In a communist state

[Socialist18]

What would happen with our utilities like electric, gas and telephone as these are now in private capitalist hands? (in Australia they are anyways)

They used to be owned by the state so would we seize them, buy them back, or create new ones?

[Socialist18]

This may seem like a noob question to some of you but its a sincere one on my part.

Any suggestions?

[Qwerty489]

What would happen with our utilities like electric, gas and telephone as these are now in private capitalist hands? (in Australia they are anyways)

They used to be owned by the state so would we seize them, buy them back, or create new ones?

Social democratic bourgeois governments 'buy back' property because they respect the basis of private property but at the same time want to placate the workers. So NO on that one.

Create new ones? What exactly does that mean? Destroy the means of production to rebuild them again?

The answer is yes, we would seize them, in short 'expropriation without compensation'. Socialization is two-fold, it's both confiscation and (re)distribution. Socialization of private property cannot be accomplished within the prevailing bourgeois system.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I would hardly use utilities as an example seeing as how they oftentimes act as monopolies.

[Bud Struggle]

I would hardly use utilities as an example seeing as how they oftentimes act as monopolies.

True. If utilities in the USA were suddenly nationalized--I doubt anyone would ever notice the difference.

[Socialist18]

But there would be a difference as the state would give them to the people at cost, not the jacked up prices we pay today.

[Robert]

the state would give them to the people at cost

What cost? We're going to eliminate money, too.

[Socialist18]

Eliminate all money you say? Elaborate.

[Dean]

Eliminate all money you say? Elaborate.

I'm assuming that you are asking for an alternative motive for work. Put simply, work will be done as an activity for the work itself. Communist society presupposes a collectivzation of the economic decision - making bodies. This means that people in a society would get together and talk to each other avbout what needs to be done, who will do it, for how long, etc..

This accomplishes a few things:

-Reduction of labor alienation. People no longer do work "because they must" or in lieu of a profit motive, but because they desire the product and or act of work itself. The labor returns to the hands of the laborer in every sense which is governed by society. Natural causes for labor (such as the need to eat) are the only aspects of control which remain.

-Elimination of various useless jobs (marketing, management, regulatory organizations) and a flourishing of jobs which achieve the goals of social need, desire, and individual creativity

-Reduction of social alienation. By reforming social power into a fluid, communal format, we practically eliminate the tendancies for antagonism which exist in any class-based society. Grievances relating to all walks of life develop a character which forces them to be aired and resolved, because society is turned into an associative force, where people must look out for each other and therefore interest themselves in the problems they face. Human beings, rather than utilizing competition to achieve social good, cut out that destructive impulse and instead work directly toward social good because they unmask their own character as social beings. People no longer say, "I labor for my own sake" but rather "I labor for my own sake as a member of society." It is the achievement of rational self-interest, rather than the barbarous selfishness which today replaces that drive.

-Revolutionizing the value system by removing price and therefore money. Products and services are no longer treated as commodities alienated from their source and desired result, but rather as goods in and of themselves. So a society will no longer look at the creation of a museum as a reveue - generating attraction, but a tool for that society, perhaps for posterity, education or memorial. Again, this is in effect the cutting out of the middleman, price, which is a destructive, alienating force, and turns the product into a benefit in its own right. The dangers of a society which use alienating methodology for valuing are clear once we consider the price our people pay for the achievement of certain natural resources: it is only in a society where pricing becomes a good in itself, taking on its own vitality as money has, that human life can be exposed of for certain aims.

I hope that has cleared up some of the theoretical concepts for you.

[Robert]

After the revolution, you will get exactly what you need. No more, and no less. It will be given to you. There will be no private property, and nothing to buy.

As Lenin II has explained,
"In communism, all the basic needs of all the people are taken care of."And as Kwisatz explains,
"The idea behind communism is that everyone would be able to simply take whatever they want (within certain limits) from a communal stock of goods."
Or take it from LSD:


There is no "money" in a communist society. There will certainly be some measure of value, but it will not be currency-based.

[Axel1917]

What would happen with our utilities like electric, gas and telephone as these are now in private capitalist hands? (in Australia they are anyways)

They used to be owned by the state so would we seize them, buy them back, or create new ones?

These things would be seized and then nationalized under democratic workers' control.

I would probably read some Marxist basics to help get an idea:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/sw/index.htm

[Socialist18]

Okay, thanks guys.

[Baconator]

Depends on what kind of communism you're talking about. In a communist(socialist) state all utilities ( and just about anything else) would be owned by the central government. This merely puts the ownership of things in the control of a few. A stateless communist society would have communal (non)ownership of these things. Since no one can properly own these things there could be no trade ( exchange of ownership which necessitates exclusivity over stuff) and no efficient allocation of resources can be achieved. Value wouldn't be based on a proper and realistic theory of value. It would probably be a miserable existence for most people.

[534634634265]

Depends on what kind of communism you're talking about. In a communist(socialist) state all utilities ( and just about anything else) would be owned by the central government. This merely puts the ownership of things in the control of a few. A stateless communist society would have communal (non)ownership of these things. Since no one can properly own these things there could be no trade ( exchange of ownership which necessitates exclusivity over stuff) and no efficient allocation of resources can be achieved. Value wouldn't be based on a proper and realistic theory of value. It would probably be a miserable existence for most people.
but wouldn't our concept of value change? i feel like your assuming people keep the same ideas of value, but when your looking at somethings "Value" for the entire community its different. granted, i think most peoples idea of a communist state is a utopian fantasy, but still.
with the change in political/economic structure would EVENTUALLY come a change in almost everything else.

[RedKnight]

Utilities are natural monopolies. Socialising them is no big deal. All you have to do is recind there contract.

[Baconator]

but wouldn't our concept of value change? i feel like your assuming people keep the same ideas of value, but when your looking at somethings "Value" for the entire community its different. granted, i think most peoples idea of a communist state is a utopian fantasy, but still.
with the change in political/economic structure would EVENTUALLY come a change in almost everything else.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first question? I don't understand this 'our concept' if it relates to the determination of value. I don't assume people have the same ideas of value, in fact , I argue the opposite. While it is true that there are some universal preferences, value is necessarily subjective for the differences that you pointed out. Subjective to the individuals within the community. Rational thought demonstrates that the individual is always greater than the collective since only the individual(s) exist(s). An individual without the collective still exists, the collective without the individuals that comprise it does not exist. Its rather simple to see the irrationality of assigning the collective specific rights contradictory to that of the individual.

Sorry. Ramble-tangent :(