in the capitali$t society. Some officials, being paid the average wage of a worker should evaluate the workers with objective criteria and show them publicly in the factories in some diagrams on the walls, so that no one will be able to doubt them. These officials should be circulated from factory to factory every let's say 3 months so that their objectivity to the workers will be kept to a maximum.

This is a mixture of my opinion of distribution in socialism and the general marxist opinion of "...distribution according to work" watch it not "needs", "work".

Then someone correctly quoted me and said:

I just want to reply kitskits About paying workers according to how many hours they work. It can't really happen the only way to truly create a classles society is to abolish money because over time if those who work more continue to do so they will earn more money than those who choose to do the minimal, over time classes would re-emerge and we would be right back where we started

And I expanded my opinion:

Yeah, but if constitutionally you can't buy private property, even if you get more money than others, the only way you will be able to use your money would be in exchange with some usable objects, storing money would be useless as the only use of money would be for the present, of course the workers shouldn't be allowed to do something like buy means of production in another country which is capitalist and grant income from there or anything like this. Classes are determined by owning the means of production, right? Why would new classes be created by this?

But even if the socialist states see that this doesn't go as planned they can make work compulsory up to a level the economy will skyrocket. And probably the level will be less than the infinite work hours a week during capitalism. As science and economy progresses during the years, decades etc less and less labor would be required for similar growth. Right?

One last note: Socialism - Working according to the ability, and the state's/people's needs and some incentive made up by ideas by the workers, distribution according to work"

Communism "Working VOLUNTARILY according to the ability, distribution according to the needs (even if the receiver doesn't work).

Hope I cleared it up.

[R_P_A_S]

well thats what I want to know.. UNDER SOCIALISM.. check out the title of the thread..

[R_P_A_S]

oooops
look at the bottomo post

[R_P_A_S]

Ok how about we do this for example.. we'll use two people as an example...

1. A cashier that works at a national chain grocery super market. This Cashier just works there to make some extra cash so she can afford her collage tuition it's not a job she really wants.

all of the sudden after a couple of weeks of unrest and feeling the effects of an ongoing revolution the Super market its appropriated by the working class after a successful revolution...

Q. where can the cashier work now? how will she get paid? who's gonna run the super market? etc. etc. what's to happen step by step? any idea??


EXAMPLE NUMBER 2


You have a guy who's job is to design signs and banners for people and other companies, different clients.. he works for a company that "makes signs" he went to college for this and he actually loves his job and enjoys working for that company.


Q) what would happen to this guy? and the capitalist that owned the company and how or who will be their clients? how can this guy continue doing what he loves?

REMEMBER UNDER SOCIALISM....NOT COMMUNISM!!!

[proleterian fist]

We won't buy or sell via money mate.
You will sell what you can do refered to your talents and you will buy what you need.
You will respond to other's request and the other will respond your request. It is that kind of a social share.

[which doctor]

Things would be much the same except there would be no exchange of money. I see little reason to discontinue the current means of distribution.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Things would be much the same except there would be no exchange of money. I see little reason to discontinue the current means of distribution.

Well seeing how money does function as a permit for the getting of the resources which a workers labour alotted for them too (but this is not the only way money functions)-- as long as all the resources are in common, they're pretty much under one roof, then, money is useless.

What no one seems to answer is what principles the infrastructure of such societies should have. Are districts to be remodeled? What about schools? What about warehouses and storage facilities? Transportation...ect.
Most try to predict the way people will act toward the bourgeois institutions in the future.
I've havent seen ppl come up with ideas, let alone knowing their ideas would be subject to change.

[comandante_p-nut15]

dang you guys have some great info!! thanks. but i still dont gett how everyone keeps saying that the distribution of money will be elimanted. yet still words like "buy" "sell" and "pay" show up when describing a socialist democracy. :confused:

and when you say socialism not communism, does that mean under communism everyone will be rewarded the exact same amount of goods, because i have read that this is a capitalist myth used in order to keep the masses uneducated and hostile towards communism.

can anyone fill me in??

[proleterian fist]

Actually buy and sell terms won't be existed after a socialist revolution you are right it is so upset to hear still terms of buy and sell.
Nobody will be needed to money.However our people are used to give money even if in hospital.They are used to spend money and agree to spend it even if for their health but in a socialist revolution,state is obligate to afford your health expenses.

[kromando33]

wtf are you talking about, exchange capitalism!?! Under socialism the economy can be based on nothing but 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!' I still think the best expression of this sentiment is a planned economy, the only thing other than that is an economy based on excess production by exploitation the workers to make more than everyone needs.

Now, just the confirm, a society based on need and not profit is not what immediately comes to mind, it's not rationing food in lines or anything, people will still get whatever can be produced to make their lives better, but the coordinated economy simply avoids the useless and meaningless overproduction of capitalism, the massive waste and production of consumer goods that end up in landfills or are never 'needed' or 'used'. Both capitalism and socialism utilize the same productive social forces of labor, that is the modern industrial world, we can't avoid the future, but Marx theorized that under proletarian control (rather than bourgeois control) the economy would be based on production for subsistence, not overproduction for waste.

You see, even if consumer products under capitalism aren't ever needed in any meaningful way, they are still made.

[Dimentio]

I have no clue how this will change. can someone try to break it down? do we even know?

I feel frustrated and lost. How would i shop for things? what's gonna.. fuck i have no idea what to ask???:mad:

help...

There will be no trade (http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=137)

[Dr Mindbender]

to me the ultimate goal will be to dispense with capital altogether. No money, no coupons, no nothing. What you do is walk into an outlet after a days work and take all you can carry. But since everyone will have equal logistical means, no one can take more than another person. Im obviously referring to goods here though.

Services can be exchanged on a barter system, as another member mentioned.

[kromando33]

to me the ultimate goal will be to dispense with capital altogether. No money, no coupons, no nothing. What you do is what into an outlet after a days work and take all you can carry. But since everyone will have equal logistical means, no one can take more than another person. Im obviously referring to goods here though.

Services can be exchanged on a barter system, as another member mentioned.
I think people just don't understand the level of massive overproduction and waste in capitalism, of course it's not called waste in the bourgeois media, but it is. The bourgeois can only survive by constantly expanding into new markets. People also don't understand that with the productive power of the industrial proletariat, it would be so easy to maintain a comfortable life for everyone it's not funny. It's just the excessive overproduction and exploitation of human capital to this end that causes suffering. All suffering is from work.

[Kitskits]

Excuse me? "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" under Socialism? We pass in to that principle BEFORE the highest level? Are you kidding me? Now, seriously, this is for the highest level, the communist society.

Oh and for that "money" stuff i said, I think it is evident that it is not money in any capitalist sense. It is simply some way to give an incentive to the workers to work to greater limits than the compulsory work.

[R_P_A_S]

I THOUGHT THAT UNDER SOCIALISM THERE WOULD BE MONEY.. IT'S UNDER COMMUNIST THAT IT WOULDN'T BE NO MONEY...


right????

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

RPAS, remember on Revleft there are many different conceptions of these terms.

I would say one thing though.

Do not accept ideological arguments for how socialism will work.

At the end of the days, the books will have to balance and the accounts will have to be done.

Just chanting slogans in order to suggest that the working class will as if by magic will create immediately a superior economic system is just brain dead.

It's likely to change over-time, but start out modestly. If we ever see a developed socialism in our life time, i image it will function just like capitalism with regards to the consumer.

[INDK]

I THOUGHT THAT UNDER SOCIALISM THERE WOULD BE MONEY.. IT'S UNDER COMMUNIST THAT IT WOULDN'T BE NO MONEY...


right????

Probably in the beginning, but money would disappear before Communism happens.

[INDK]

I'd also like to add that these are not set rules on Socialist economies: Of course, a proletariat should always do what is best for it and the society; even if that means breaking a few fundamentals in Socialist theory. Socialism can conform to the shape of situations like water takes the shape of its container, that's a fact.