I fine start but how will we decide what not to produce?
Results 1 to 12 of 12
socialist Economy?
OK Peep, I am new at this so take it easy.
I might sound a bit Naive, but wont the production capabilities rise at least 50% when socialism, or rather, if socialism is implemented?
Instead of the workforce making consumer items like earings, wristbands, keyrings, dogs toys, and alot of other stuff, that is made to accumalate value instead of for the benefit of the people, we will make the stuff we want and need, the economy would have to be decieded by us workers though, no central planning thank you very much
Again I am new and still learning, does my thread have any legitimacy?
I fine start but how will we decide what not to produce?
Well we would all need to be class conscious and be ready to do away with our western decadence and reliance on abundant material wealth.
we could use our modern means of production, with one previous owner(capitalists) to make stuff the whole world needs, and exchange things like cars, medicine and other things for crops from the third world.
We would have a few years where our living conditions steadily decrease, but then after a while, the world would develop at a steady and even rate.
this is my view anyway hunni
Sounds fine. Just wondering how you think it could be arranged with "no central planning".Well we would all need to be class conscious and be ready to do away with our western decadence and reliance on abundant material wealth.
we could use our modern means of production, with one previous owner(capitalists) to make stuff the whole world needs, and exchange things like cars, medicine and other things for crops from the third world.
We would have a few years where our living conditions steadily decrease, but then after a while, the world would develop at a steady and even rate.
this is my view anyway hunni
well the work force would decide everything, with every sector voting on what they wish to make, and you might say, but what if they want to make the stuff we don't need, well i would reply, thw workers would have to be class concious and be aware what socialism is to overthrow the government, so after that, they would be revolutionary enough to decide what and what not to produce, without some homophobic nutjob purging them .
Well, that's exactly the plan!Originally Posted by Aldous Snow
The Marxist theory is that the great productive forces are massively limited and hindered by the (outdated) capitalist way of production of which they are outgrown. This and the anarchy in production (capitalists produce like mad, flood the market with their goods, not knowing if these are really needed and if/how much they will sell) lead, among many other things, to a waste of capacities and recurring crises which destroy great amounts of goods (as well as jobs).
So if the capitalist way of production is overthrown after the revolution and the anarchy in production is replaced by a planned economy which does not produce into the blue and for profits but according to the needs of the people and for the benefit of the whole society, great progress in both economy and society is expected.
This is just a short overview but I hope it helps answering your question.
How do you imagine this? How can you effectively satisfy the needs of the people if everybody just produces whatever comes to their mind? Clearly the workers of a steel factory can't produce everything they need (just take food) for themselves and producing steel like mad in the hope to exchange some for food is also unlikely to work.
Also, this thread should maybe be in Learning, therefore moved.
Hold on. Arent we aiming for a world of material abundance? Why would we look to do away with material abundance?
Many areas of the world do not have access to material abundance, and as Communists aiming for equality this is an issue. However, the solution is not to scale back production and consumption in the West but allow for industrialisation in the rest of the world.
If the revolution is going to lower living standards, why would anyone support it?
they wont in the west
In order to create a sustainable world with fair working conditions for everyone, the western living standards will have to be lowered. As much as I want this to be ingrained into class-consciousness workers, it doesn't really matter, as revolutions in the third world will make it so either way.
I've read that there needs to be a 20% reduction in the Western standard of living in order to meet reasonable global justice and environmentalist goals
[FONT=Arial]"Can a brother get a little peace?
There's war in the streets
and a war in the middle east.
Instead of a war on poverty,
they got a war on drugs
so the police can bother me"[/FONT]
I think this depends on what class you are thinking about. The Standard of living will decrease for whom? The Capitalist class? The Middle class? The Proletariat? We can't just say it will decrease because many people are in pretty bad shape on minimum wage choosing housing or food every week....so just the necessities could actually raise their standard of living right?
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-Lenin
I don't know where you've read that, but that is completely counter to the very basis of Marx's analysis-- which is that at a certain point the relations of production, the property, capital come into conflict with the growth of the means of production. That conflict inaugurates an era of social revolution.
I have no doubt that living standards for everyone everywhere might be lowered as a result of the civil war the bourgeoisie, everywhere, will wage against a revolutionary struggle-- but to argue that a successful proletarian revolution, a successful transition to socialism requires lowering the living standards of workers in advanced countries in order to "raise up" standards in less developed countries disregards the real history of underdevelopment as being the product, not of "transferring wealth" from poorer countries, but the inability of capitalism to overcome the limitations of the its own, and the pre-existing relations of land and labor that so circumscribe economic development.
And exactly how are revolutions in the 3rd world going to reduce standards of western workers, particularly when history has shown an inversion of that claim-- where the revolutions inevitably expose the workers of those countries to greater exploitation, greater deprivation in the world markets; when those revolutions in the long run make way for capitalism?
Did the Cuban Revolution reduce standards for US workers despite the interruption of profits extracted from the sugar sector? Not exactly, as wages and living standards for workers in the US continued to climb until the rate of profit peaked in 1969.
Did the Vietnamese Revolution lead to the decline in industrial employment in the US?
Besides all that, which is the core to Marx, this baloney argument about reducing standards in advanced countries by "20%" for workers fits neatly into the bourgeoisie's own strategy of austerity. They would love to reduce the standards of wages, education, public transportation, food security, health care by more than 20% for workers, while of course maintaining the standards of compensation for private property.
The argument about reducing living standards in the advanced countries bases itself on a distortion of the "super-profits, and bribery of the working class theory"-- a theory which is itself unsupported by the history of the reproduction of capital.
Moved
OMONOIA
ANARCHO
COMMUNISM
You're never over
