Price System in Socialism

[bleedingheart]

Hi Comrades,:)

In a free market enterprise, price is determined by the market itself, based on the supply and demand. People say it's good because more competition=decrease in prices.

In Socialism, state sets prices. But based on what? If it's based on needs, what are considered to be needs, and how will the state set prices based on this factor? Problem is, wouldn't this lead to stagnation, in that luxury items will never be produced, and people will be forced to live an extremely frugal and simple lifestyle?:cool:

[Aurelia]

I disagree with this, why would a currency or price mechanisms exist in socialism? I think state distribution of the social product could be handled easily enough with a system maybe of electronic recordkeeping/National ID Card. I would think under such a system the essentials of life: food, shelter etc would be provided as an 'assured minimum' and then luxury and more advanced items would be given to those who turn up for work and make products for the rest of society.

[bleedingheart]

I disagree with this, why would a currency or price mechanisms exist in socialism? I think state distribution of the social product could be handled easily enough with a system maybe of electronic recordkeeping/National ID Card. I would think under such a system the essentials of life: food, shelter etc would be provided as an 'assured minimum' and then luxury and more advanced items would be given to those who turn up for work and make products for the rest of society.

I see what you mean. But can you expand this with some examples? Why then did Soviet Union not do this, they did provide free education and health care, if I am not mistaken. What mistakes can be avoided?

[trivas7]

In Socialism, state sets prices.
Not necessarily. Why think in terms of the Soviet Union? There are other alternatives: labor vouchers, Technocracy's energy distribution cards, etc. We want to abolish wages altogether.

[shorelinetrance]

people will be forced to live an extremely frugal and simple lifestyle?:cool:

Just like in capitalism?

[xAtlasx]

A Socialist state would begin a slow decentigration of the power of wages. In a Socialist state money should start to disappear, we cannot keep wages while proclaiming people to be free.

[Hessian Peel]

I think all essentials should be "free" (i.e. state provided) under socialism. This covers healthcare, education, housing, food & drink and all the other lesser services people require (such as waste collection etc.).

If people require "luxury" items they should use their salaries to pay for them. This would help advance society towards communism in my view, by reducing the amount of products manufactured for profit. It would demolish consumerism.

Of course these efforts would have to be combined with extensive propaganda and political education to wean people off consumerism, especially in the West. Basically a cultural revolution of sorts, specifically targeting the degenerate consumer mindset.

[Aurelia]

I see what you mean. But can you expand this with some examples? Why then did Soviet Union not do this, they did provide free education and health care, if I am not mistaken. What mistakes can be avoided?
Capitalism was restored in the USSR about 1960-ish, but before that period the logic of Stalin that certain products could be 'communized' (ie the controls of socialism rolled back: socialism-communism) but not all at once. So a certain product could have state controls reduced to see the desired result, if theft increased as a result the controls would be put back up, if theft went down the reductions could be sustained. Lenin thought about communism in that kinda practical way too. Of course some products, ie food, could be communized quickly than say luxury items. It's all about building socialism on a product by product basis.

Think about it like this:

Socialism - when a product is socialized it is freely distributed to the public, but with state controls to ensure looting, hording etc didn't happen, so rationing etc could be impose on certain products, a National ID card/electronic bookkeeping could keep track so that no one hordes or gets more than what they need of any certain product.

Communism - when the controls associated with a certain product are rolled back partially or entirely, so the product is communized and freely distributed to the public without restriction on it's distribution. This would of course take a long time with certain products.

Here's an example, the USSR at 1937 managed to communize bread in Moscow, and more importantly they didn't have people cleaning out the bakeries and taking all the bread.

Stalin took the view that communism was something to be introduced by installments, not over night, not all at once in every field but gradually so that once production in a particular commodity became sufficient so this particular article could be communized, and at that time in Moscow I was informed that bread was now free. You could go into a shop and help yourself. And It worked. After all, you didn't, in most parts of the country, pay for your water by the gallon, it doesn't mean you turn your tap on deliberately just to get something for nothing. People don't, and I think its only a small step to changing peoples attitudes to realize that there is no point in taking more than you want.

[Hessian Peel]

Capitalism was restored in the USSR about 1960-ish, but before that period the logic of Stalin that certain products could be 'communized' (ie the controls of socialism rolled back: socialism-communism) but not all at once. So a certain product could have state controls reduced to see the desired result, if theft increased as a result the controls would be put back up, if theft went down the reductions could be sustained. Lenin thought about communism in that kinda practical way too. Of course some products, ie food, could be communized quickly than say luxury items. It's all about building socialism on a product by product basis.

Think about it like this:

Socialism - when a product is socialized it is freely distributed to the public, but with state controls to ensure looting, hording etc didn't happen, so rationing etc could be impose on certain products, a National ID card/electronic bookkeeping could keep track so that no one hordes or gets more than what they need of any certain product.

Communism - when the controls associated with a certain product are rolled back partially or entirely, so the product is communized and freely distributed to the public without restriction on it's distribution. This would of course take a long time with certain products.

Here's an example, the USSR at 1937 managed to communize bread in Moscow, and more importantly they didn't have people cleaning out the bakeries and taking all the bread.

Stalin took the view that communism was something to be introduced by installments, not over night, not all at once in every field but gradually so that once production in a particular commodity became sufficient so this particular article could be communized, and at that time in Moscow I was informed that bread was now free. You could go into a shop and help yourself. And It worked. After all, you didn't, in most parts of the country, pay for your water by the gallon, it doesn't mean you turn your tap on deliberately just to get something for nothing. People don't, and I think its only a small step to changing peoples attitudes to realize that there is no point in taking more than you want.

Good post comrade.

[trivas7]

I think all essentials should be "free" (i.e. state provided) under socialism. This covers healthcare, education, housing, food & drink and all the other lesser services people require (such as waste collection etc.).

If people require "luxury" items they should use their salaries to pay for them. This would help advance society towards communism in my view, by reducing the amount of products manufactured for profit. It would demolish consumerism.

Of course these efforts would have to be combined with extensive propaganda and political education to wean people off consumerism, especially in the West. Basically a cultural revolution of sorts, specifically targeting the degenerate consumer mindset.
I totally agree on the importance of a cultural and educational revolution. Having said that what one calls luxury and another essential not only differs person to person but culture to culture. Are cell phones a necessity? (I'm not interested in owning one). Cars? DVD players? etc.

[Hessian Peel]

I totally agree on the importance of a cultural and educational revolution. Having said that what one calls luxury and another essential not only differs person to person but culture to culture. Are cell phones a necessity? (I'm not interested in owning one). Cars? DVD players? etc.

I think a television, landline phone, a mobile/cell phone and computer with broadband etc. could be regarded as essentials as people should have a right to communication services. Perhaps they're not primary but secondary essentials? I think this would be straightforward enough once the foundation of such a system was in place dealing with food & drink and so on.

As for DVDs, CDs and books to me the answer is obvious: free libraries open to all citizens and fuck copyright laws that may be protecting "intellectual property" in other countries that aren't socialist, yet. :)

Publicly-owned (needless to say), energy efficient and environmentally friendly transport should be utilised to the maximum. Unless we can do the same for individual vehicles such as cars or motorbikes access should be restricted. Lenin used Rolls-Royce (should I be disclosing this? :lol:) cars as he was doing so much travelling and he needed a good car, and because they were already there from Tsarist times (I think?). I would think something like that should be in place, members of peoples assemblies and so on should have restricted access to cars or whatever if required.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Not necessarily. Why think in terms of the Soviet Union? There are other alternatives: labor vouchers, Technocracy's energy distribution cards, etc. We want to abolish wages altogether.

Indeed: social-abolitionism.

[Aurelia]

Labor vouchers are the same as currency as far as I can see it, and as such they will loose their meaning as a measure of value and become nothing but a medium of circulation for a new capitalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Huh? Unlike currency, labour vouchers do not circulate.

[Aurelia]

Huh? Unlike currency, labour vouchers do not circulate.
They would eventually, if only in an informal way.

Their is no alternate to direct distribution of the social product, all other forms distort it's distribution according to socialist principles.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ To be fair, I did mention this critique. Pardon me, actually, because I actually meant (electronic) labour credit:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/economics-and-politics-t83454/index.html

[Aurelia]

^^^ To be fair, I did mention this critique. Pardon me, actually, because I actually meant (electronic) labour credit:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/economics-and-politics-t83454/index.html
Well if you look above I voiced support for an electronic recordkeeping system for more advanced products in society, I think however that the essentials, mostly important food and shelter, should be an 'assured' minimum provided no matter what, if only with restrictions to prevent people taking more than they need.

Realistically it's simply a matter of changing people's attitudes, that they don't need to take more than they need. I mean in capitalist society today you don't pay for water but do you see people turning on the taps to get more than they want?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You do pay for water. It's called a "utility bill."

Anyway, regarding the "advanced products," they'd be priced either in labour hours (if "tax deductions" are made from labour credit) or in labour hours + "sales tax" (if neo-Lassallean compensation is made).

Some "labour credit" Marxists have argued that the former, a sales tax that is regressive under modern society, is actually a good thing under socialism.

[gla22]

Even under a gift-economy markets still exist however when you have a supply curve that is a static vertical line at a quantity produced that is greater or equal to need you have a gift economy. Markets are not something to be implemented, they are an economic model (rough approximation) that exists to understand the relationship between production and consumption. A gift economy can be shown with markets.

IMO a static supply curve that is greater or equal to need can never be reached for all items. That would mean ending scarcity and satisfying the supposedly insatiable, human wants. Most products should be controlled communally, especially the necessity's. The luxury items will be produced below wants. So what do we do with this? Thay is the question I am still trying to answer.