What would you miss most in a communist/socialist society ?

[Chambered Word]

I'd miss not being able to oppress people while emitting gruesome Stalin laughs with blood on my chops.

No seriously, I'd be so happy I'd go crazy and probably drink myself to death or something. And I don't even drink.

[danyboy27]

You value all those things more than just their "bare costs" so what is the problem with charging you less than you value those things? If you don't value them at their prices you won't buy them, if you do, you will. Why should someone get less than the value they want to sell something to you at?

Let me put it simpler: IF you want 5 dollars for a tie you own (even if it only cost a dollar to make or whatever) because thats how much you think its worth why should you be forced to sell it for 1 because thats how much it cost to manufacture? Thats silly. Now if 5 dollars your minimum or your ideal, you may or may not be willing to compromise, but if all those things listed cost the prices you mentioned what would be the result? A shortage. Look at supply and demand.

supply and demand dosnt require an artificial scarcity system.
that why labor voucher would be for.

lets say an item cost 5 labor voucher, and that, due to its constant popularity the production of this item cant suffice, the cost of the item will be ajusted BECCAUSE its rare, not for profits, labor voucher cant be stocked for profits, its just a simple way to deal with REAL scarcity.

a person who work hard would still be able to get luxuries and other goods, without being screwed and it will avoid good stuff to be wasted.

Where i live, we have milk quota, million of gallon of milks thrown away in the sewers to keep the price of a liter at 3 bucks, we have people who raise chicken and have to put measures in place to decrease their productivity for quota in order to keep the cost of a chicken relatively high.

all this bullshit for some artificial scarcity system.

[Ryke]

No you're wrong... wrong wrong wrong.

IF TV's suddenly dropped to the price that they cost to manufacture, how many TV's would you buy? I don't know how cheap they actually are, but I'm assuming a large price drop say a previously 300 dollar HD Tv would now be something 20-50 dollars. They'd be gone in a second. So even people who wanted a TV would not be able to get one because people would buy 4-5 TV's where they only need one because they are so, comparatively, cheap. This is a shortage, where, at a certain price, there isn't enough quantity supplied to meet quantity demanded. Same goes for just about everything. The reason the prices are higher than the costs is to ensure anyone who wants to buy something (at a certain price) can, not just those who get to the store fastest.

Yes, of course, if given the option, consumers will always want the smallest price. IS it the manufacturers job to do this? Consumers want to pay nothing for everything, so if manufacturers did this... we wouldn't have manufacturers. Its very simple actually, even a simple course in micro-economics would be incredibly enlightening for you I think. The fact is, your demand for groceries is relatively inelastic (That is you can only buy so little groceries, so if the price raises you just have to shell out more money), however it is not PERFECTLY elastic (something doesn't really happen). If milk starts costing 100 dollars, bread 50 bucks, poptarts 20 dollars a smack, and bottled water 70 dollars, you're going to change your eating habits. IF your demand was inelastic you wouldn't... you couldn't. But you can, and if a grocery store/chain did this they'd quickly be undercut, and in fact most stores are undercutting these prices I listed, so such a supermarket wouldn't even get its feet on the ground.

And isn't an "artificial scarcity" good in some cases (namely environmental)? What if we just got all the oil out of the ground and with this increased supply sold it at a price where all of it could be sold (namely a much lower prices than we have now)? People would stop being careful with their gas and start buying hummers, suv's, and trucks again. Part of the reason behind "artificial scarcity" (your word, not mine) is conservation of resources.

First, I'm not arguing that the price of goods should be set to their manufacturing price in capitalist society; that would, in fact, mostly serve to fuck up everything. It's not presented as a serious idea, at least not without wide-ranging changes that would have to be elaborated on at length. It's more a question of ethics or justification (it should, not could, in the current scheme of things). That it's economically not feasible is one reason why we don't actually advocate that. Either way, this is essentially an ethical question, or one of what ought to be, and not what can be under capitalism. If capitalism gets in the way of what ought to be, then we should consider saying "fuck capitalism". It's not that simple, but it's a necessary step at some point.

There's a bunch of related things that need to be taken into consideration for pretty much every point in that post, though, if I'm going to consider it for the sake of argument. For one, people do not buy as many goods as they can simply for the sake of consuming. If I could afford six TVs I would still buy none, because I neither need one nor have any use for one that isn't filled just as adequately by the one I already have. How many TVs would anyone buy? As many as they have a use for. How many is that? Not very many. Would there be shortages in stores? Almost certainly. Would everyone who needs a TV have one in a matter of, say, a month? Almost certainly. If there were some kind of organisation as to how we distribute those very cheap TVs (which are both clearly a luxury, especially to those who have a near-equivalent TV already, and now also immediately scarce), we could even avoid many of the problems. If we ignore the consequences on the economy of selling TVs at zero profit, the shortage aspect isn't horrible. For food, however, selling at zero profit would require some kind of planification as to how we go about doing that, much more so than with TVs.

Oh, also, if TVs were manufactured for their use rather than for profit, as would necessarily be the case without profit, they would be made to last considerably longer at no significantly greater cost, as would a lot of things, notably appliances. That's something to take into account, as you could make roughly as many TVs and sell less of them.

Even in the case of goods that can be bought in large quantities, even things that are bought frivolously, won't be bought in industrial quantities by customers just because they could be. Make stickers for kids available at their practically-zero manufacturing cost, and they still won't buy them up ridiculously faster.

Human behaviour in practice does not make nice curves on a graph, although it follows those trends broadly. You can't expect that because supply and demand say that ridiculously low prices will result in ridiculously high demand, this will necessarily translate to reality that simply. People, individually, do not buy goods to fulfil the predictions of supply and demand, goods have a use-value which isn't directly taken into account by the laws of supply and demand.

[LeftSideDown]

First, I'm not arguing that the price of goods should be set to their manufacturing price in capitalist society; that would, in fact, mostly serve to fuck up everything. It's not presented as a serious idea, at least not without wide-ranging changes that would have to be elaborated on at length. It's more a question of ethics or justification (it should, not could, in the current scheme of things). That it's economically not feasible is one reason why we don't actually advocate that. Either way, this is essentially an ethical question, or one of what ought to be, and not what can be under capitalism. If capitalism gets in the way of what ought to be, then we should consider saying "fuck capitalism". It's not that simple, but it's a necessary step at some point.

Okay, well ethics can say anything, and depending on your morality you can justify anything. Mises said something once like "There is no such thing as a scientific ought" because once you start dealing with "oughts" and "should's" you leave the realm of science and enter into morality. I'm glad you don't advocate it, and, even under socialism, you'd have to set prices higher than manufacturing cost in order to conserve resources. So, if you really think about it, by charging higher prices, capitalists are actually environmentalists . What "ought" to be isn't scientific and varies from person to person, and while I'm sure your "ought" is the best "ought", it ought not to be instituted on the basis of one opinion.

There's a bunch of related things that need to be taken into consideration for pretty much every point in that post, though, if I'm going to consider it for the sake of argument. For one, people do not buy as many goods as they can simply for the sake of consuming. If I could afford six TVs I would still buy none, because I neither need one nor have any use for one that isn't filled just as adequately by the one I already have. How many TVs would anyone buy? As many as they have a use for. How many is that? Not very many. Would there be shortages in stores? Almost certainly. Would everyone who needs a TV have one in a matter of, say, a month? Almost certainly. If there were some kind of organisation as to how we distribute those very cheap TVs (which are both clearly a luxury, especially to those who have a near-equivalent TV already, and now also immediately scarce), we could even avoid many of the problems. If we ignore the consequences on the economy of selling TVs at zero profit, the shortage aspect isn't horrible. For food, however, selling at zero profit would require some kind of planification as to how we go about doing that, much more so than with TVs.

You're right, people have time preference (the reason for interest), and people also have budget constraints. But how many TV's would you buy if you knew that, because of the low price, there would constantly be a shortage so that if your TV broke than you'd be out for months or years. Better to stock up on as many as you can and even put them in storage so that if your TV breaks you have a spare available, since there will be a shortage at that lower price. They wouldn't have it in a month, because people would be buying many more TV's than normally and the shortage would be almost continuous (especially if all other prices stay the same relatively). And its not just for yourself, what about parents who want to buy a TV for their children, or adults who want to buy a TV for relatives (maybe there is some places where the price hasn't dropped). On what basis would this organization decide who gets a TV? Almost any criteria would be completely arbitrary and, in essence, it would serve to be a rationing institution which would not need to exist in a society where the price reflects the value people place on them. Why should money be wasted on an institution like that which creates nothing, but could be avoided by just pricing something so that there is not a shortage? I'm sorry, when you say "planification" (Is that even a word) I tend to think others will be making choices for you; your liberty is reduced.

Oh, also, if TVs were manufactured for their use rather than for profit, as would necessarily be the case without profit, they would be made to last considerably longer at no significantly greater cost, as would a lot of things, notably appliances. That's something to take into account, as you could make roughly as many TVs and sell less of them.

Source(s)

Even in the case of goods that can be bought in large quantities, even things that are bought frivolously, won't be bought in industrial quantities by customers just because they could be. Make stickers for kids available at their practically-zero manufacturing cost, and they still won't buy them up ridiculously faster.

You're right, there is the law of diminishing returns to check people. There is also the fact that some things expire, but if it was dirt cheap there would be waste. For instance, if milk cost "cost" than you might hear about people bathing in it (I know its silly), or having milk-balloon fights, or washing cars in milk, or any number of other things that could happen as the cheapness of milk would make it a substitute for other goods that would be more expensive. The market encourages thriftiness and discourages waste for the most part.

Human behaviour in practice does not make nice curves on a graph, although it follows those trends broadly. You can't expect that because supply and demand say that ridiculously low prices will result in ridiculously high demand, this will necessarily translate to reality that simply. People, individually, do not buy goods to fulfil the predictions of supply and demand, goods have a use-value which isn't directly taken into account by the laws of supply and demand.

Low prices = ridiculously high demand, but high quantity demanded (there is a difference). And you're right, you can't translate humans onto graphs and have them be accurate in any real degree (part of the reason I oppose central planning), but if TV's price dropped to half across the board, more would be consumed. Also, I don't breathe because I'm constantly thinking about my need to reproduce and make offspring, and yet I still do because there are laws you follow with or without your knowledge of them. Use-value < subjective valuations.

[Che a chara]

You don't think most of those pro sports players get into it for other reasons other than money? Admiration, popularity, chicks??? And they make a living playing a GAME...I'd do that for what I make now.

True, but you'd be looking at a minority here. And also, if there is some sort of hostility towards sports (as shown in Cuba), why would people want to compete and play ?

[Che a chara]

Maybe being a US baseball fan, you don't notice this as virtually nobody else plays the game, but it happens all the time in football, and is a basic part of modern professional sport. The best players in the world gravitate towards the English and Spanish leagues, and this forms part of an international process affecting every country. It is the way modern capitalist sport works.

oh no no my friend, i'm European. I detest baseball and would call for it's abolishment

Yes I understand about footballers going to where they'd get paid the most. Money rules the game now, but that's what would worry me, that because of this sport would die out as there wouldn't be enough 'trade' for them 'here'. And that shouldn't be the case.

I would hope that in the revolution the best sporting equipment and training facilities would be brought into place. why shouldn't they?

[Che a chara]

They are cooperating to defeat and humiliate a group of their fellow human beings on an artificial battlefield in a simulated war. This only adds an element of "excitement" to their cooperative endeavor because they were raised to think and behave like barbarians for whom "human solidarity" is, variously, either a curseword or a punchline.

That's a bit heavy. I hope there isn't this sort of hostility shown in a socialist society. It's not as if people are being oppressed or exploited in playing on a field. Sport is a hobby. People play it to enjoy it, (as 'SandiNeesta' said). win, lose or draw, and will wake up the next morning dying to have another go.

I'd really like to know if there is any definitive line about what would happen with sports post-revolution. Hopefully democracy would prevail, and the people vote for it's continuation despite the competitive, albeit friendly, nature.

[anticap]

That's a bit heavy. I hope there isn't this sort of hostility shown in a socialist society. It's not as if people are being oppressed or exploited in playing on a field. Sport is a hobby. People play it to enjoy it, (as 'SandiNeesta' said). win, lose or draw, and will wake up the next morning dying to have another go.

I'd really like to know if there is any definitive line about what would happen with sports post-revolution. Hopefully democracy would prevail, and the people vote for it's continuation despite the competitive, albeit friendly, nature.

You've conflated "sports" with "competitive sports." I've already offered my objections to this.

[Drace]

My individualism....in bed.

[Bob George]

I'd miss my freedom.

Before you say you can be free in a communist/socialist society, no matter how absurd it is to say such a thing, no one can truly be free without the freedom of ownership and the freedom of enterprise. These freedoms give the individual power. Without them they are a total slave to the state, a slave to society, a slave to community. But with ownership, with enterprise, an individual can become powerful in their own right. They aren't stuck in a situation their whole lives. They can better their situation. They aren't doomed to be a labourer all his life because that's what the commissar decided was his best ability to serve the needs of others. They can be anything they want to be if they have the freedom to own the fruits of their labour, and the freedom to engage in enterprise.

[anticap]

They aren't doomed to be a labourer all his life because that's what the commissar decided was his best ability to serve the needs of others. They can be anything they want to be if they have the freedom to own the fruits of their labour, and the freedom to engage in enterprise.

Is this satire? Have you read any works of communist theory? If no, then you must be here to troll: you can't be here to learn, since you're already posturing as though you understand the subject; if yes, then you must be here to troll, since you must know that communists, of all stripes, have always defined freedom in the very sense you describe (the freedom of people to "be anything they want to be"), and have always maintained that it will only be achieved with communism. Here's Marx:

As soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.

The commissar dooming millions to demeaning labor is the capitalist.

Moreover, you don't own the fruits of your labor under capitalism -- the capitalist does. You're paid a wage beforehand, and the fruits of your labor are taken from you -- like a baby taken by a nun from a teenage mother -- to be sold on the market for a profit by the capitalist. Your wage is not the fruits of your labor; it represents only a fraction of those fruits.

And, again, your working life is not under your control, but the capitalist's. You are not "free," but are, in effect, a slave: freeze chattel slavery and wage-slavery in time, and the relations are the same, with a laborer and a taskmaster (the former relying on the latter for his subsistence). They appear different only because you sell yourself daily, and can choose your master. This is why the more intellectually honest advocates of capitalism actually argue for "voluntary" slavery: because they recognize that you are not a free autonomous agent while on the job, and that objections to slavery by pro-capitalists are therefore arbitrary and inconsistent. If it's acceptable to sell your individual autonomy for eight hours, then why not for 80 years?

And finally, as to the "freedom to engage in enterprise," it is mostly illusory. Certainly one is free to hang out a shingle, but the likelihood of success (even defined as simply not going under) is determined by factors well beyond the control of the heroic small-time entrepreneurs who populate the capitalist mythos.

[MortyMingledon]

And also, if there is some sort of hostility towards sports (as shown in Cuba), why would people want to compete and play ?

Cuba is actually quite fanatic about sports, with the government actively encouraging youths that display talent in a particular sport to join a governmental sports-training. The Cuban government does this both to keep up public health (and thus keep down health care costs), as well as to show its superiority over capitalists nations. One example of the effectiveness of Cuba's sports program is its boxing; they won five out of 11 gold medals at the 2004 Olympics: http://boxing.about.com/od/amateurs/a/medals.htm.

Perhaps you meant "professional" sport?