Brands, companies etc in a communist society

[Dóchas]

i was just thinking would there be different brands of clothes and goods in a communist society so that there would be competition between different factories and manufacturing plants? also would there be different makes of cars for competition or would there be just one make of car and that was that. as well as the above would there be different companies (im thinking ones equivalent to sony, philips etc) or would it just be one sort of state owned company?

the problems i see with this is that if there wasnt any competition between different factories and plants that it would just turn into a monopoly.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think "brands" in a communist society would be much more akin to types of cheese than say, the various brands of cheap cigarettes that are currently available but aren't that much different.

Some people will want their cigarettes king-size, others will want their cheese to be really gooey. So you ask for king-size when acquiring your cigarettes, and go to the gooey section of the cheese aisle.

Immediate availability would most likely reflect local/regional tastes, but I see no reason why one should not be able to hop on an intercity train and come back with a carton of cigarettes or a wheel of cheese that isn't available in your locality. Or get a friend to post them to you.

[Potemkin]

Speaking as an anarchist-communist (i.e. non-Marxist) it would seem that the problem of a monopoly would be moot, as a communist economic system presupposes worker (or community) control of the means of production. So, while there might only be one manufacturing facility for a given item, the way that item is produced, and the characteristics of that item would reflect the needs of the workers and/or community. This is also the point of need-based production and distribution: items needed by the community are produced (no useless crap, as under capitalism), and consumption is based on the individual needs of the citizens.

And I think NoXion is correct, as well. In an anarchist-communist situation, production will also be as decentralized and local as possible (to best reflect the needs of the community from which the workers reside), meaning there will probably be certain items that are produced by several different locations, and tailored to the specific needs of each community. This means you would have different variations of the same item.

I think it's also important to remember, as well, that cooperation, solidarity, and mutual aid, will be much bigger factors in production than competition.

[Dóchas]

Speaking as an anarchist-communist (i.e. non-Marxist) it would seem that the problem of a monopoly would be moot, as a communist economic system presupposes worker (or community) control of the means of production. So, while there might only be one manufacturing facility for a given item, the way that item is produced, and the characteristics of that item would reflect the needs of the workers and/or community. This is also the point of need-based production and distribution: items needed by the community are produced (no useless crap, as under capitalism), and consumption is based on the individual needs of the citizens.

And I think NoXion is correct, as well. In an anarchist-communist situation, production will also be as decentralized and local as possible (to best reflect the needs of the community from which the workers reside), meaning there will probably be certain items that are produced by several different locations, and tailored to the specific needs of each community. This means you would have different variations of the same item.

I think it's also important to remember, as well, that cooperation, solidarity, and mutual aid, will be much bigger factors in production than competition.

so basically each town will have a production plant and it will produce any goods that the community needs and if an individual wants something different they will have to travel for it?

[Killfacer]

So we would all wear clothes that are the same?

[Dóchas]

So we would all wear clothes that are the same?

thats what i was getting at. if there wernt any brands and different makes of clothes,cars etc would we all be wearing the same things and driving the same cars and eating the same food?

[Potemkin]

Well, ideally production would take place on the smallest level possible and applicable, perhaps something smaller than a town. Also, the things produced will be agreed upon by the community. In an anarchist-communist society, it would hopefully be possible to do this through consensus decision-making. The idea is that everyone whom is affected by the decision at-hand will have a direct say in that decision, so I don't see a situation in a truly anarchist-communist society where someone is against what is being produced. They might be ambivalent about it, or stood aside during the decision, but don't oppose it.

Also, I don't really see why there would necessarily be only one type of everything. There are many needs that have to be addressed for many given things -- cars, for instance, serve many different uses, so it only makes sense that there would still be at least one type of many cars (trucks, family vehicles, etc.).

The same goes with clothing -- many different needs must be addressed.

In addition, this is not capitalism, so citizens shouldn't expect to have all of their personal desires met by the production of the community. Citizens would be empowered to customize things themselves, and would have the free time (as needless production would be eliminated, and there would be full employment, driving down the time required per person to "work") to make their own clothing, if they chose, or modify existing products to best serve their needs.

So, you may have a situation where the necessities for living are produced by the community in a standard way that allows for easy modification, and then people can take what they need and easily modify or build on it to fit their needs or wishes. An example might be a few styles of shirt that come in a natural color, with the understanding that people will dye them to suit their taste, or one or two standard auto body types of modular design that can be customized for the job at hand.

As an aside, some people think that it would be more efficient and realistic to have centralized production of certain big items, like cars. It doesn't make much sense to have each neighborhood, township, or "commune" having to reinvent the wheel and manufacture their own vehicles. The resources for production would also ideally come from the community itself, and not many places would have enough resources to have their own automotive plant (now we're starting to talk of the federative networks that Kropotkin advocated -- neighborhoods, townships, etc. entering into mutually beneficial federation with other communities to get goods and resources that can't be produced from within).

Hope this helps!

[lombas]

It is a question of priority. It is a priority to have standard types of clothing (dress, pants, shirts, neckties, &c) in different types of size (S, L, ...) and different standard types of colour.

What is, however, not all that a priority is making all those things fashionable. If you want a shirt with flower motives on them, feel free to do as you please. But as it will not be the case that thirty huge stores at the end of the street await "your" desires, it will up to you to decide how much effort you want to invest in making things fashionable. This is not a common responsibility.

[Dóchas]

thanks guys for the help i understand it a bit more. so you will be provided with the basics that you need and if you want to take it further you got to make your own effort.

[8bit]

thanks guys for the help i understand it a bit more. so you will be provided with the basics that you need and if you want to take it further you got to make your own effort.

Sort of, but I see it as more than that. It's not necessarily true that all customization will be done specifically by the individual.

When we eliminate the need to work as much as we do, more focus can be put on both education and the arts.

The focus put on education will aid us in replacing our lower, more laborious occupations with non-human automations. (robotics, software, etc...)

This, in turn, will give us more time to focus on education and the arts. It's like a vicious cycle, but good.

Of course, this focus n education will also improve the efficiency in which we educate as well as the efficiency at which we develop and distribute technology and arts. This will, in turn, make educating faster and easier, and the arts easier to create.

The result will be an abundance of art, an increase in productivity, and an increase in technological development. This, of course, all coupled with zero inequality of wealth. (and zero wealth for that matter)

[Killfacer]

Frankly these answers have been appauling.

So we are all going to end up wearing the same clothes. Unless you want to sit at a sewing machine all day to "customise" the crappy clothes you have. Your making communism like the borg. So we are all going to walk around in the same clothes? So we are all going to dye are clothes so that everyone has the same clothes but slight variations in colour?

I know there must be an intelligent answer to why this won't happen so can somebody please inform we how this won't happen?

[lombas]

So we are all going to end up wearing the same clothes.

What don't you understand in the following sentence:

"It is a priority to have standard types of clothing (dress, pants, shirts, neckties, &c) in different types of size (S, L, ...) and different standard types of colour."

[8bit]

Frankly these answers have been appauling.

So we are all going to end up wearing the same clothes. Unless you want to sit at a sewing machine all day to "customise" the crappy clothes you have. Your making communism like the borg. So we are all going to walk around in the same clothes? So we are all going to dye are clothes so that everyone has the same clothes but slight variations in colour?

I know there must be an intelligent answer to why this won't happen so can somebody please inform we how this won't happen?

No, your confusing priority with actual outcome.

It is a priority that we all have clothing, food, house, transportation, etc... whether or not they are identical.

However, Communism will open more doors to surplus and creativity than Capitalism ever could- all without the waste associated with Capitalism.

[lombas]

It is a priority that we all have clothing, food, house, transportation, etc... whether or not they are identical.

You also have to take into account that for a lot of people in this world even today, those things are not evident.



However, Communism will open more doors to surplus and creativity than Capitalism ever could- all without the waste associated with Capitalism.

That certainly is a fact.

[Potemkin]

Iombas and 8bit seem to have a pretty good understanding. Good contributions.

Killfacer: You would rather wear corporate designs to reflect your "personality" than to customize clothes yourself? You can't buy individuality from corporations. It's also arguable that there's less variety when corporations set the trends. How much variety is in Hot Topic, for instance? If you don't want something black and/or studded, you're out of luck.

Also, the point of having a few tried-and-true designs is so that we spend less time making things that are designed for survival, creating more time to spend living our lives and pursuing our passions. If, for some, those passions are clothing, they'll have plenty of time to design and share them.

Lastly, the Borg comment is a gross generalization. Yes, in some instances everyone is "the same" -- as in equal, not as in identical. Just because we would wear the same clothes doesn't mean that we're the same people. See the argument above. How many people wear Levi's? Probably most people that wear jeans. Does that make the people that wear them "the same"? You seem to be choosing style over substance, where communism is aimed at overcoming the superficial so we can connect intimately to each other as human beings, on the same social and economic level as everyone else.

[butterfly]

But without brands there would be no measure of the quality of a product.
By 'quality' I don't mean an expression of individuality, I mean practicality, for example whether or not the product was made from the best material.
If you purchase a bike for instance you would want it to be durable.

[Plagueround]

But without brands there would be no measure of the quality of a product.
By 'quality' I don't mean an expression of individuality, I mean practicality, for example whether or not the product was made from the best material.
If you purchase a bike for instance you would want it to be durable.

There are plenty of way to express quality and purpose of goods without relying on a brand name. If one is going to be doing some hardcore labor like, say, pulling cables in an apple packing plant, obviously they're going to want to wear clothing designed to be rugged and durable. If you're getting dressed up for a night on the town, you're likely going to want something softer and perhaps flashier (not really my thing, but for the sake of the example).

In a communist society, where the goal is meeting everyone's needs and not competing for a dollar amount, there would be no reason to produce goods of "inferior" quality to match a certain price point or budget...everyone would be able to have the greatest quality goods for whatever purpose. If anything, I could see particular names or logos being given to types of clothing to indicate their purpose...so we could call "industrial grade work jeans" or "flashy sequined disco dance suit" something a bit more simple, but this would be a matter of convenience and not some attempt to show off one's ill-perceived attempt at superiority to others through wearing one brand of clothing.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I doubt there would be different brands, just everything being made collectively. Brands is a Capitalist created idea for profit. In Communism different people could probably make different clothes based on their preferences.

[Diagoras]

Coming from an anarcho-communist perspective...

As has been said, the primary focus should be on the achievement of fundamental needs first and foremost. This is something that is well within our capacity, but simply isn't a primary goal of capitalism. We need to orient society's wealth and productive capacity towards these things.

As far as clothing is concerned, I don't see why you are conjuring an image along the lines of everyone wearing gray overalls, just because the clothes being made are not produced by corporations. Deciding production and consumption is a democratic process requiring mass input. As previously said, different settings will require specialized production: hospital workers, construction workers, etc, have specific needs for uniforms in order to do their jobs well and safely. There are also some general clothes that people often wear that can be made (again, popular input goes directly into the decisions on WHAT to produce) with variety, but along generally common lines: jeans, khakis, button-up shirts, t shirts, etc... that again, should pose no problem, given that you and others now have a direct say in what should be produced (including styles).

You are worrying about a lack of individual style being present in a communist society where what is being produced gives you a direct say in the matter at the local level on up... but not in a corporate economy that gives you NO direct input in the matter, and where what is "fashionable" is decided in an oligarchic fashion by marketing departments that simply sell you a sense of "individuality" (you and the 20 million other people wearing the same shirt/pants/etc) based on what you purchase to hang off of your skin?

Don't get me wrong, I like having my own style as well... but there is no reason I see that you can't have the same looks you do now (and more) in a democratically planned, participatory economy. Even outside of this method, there are people who enjoy knitting, sewing, working with fabrics, etc. You can always, as radical as it sounds, talk with those who enjoy these things and decide on some sort of arrangement for them to help you with their talents :). Given the freeing up of time that would follow in this scenario, I would hope it would be more likely that others may find interest in doing such things (whether it be clothes, computer programming, cooking, handiwork, etc.), and be able to pursue them to the benefit of themselves and others.

[ckaihatsu]

I think brands would still exist, but more in a craft-driven orientation, rather than in a big-corporate-logo kind of way, as posters here have alluded to. Think of different "brands" of _wine_, from different wineries -- certainly those who are into wine would *want* to know the "brand" (winery), but there wouldn't be money-powered commercials on television that use association techniques to give "identity" to their products for the uninitiated. Different brands of wine (or whatever) would develop genuine reputations and cachet through consumer experience and word-of-mouth.

Since a socialist / communist / anarchist society would be free of the influence of private claims to disproportionate amounts of assets, labor, or resources, society would be run like a commune -- "commune"-ism. This means that the economy wouldn't be primarily about the flows of money the way it is now, it would be about the real demands of real people.

Imagine, if you would, an economy in which the strongest force would be the public demonstration. (Imagine the demands of every street demonstration * winning * !) So if there was too much strain on local production and the people in a locale started feeling like they were in a rut, working too hard, and overshadowed by a larger manufacturer, they might have a demonstration to call wider attention to this fact, and, after discussion, may press for a larger production plant in which to do what they do, in order to see better results for the labor they're putting in.

This demand and show of political force would *necessitate* a governmental response that would tap wider channels of asset (factory) creation, and resource sourcing in order to fulfill the labor demands -- and, more fundamentally, consumer demands.

I'd like to recommend this thread that has dealt with these issues of planned production, on a macro scale:

"The workings of a planned economy"

http://www.revleft.com/vb/workings-planned-economy-t94505/index.html


Chris






--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --