Big industry in an ideal communist / socialist / anarchist society

[Dean]

I have wondered for a long time how big industries would work coherantly and sustainably[sic] in an ideal communist society. I know it is a popular idea to think if small, localized communal organizations of ~500 or so people, based on locality, industrial designation, political organization or a combination of these. Putting aside the organizational issue, I find it confusing to see a large industry not centralizing power based on the demand of said product, but also I find it confusing that a commune could remain autonomous and also have big, globally cooperative industrial character.

I'd like to hear some ideas on this from fellow communists, because of all the issues I have pondered over in regards to communist industrial organization, I find this to be the hardest to manage.

[RGacky3]

Industrial Democracy.

The industry we have now meaning huge conglomorates controlling many different aspects of industry are really unnessesary and would'nt be needed in a communist society, their may be issues that effect many many people, and in those cases probably some type of election would be needed.

[Publius]

Uhh...

One of the main reasons, actually maybe THE main reason, why mega-corporations beat out smaller ones is due to economies of scale: it simply is cheaper and more efficient to produce items en masse. Look out how Wal Mart exerts its force: economies of scale.

So explain to me how the economy could stay anywhere near current efficiency without these economies of scale. A similar problem arises from division of labor under certain labor schemes.

These are basic economic facts that have nothing to do with 'capitalism': specialization and economies of scale are more efficient.

So either communism will keep up with specialization and economies of scale (in order to remain at all efficient), or it will abandon them.

Which is it?

[Kropotesta]

personally I'm all for getting rid of industry. however the answer to suit the question would be collectivised groups.

[Neutrino]

personally I'm all for getting rid of industry.

What?

[Kropotesta]

getting rid of industry. is it that unclear?

[Dean]

These are basic economic facts that have nothing to do with 'capitalism': specialization and economies of scale are more efficient.

So either communism will keep up with specialization and economies of scale (in order to remain at all efficient), or it will abandon them.

Which is it?

I am not opposing one or the other; really, economies of greater scale are good and I want to maintain them. I am simply asking what ideas people have about how it could work in a communist society; not suggesting that it be done away with.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

getting rid of industry. is it that unclear?

it is actually, industry is one of the good things that capitalism developed.

how can you not want industry?

[Kropotesta]

why would i want it? i don't wanna work to produce things i don't want.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ But why your Luddite opposition to industry?

The "second communist society" (assuming that societies don't last forever) will be far different from - and a lot less localized than - the first ("primitive communism").

[Kropotesta]

well technology in general. It's leading to the break up of the working class and making the underclass bigger by making manuel jobs low paid and not needed through 'progress'. progression for who though? the rich with their private education so that they can do the new jobs and the state who uses the advances for further surervilance of the general public.
also industry is destorying the world with its CO2 emmissions which isn'tsustainable.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

well we need industry to sustain human life and advance technological development.

having no industry means the whole sale destruction of billions of humans through famine disease and exposure.

[RGacky3]

it simply is cheaper and more efficient to produce items en masse. Look out how Wal Mart exerts its force: economies of scale.


Under Communism efficiency has nothing to do with something being cheaper, it has to do with what fulfulls the communities needs better. Remember though in an Anarchist-Communist society the concept of money and the system of money will be different than under Capitalism.

Also why can't big industries be run democratically?

[Green Dragon]

[quote=RGacky3;1078880]Under Communism efficiency has nothing to do with something being cheaper, it has to do with what fulfulls the communities needs better. Remember though in an Anarchist-Communist society the concept of money and the system of money will be different than under Capitalism.




The communist community could build a row of apartment buildings which satisfies the need of the community for housing. By your definition, the community is therefore "efficient." But this would be true if the floors were all made of marble and the sinks of titatanium, or whether the floors were of linoleum, and the sinks porcelain. But realistically, that can never be the case. Efficiency isn't simply satisfying or want or need, its how its satisfied as well.

[RNK]

First of all the "commune of ~500" is unsustainable, obviously; communes in China numbered roughly 10,000-50,000 and were made up of progressive blocks of groups of people; at the bottom rung you had several households who would organize together to fullfill needs they were capable of fullfilling such as local farming, workmanship on property, and so on and so forth. Several of these groups formed the next level of organization which were capable of handling larger tasks such as large agricultural projects, land work, etc. As you work your way up, you come to organized elements which are capable of anything -- managing large-scale industry, managing supply over large areas, and you get the idea. This is what central planning is for -- a scientific system for managing the productive abilities of society as a whole, from the smallest units to the largest, and applying those productive forces to supply the needs of society as a whole. The organizational process ensures that a resource found only in a certain location (such as a coal mine, or a factory which produces a specific commodity) is distributed according to the needs of the whole.

This, coupled with the direction of industrial development being turned towards over-production, will ensure that the needs of all (or as many as possible) are met. This last part is an integral and inseperable component of organized planning as a whole; it replaces capitalism's "development for profit" with "development for need". While many a capitalist boasts that the needs of society are met by virtue of "supply and demand" (ie, whatever society needs, it will be willing to pay for, so there will always be some company willing to produce anything in order to sell it for profit), in reality the needs of society (housing, food, shelter, ie the most basic needs) have continued to be unfullfilled for the vast majority since capitalism's inception.

[Jazzratt]

well technology in general.

Fuck off? Opposition to technology is insane and detrimental to humanity as a whole, you can go back to the forest but don't come crying to us when you're dying of some pissant, curable illness.


It's leading to the break up of the working class and making the underclass bigger by making manuel jobs low paid and not needed through 'progress'.

Yes, it's terrible under capitalism, but the advantages to a communist society are immense. We wouldn't need to force people to work in factories if they were all fully automised, now would we?


progression for who though?

Ultimately? Humanity.


the rich with their private education so that they can do the new jobs and the state who uses the advances for further surervilance of the general public.

Yeah, and to the sick & disabled. Oh and to most people, consider now that - thanks to technology - even the working classes have access to things like fridges, microwaves and dishwashers. Naturally, thanks to our distributive system the advantages are more numerous for the rich, but that's true of *EVERYTHING*.


also industry is destorying the world with its CO2 emmissions which isn'tsustainable.

That's a flaw in the way industry is currently run, not of industry in and of itself.

Also, I like technology and industry because I have no interest in making everything I need myself, I'd rather be doing something fun or socially useful like having a wank or mechanical engineering, rather than sitting about weaving my own clothes out of leaves.

[Demogorgon]

Uhh...

One of the main reasons, actually maybe THE main reason, why mega-corporations beat out smaller ones is due to economies of scale: it simply is cheaper and more efficient to produce items en masse. Look out how Wal Mart exerts its force: economies of scale.

So explain to me how the economy could stay anywhere near current efficiency without these economies of scale. A similar problem arises from division of labor under certain labor schemes.

These are basic economic facts that have nothing to do with 'capitalism': specialization and economies of scale are more efficient.

So either communism will keep up with specialization and economies of scale (in order to remain at all efficient), or it will abandon them.

Which is it?
Capitalist firms continue to expand way past the point of optimal efficiency though, if they are able to do so. A Commiunist society would ideally seek to structure itself in a manner that the size of its individual industries reaches the most efficient point and doesn't go further.

[Patchd]

well technology in general.
What the hell are you doing using a computer then?

[Dean]

Also, I like technology and industry because I have no interest in making everything I need myself, I'd rather be doing something fun or socially useful like having a wank or mechanical engineering, rather than sitting about weaving my own clothes out of leaves.

Haha, well said.

[Green Dragon]

A Commiunist society would ideally seek to structure itself in a manner that the size of its individual industries reaches the most efficient point and doesn't go further.[/QUOTE]

Which would require an explanation as to how the communist society would determine "efficiency."

[Green Dragon]

This, coupled with the direction of industrial development being turned towards over-production, will ensure that the needs of all (or as many as possible) are met. This last part is an integral and inseperable component of organized planning as a whole; it replaces capitalism's "development for profit" with "development for need". While many a capitalist boasts that the needs of society are met by virtue of "supply and demand" (ie, whatever society needs, it will be willing to pay for, so there will always be some company willing to produce anything in order to sell it for profit), in reality the needs of society (housing, food, shelter, ie the most basic needs) have continued to be unfullfilled for the vast majority since capitalism's inception.
[/QUOTE]

The idea of "supply and deman" explains the information which the capitalist uses in determing production.

Your description of central planning simply describes the organization structure the communist community might have. It doesn't explain what type of information it will use in determing its production priorities.

And this is important, since you allow for the communist system to not be able to meet all people's needs.

[PsciStudent]

I think that this is all an issue of value. Classical liberals and other free-market advocates value absolute increases in production and quality of life while socialists and other proponents of redistributive theory value social equality and relative economic status.

Unfortunately, you can't have one without condemning the other as these values are incommensurate and inherently conflicting.

So theory aside, the way commie industry will have to work is to keep everyone's basic needs met and have the classes as close together as possible even if it means that everyone loses something in terms of absolute assets. The economies of scale will have to be tailored to a whole different economic system that holds no value for money. That means that overall production will decline as the luxuries of capitalist society are tossed in favor of uniform goods that satisfy basic needs. Efficiency isn't important, fulfilling needs is.

Any comments?

[Kropotesta]

Fuck off?
yeah, please do.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=PsciStudent;1080201]
So theory aside, the way commie industry will have to work is to keep everyone's basic needs met and have the classes as close together as possible even if it means that everyone loses something in terms of absolute assets. The economies of scale will have to be tailored to a whole different economic system that holds no value for money. That means that overall production will decline as the luxuries of capitalist society are tossed in favor of uniform goods that satisfy basic needs. Efficiency isn't important, fulfilling needs is.


There was an old joke in the USSR. It went something like this:
Fellow goes into the store to aquire a stove. Clerk takes down the order, and tells the fellow the stove will be delivered ten years from next Thursday. Fellow asks morning or afternoon. clerk asks why does it matter. Fellow responds by saying the plumbers are coming in the morning.

The joke made the rounds referring to the terrible plight the USSR has in allocating resources. BUT, it should be pointed out, the stove was delivered, and the plumbers came. The need was met, though very inefficiently.

The point here is not to say that that all communist communities will be like the USSR (which the knee jerk reaction will be). Nor is it to say that the workers in a communist communist would want to wait ten years for their needs to be met. The point is that if your production, even production for "basic needs" is not all that concerned about how long it takes to produce that item (just that it is eventually produced), how many workers are required to produce that item (just that it is eventually produced), how many raw materials and other resources are consumed to produce the item (just that it is eventually produced), then the community will have a problem producing even "basic items" to satisfy the needs of the people. And that is because your community is not concerned in measuring how well the good is produced, just that it is produced.
If on the other hand, the community says it does matter how long, ect. it takes to produce, a given item, then it needs systems to measure and adjust production to account for this.
In other words, classical liberalism yet again reveals itself to superior to socialism/communis in economic organization.

[apathy maybe]

You fail. Why do you assume that communists (or any variant of leftist) only cares that something is eventually produced (and not produced in a timely, resource efficient manner)?

OK, the community "needs systems to measure and adjust production" to make sure that things are done in a timely, resource efficient manner, why is this impossible, hard or complicated to do without a market system?

How does this prove "classical liberalism" (which is more concerned with individual freedom then economics) to be better then socialism/communism?
If you are talking about capitalism being superior, then you are conveniently ignoring the massive waste produced by capitalism.

[Dr Mindbender]

personally I'm all for getting rid of industry.

primmie. :mad:

[Green Dragon]

You fail. Why do you assume that communists (or any variant of leftist) only cares that something is eventually produced (and not produced in a timely, resource efficient manner)?


I am not assuming it. I am simply responding to two direct comments by two separate unrestricted posters who stated that efficiency is not the onjective of the communist community.




OK, the community "needs systems to measure and adjust production" to make sure that things are done in a timely, resource efficient manner, why is this impossible, hard or complicated to do without a market system?


The first clue tends to be that socialists/communists tend to shy away from answering that very question.




How does this prove "classical liberalism" (which is more concerned with individual freedom then economics) to be better then socialism/communism?


Because it ha such a system.



If you are talking about capitalism being superior, then you are conveniently ignoring the massive waste produced by capitalism.


As opposed to the "massive waste" produced by a system in which efficiency in production is not an objective?

[apathy maybe]

So you think that "efficiency in production" is "an objective" in capitalism? You don't know much about capitalism if you think that.

Capitalism is about making shit loads of money, not being efficient. An economy geared towards the public good (e.g. communism), is much more likely to be efficient because efficiency in resource management (and labour etc.) is a public good.

If you think that capitalism doesn't waste resources, I invite you to go dumpster diving. (I'ld take you but I'm guess we are on different continents.) Once when I went, I found shit loads of eggs that had only been delivered to the store that same day (or within a couple of days). The box had been dropped though, and in each carton there were one or two eggs broken. So the entire lot got chucked. I got about 2 dozen eggs, and left at lest another 10 dozen in the dumpster.

Capitalism encourages waste.

Here is another example, capitalists who make washing machines want everyone to have one. Yet washing machines are a perfect example of an under-utilised resource. Most of the time they are sitting idle. In an efficient economy, these would be shared so that fewer would have to be produced, and they would be sitting idle for much less time.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Not to mention capitalism is wasteful on labor resources. Almost a third of the labor being performed is devoted to maintaining the current system through shuffling around and protecting capital: cashiers, bankers, financial advisers, marketing, advertising, bookkeepers, tax agents, management. The stark division of labor and standard work requirements contribute to even more problems.

Even cooperatives are seen as more cost and time efficient. http://www.uwcc.wisc.edu/info/ocpap/groves.html

[PsciStudent]

This further illustrates my argument that the conflict is a matter of differing values. Whereas a leftist believes that the system that most satisfies the "public good" is the most efficient way of running an economy, the capitalist believes that allocating resources to where they would most pay off in further capital is the most efficient way of running an economy.

And the way that I've been taught, a free market capitalist economy is the most efficient method of resource allocation with respect to the forces of supply and demand. In this conception, there is no "waste" because people buy only what is needed based on their rational evaluation of how something would benefit that individual. So if a person bought a washing machine, its because that person felt that the 6 hours spend washing clothing by hand would be better spent doing something else (like studying engineering or inventing things). Furthermore, nothing stops collectives from buying a single washing machine to share between themselves. However, since these machines are so cheap that everyone can have one, why share when it isn't absolutely necessary? Anyone that has had to use a shared laundry room (college students raise your hand) knows how annoying it is to do your laundry at obscene hours of the night.

At least this is how capitalism, in theory, is supposed to satisfy and develop the individual so that the market's productive power is maximized. And as far as profit goes, companies have an incentive to cut down on waste as much as possible, so the eggs being tossed has already been calculated as something that had to be done to maximize efficiency (as unintuitive as that sounds).

Also, as useless as some believe the service economy to be compared to industry or agriculture, it is something that current citizens feel that they need. If it wasn't for that, such a thing would not exist. Supposing we got rid of the service industry, the "transaction costs" of doing your routine business (buying food, clothing, etc) would make modern life impractical.

Communist economies much prefer to look at the socioeconomic status of that individual to reduce perceived inequalities. Judgments of what is considered "inefficient" are made on product, even though there may be an overwhelming demand for them. And things that are produced in its place are produced less efficiently than before. Anyone that has seen a supply chart detailing comparative advantage knows about this. However, the communist ideal is that shifting production to something that maximizes the public good is better than one that maximizes the productive forces of the market. So perhaps more food or steel is preferred to washing machines and sports cars.

And I'm done...

[Green Dragon]

So you think that "efficiency in production" is "an objective" in capitalism? You don't know much about capitalism if you think that.

Capitalism is about making shit loads of money, not being efficient.


A capitalist enterprise can make even more "shitloads" of money if the are able to produce a good or provide a service using the fewest resources as possible, while demanding a maximum amount of resources as possible for their product.
So yes, efficiency is an absolute objective of a capitalist enterprise.


An economy geared towards the public good (e.g. communism), is much more likely to be efficient because efficiency in resource management (and labour etc.) is a public good.

That is the theory, to be sure.
Now you need to demonstrate that theory.


If you think that capitalism doesn't waste resources, I invite you to go dumpster diving. (I'ld take you but I'm guess we are on different continents.) Once when I went, I found shit loads of eggs that had only been delivered to the store that same day (or within a couple of days). The box had been dropped though, and in each carton there were one or two eggs broken. So the entire lot got chucked. I got about 2 dozen eggs, and left at lest another 10 dozen in the dumpster.

Good for you. My guess is the dumpster diving was in your best interest to do. The resources you used in dumpster diving was woth it, being a greater benefit to you than the resources you would have buying those eggs.
My guess would be that that store's resources were better applied doing other things than picking through and sorting out eggs (and one would have to wonder if there are health code issues in play as well).

Perhaps the socialist store would have picked through a couple cartons of busted eggs and repackaged the unbroken one. But labor deployed in that direction cannot be deployed in another direction at that time. The question comes is it worth it. And the question which follows is that system of measuring and determining such things need be established.





Here is another example, capitalists who make washing machines want everyone to have one. Yet washing machines are a perfect example of an under-utilised resource. Most of the time they are sitting idle. In an efficient economy, these would be shared so that fewer would have to be produced, and they would be sitting idle for much less time.


Perhaps. But perhaps it is more efficient for me, and my next door neighbor to have our own washers, rather than lugging our clothes around to a central location. I mean, you find dumpster diving to be efficient for you...
Another concern would seem to be that increased use of washers would require increase allocation of labor for repairman. Is it better for the comunity to need more Maytag repairman at the cost of fewer, say auto mechanics, or refrigerator technicians? Maybe. Maybe not.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=PsciStudent;1081861]This further illustrates my argument that the conflict is a matter of differing values.




Communist economies much prefer to look at the socioeconomic status of that individual to reduce perceived inequalities.

The communist can have whatever values he wishes. But the issue is whether they are true values, whether the values can be reached using communist methods, whether the communist is correct.
Communists are free to declare a washing machine in every home to be an inefficient use of resources. Despite whether people want a washer in their home. But then what can the communist do about it? Nothing, it would seem. Otherwise they are telling people what to do, how to live ect. which would tend to undermine their claims to represent a greater freedom for people.

[pusher robot]

Here is another example, capitalists who make washing machines want everyone to have one. Yet washing machines are a perfect example of an under-utilised resource. Most of the time they are sitting idle. In an efficient economy, these would be shared so that fewer would have to be produced, and they would be sitting idle for much less time.

Your criticism is off base, then. Because, in fact, shared washing-machine resources do exist - just about every town has a local laundromat. Yet despite the availablity of these facilities, large numbers of people choose to get their own machines and put them in their homes. Your complaint, then, is not with "the economy" or "capitalists" for failing to provide the choice you think would be ideal. The choice you advocate has been provided. Your complaint is with individuals who, according to you, choose poorly. If anything, your criticism of capitalism appears to be that it provides too much freedom of choice. But that's not a bug, it's a feature.

[Dr Mindbender]

Capitalism provides freedom of choice, but only to those fortunate enough to have been born into the material circumstances to support that freedom of choice. Capitalist communal laundry facilities were therefore born out of necessity, not of the principle of choice.

Under a society not ruled by illusions of scarcity, there is no reason why each household could not have a washing machine as standard in much the same way the standard already (by in large) incorporates electricity and running water.

[pusher robot]

Capitalist communal laundry facilities were therefore born out of necessity, not of the principle of choice.


Not true. For example, my apartment building is filled with people who certainly could afford their own washer and dryer, but because the costs of doing so outweigh the benefits, they continue to use the apartment building's communal facility.

[Dr Mindbender]

Not true. For example, my apartment building is filled with people who certainly could afford their own washer and dryer, but because the costs of doing so outweigh the benefits, they continue to use the apartment building's communal facility.
Maybe some of those people have only short term residence contracts or something which is fair enough, buying a full washing machine probably wouldnt be a practical investment. Or they dont want to take on the burden in case it breaks down. Either way, it doesnt remove the fact that they could purchase one if they wanted.

I was referring to people brought up into kitchen sink estates (or ghettos) that simply have no choice but to use a communal facility since buying a washing machine is far outside their material means to do so. People like that dont have the luxury of the choice you just referred to.

[pusher robot]

Well I'm really in a bind here. On the one side, I've got Apathy condemning capitalism for forcing people to have their own private washing machines, and on the other side I've got US condemning capitalism for forcing people to NOT have their own private washing machines. Why don't you two decide what the problem really is, and then I'll respond to that.

[apathy maybe]

Well, I'm not condemning capitalism for forcing people to have their own washing machine, I'm condemning it for inefficiency. (Everyone having their own washing machine.)

Where people are happy to talk to their neighbours, and share resources etc., then it would be perfectly possible for co-operatives to exist where washing machines are bought by a few people or a block or something, and then shared.

Farmers (small scale, not USA corporation style) some times do this with large machinery, 6 or so get together and buy an excavator and a bulldozer and whatever, rather then everyone buying one each.

It isn't the free market, as such, that is producing the problem of inefficiency (though free markets are inefficient), it is the entire capitalist system, along with the mass media and the culture of ownership and the 'need' for individual property.