Isn't communism too idealistic?

[spens]

You realize that this religious fundamentalism and conservatism that's so common in the middle-east is a rather new development, right?

I hate to de-rail but it's like every time someone says a thing about the middle east, it's wrong.

I haven't really said anything about the Middle East, except wishing someone good luck to convince all (key word) Muslims that women should play an equal role in society. I suppose that isn't necessary for world wide communism, but I'm not really sure what the prerequisites are.

[#FF0000]

The problem with your solution is the problem that it defeats one purpose of balanced job participation: limiting or eliminating knowledge monopolization.

Not if the training is available to anyone who wants it.

[spens]

Not if the training is available to anyone who wants it.

There is only time for so much training. One person could select X training, Y training or Z training, but not all three. Monopolies still develop.

This text I'm reading about participatory planning by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel proposes a solution:

Indeed, jobs which permitted such monopolization [of influence or knowledge] would themselves be progressively eliminated by the restructuring of technologies, work roles, and workplace social relations.

I'm not so sure how feasible it is.

[#FF0000]

There is only time for so much training. One person could select X training, Y training or Z training, but not all three. Monopolies still develop.

Honestly I'm not seeing a problem with that. It's fine if some people have some knowledge that others don't, so long as the knowledge is available to everyone.

[robbo203]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Who decides what your ability or need is? It would take some sort of position of power to determine who is in need and who has ability. I am in the belief that power naturally corrupts and tends to find ways to increase and consolidate power. After time, you are left with those who have consolidated power to abuse, and those who don't.

Who decides? You do! This is the whole point of the communist slogan "from each according to ability to each according to need". The autonomy of the individual is maximised and as a result, we all benefit. As the Communist Manifesto put it

"In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all"


Specifically a communist (aka socialist) society - or at least what Marx called the "higher stage" of communism - exhibits two key features:


1) Free access to goods and services - no buying and selling. No barter. You simply go to the distribution point and take what you require according to your self determined needs. This depends on there being a relatively advanced technological infrastructure to produce enough to satisfy our basic needs. Such a possibility already exists. Capitalism, however, increasingly thwarts this potential. In fact, most of the work we do today in the formal sector will be completely unnecessary in a communist society - it serves only to prop up capitalism. What possible use would there be for a banking system under communism, for example? We could effectively more than double the quantities of resources and human labour power available for socially useful production by scrapping capitalism. Communism will destroy the need for greed and conspicuous consumption

2) Volunteer labour. Your contribution to society is completely voluntary. There is no wage labour or other forms of coerced labour. You can do as little or as much work as you choose. And you can do as many different kinds of jobs as you want, too. The presumption is that people would freely choose to work under communism for all sorts of reasons:

- the conditions under which we work will be radically different, without an employing class dictating terms work will become fulfilling and pleasant
- we need to work, to express ourselves creatively
- with free access to goods, conspicuous consumption will be rendered meaningless as a way of gaining respect and social esteem. Which leaves only what we give to society as a way of gaining the respect of our peers. This should not be underestimated; it is one of the most important motivational drives in human beings as numerous studies in industrial psychology have confimed
- Communism depends on people recognising our mutual interdependence. There is, in other words, a sense of moral obligation that goes with the territory
- Communism will permit a far greater degree of technological adaptation without the constraints of the profit system. Intrinsically backbreaking or unpleasannt work can be automated. Conversely some work may be deliberately made more labour intensive and craft based.
- Even under capitalism today most work is unpaid or unremunerated - the household economy, the volunteer sector and so on. So it is not as if this is something we are unaccustomed to. Volunteers moreover tend to be the most highly motivated as studies have confirmed; they dont require so called external incentives
- We will get rid of an awful lot of crappy and pointless jobs that serve as a disincentive to work
- since we would be free to do any job we chose to what this means in effect is that for any particular job there would be a massive back-up supply of labour to cover it consisting of most people in society. In capitalism this cannot happen since labour mobility is severely restricted. If you have a job you cannot just choose to abandon it for the sake of another more urgent job from the standpoint of society


With these two core characteristics of a communist society - free access to goods and services plus volunteer labour - there can be no political leverage that anyone or any group could exercise over anyone else. The material basis of class power would have completely dissolved. What we would be left with is simply human beings being free to express their fundamentally social and coooperative nature

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=#FF0000;2198741]

Then clearly we would have to do something different for those kinds of jobs, wouldn't we? If there's a need for people with certain highly specialized skills, then there would be training available for the job (for any job), and people who were stuck with that kind of job would get some kind of extra benefit if it was even desired.

Look at that. I solved this abstract problem in less than a minute.

Not really- and its not at all an abstract problem.

Look, if the socialist community is going to give an extra benefit or two for certain jobs which the community values more than others, that community:
1. Concedes that certain jobs are more valuable to it than others. This pretty much eliminates the proposal from Robbo and others on this thread that people can just take a bunch of jobs offered. The community has to be able to channel workers into jobs which it judges to be more beneficial to it than other jobs. The interests of a particular worker to a particular job cannot just be the final end all authority.
2. Needs to have a way to objectively determine the value of that labor to the community, compared with other jobs. An answer of "democratically" answers nothing.
3. Needs to recognise that while it can offer extra benefits to work in a particular job, the worker does not have to accept the offer (this in its own turn means certain understandings about the workers in such a community, and thus the impact it has upon the stated goals of socialism in general).

[tradeunionsupporter]

Communism is what is needed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I understand. Everyone decides on everything. I am hoping for more details that aren't as idealistic as "everyone decides on everything."

How do you ensure that all jobs are filled by qualified people? Or that less desirable jobs are all provided for? If it is through a reward system, who decides on the the relative value of a job? It seems as though the slogan should be "to each according to his needs, plus certain incentives based on his job selection."

Why not, how is this worse than the 25% youth unemployment now? How does capitalism make sure people are doing the jobs they need to do and how and who determines what is produced and how much? How are the food-price fluctuations that caused riots in Haiti and led to revolts in the Middle East and North Africa, a workable way to provide the things that people need? How is the housing bubble in the US and subsequent collapse a rational or beneficial way of providing things for people? The current economic slump and the regular boom-bust cycle of capitalism and the massive inequalities of the system suggest that capitalism is not very suited for handling these situations - not for the majority of people anyway.

Here's the thing, you are trying to justify economic despotism, the organization and planning of the economy through the profit-motive, controlled by a tiny fraction of the population. Rather than to apologize for this status-quo, your argument is basically that any other possible set-up of society is unworkable. To tweak an example by another poster, your questions are like a monarchist asking how things could be decided if positions in society were not based on caste... how would we know who is best for decision-making, how would grain be harvested if aristocrats can't force peasants to do it?

Well, the change from feudalism to capitalism wasn't merely changing some policies but re-organizing society around a class that drew it's power and influence from profits and private property. Socialism is the same - it can not just be a few policy changes on top of the current order of society, it is a reorganization of society - this time by the majority, workers, in their own interests. Capitalism was not written down by Adam Smith and then carried out by people as a fully formed plan, it was a process of development - and ongoing process that has looked very different in different places and times depending on circumstances. A (worker's society) democratically run society would also be a process and no one can dictate to the future exactly how and what to produce (maybe some would-be tyrants like to fantasize about this). People at that time will have to figure it out, until then, the task is to help bring about the self-emancipation of the working class and then we can go about debating and figuring out ideas for how best to run that. The American Revolutionaries did not come up with a bill of rights or the structure of a federal government until a decade after they achieved power, but the decisive thing that eventually allowed them to set up a society that worked along their interests was winning self-rule of the colonies.

The best that we can do now as far as thinking about what a future society could look like is 1) Speculate, there's nothing wrong with that and many people have offered their views on this thread already 2) Look at history where workers have set up organs of "government" such as during many revolutions where factory councils and "soviets" were created to allow democratic decisions by workers and people in working class communities.

Workers have rebelled and engaged in many insurrections, they have taken over factories, run co-ops and organized emergency distribution systems during general strikes and revolutions. They have taken power in Paris and Russia and - though briefly and had it taken away through brutal repression and even internal-counter-revolution (USSR). So it is not "idealism" to think that workers have an inherent intrest in having more control over their own lives or that they could take power. The nuts and bolts of that are interesting and important, but secondary questions.

[Baseball]

How does capitalism make sure people are doing the jobs they need to do and how and who determines what is produced and how much?

Through capitalist methods of productions, methods which presumably socialists are against and wish to abolish.
But those methods have to be replaced with something. That is what is being asked.

The nuts and bolts are not of secondary consideration. They ought to be of first. Because if you can't explain how the structure stands, odds are it won't no matter how pretty it is.

Rather than to apologize for this status-quo, your argument is basically that any other possible set-up of society is unworkable.

Its more along the line of requesting an explanation of the alternate possible set-up.

To tweak an example by another poster, your questions are like a monarchist asking how things could be decided if positions in society were not based on caste... how would we know who is best for decision-making, how would grain be harvested if aristocrats can't force peasants to do it?

A false analogy. The argument isn't that workers cannot make decisions, the question is whether those decisions can be made along socialist lines, and whether those decisions will result in what the socialists will claim it will.

Socialism is the same - it can not just be a few policy changes on top of the current order of society, it is a reorganization of society - this time by the majority, workers, in their own interests.

These are simply slogans. The questions being asked is to describe the reorganisation of society, why its better, how it gets there, to prove that in fact that it is in their best interests.

[

QUOTE]A (worker's society) democratically run society would also be a process and no one can dictate to the future exactly how and what to produce

Nobody is asking an explanation about that. But what is being asked is how that society might go about making such decisions.

P

eople at that time will have to figure it out, until then, the task is to help bring about the self-emancipation of the working class and then we can go about debating and figuring out ideas for how best to run that.

The cart before the horse. Basically, the objective stated here is to smash capitalism and then we will figure out if our ideas are any better.

T

he best that we can do now as far as thinking about what a future society could look like is 1) Speculate, there's nothing wrong with that

Absolutely. But speculation needs to be based upon socialism and what it claims to want and whether its speculation actually leads to what it says it does.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Through capitalist methods of productions, methods which presumably socialists are against and wish to abolish.
But those methods have to be replaced with something. That is what is being asked.

I think people have answered this - instead of CEOs making decisions based on what they expect will turn a profit, workers in workplaces and communities will develop (and have in historical examples) means for the coordination of resources and production. It is not in their interest to produce things that are not needed and so the goal is replacing production for profit with production for use.

If a community is organized democratically, then either members of that community themselves or elected representative (or some other form that I alone can not come up with, but millions of creative and engaged workers undoubtedly could) will work with representatives of the workplaces and manufacturing plants to coordinate what they need.

The nuts and bolts are not of secondary consideration. They ought to be of first. Because if you can't explain how the structure stands, odds are it won't no matter how pretty it is.

No, that is utopian idealism. We can give suggestions, but Thom Pane did not come up with the bill of rights or how the Supreme Court would work, he argued for republicanism and an end to the monarchy - that's the state we are at, not dreaming up planes for future people to carry out like drones. Socialists shouldn't be telling people what to do, but advocating for self-rule by workers.

Its more along the line of requesting an explanation of the alternate possible set-up.

The alternative to economic despotism by corporate princedoms is democratically run production by workers. Marx (let alone someone like you or me) can no more predict what and how people will decide the details than Adam Smith could decide what G.E. CEOs should do.

As far as "how" this should could be accomplished, again, through democracy. Worker's democracy is essential for a real collective rule of society and production and there are different ways this could be set up and I'd imagine that workplace bodies would coordinate with community bodies (and other workplaces in the exchange of raw-materials to production facilities) to figure out what resources are available and how to get them to the correct places.

I also think that one of the big pressures and incentives on people would be getting rid of "shit-work" and making labor as efficient and pleasant as possible while also providing what people want and need.

A false analogy. The argument isn't that workers cannot make decisions, the question is whether those decisions can be made along socialist lines, and whether those decisions will result in what the socialists will claim it will.

Workers making decisions collectively is "socialist lines" full stop. If it will work out or not is just pure speculation - it has failed in Russia, it was destroyed in Paris, and never got past a few baby-steps in many other revolutions from Russia in 1905 to Portugal in 1975.

These are simply slogans. The questions being asked is to describe the reorganisation of society, why its better, how it gets there, to prove that in fact that it is in their best interests.

Reorganization of society along democratic lines is better because a small minority can not ruin the lives of the majority in the drive for profits; a society built on cooperation rather than competition means that we can coordinate things based on what people need and want rather than for profits which then also drive the economy into busts and crisis. Why people having more control and power over the things that impact them (like where and how they live as well as what decisions are made at work) should be self-evident why it is in people's interests.

The cart before the horse. Basically, the objective stated here is to smash capitalism and then we will figure out if our ideas are any better.

What part of "socialism is not a set of policies" isn't clear. "Our ideas" are simply that the majority who actually run production already should have control over it rather than working for a minority in a system based on profits rather than democratic and popular needs and wants.

Realizing that the current order is unworkable, that a new system is needed and desired and can be organized around your interests, and THEN figuring out how to ensure that those interests can be met is how ALL mass revolutions have happened. Again, the list of colonists grievences came BEFORE the consitution, not the other way around as you are demanding of us. How people decide to organize things will largley be due to the conditions at the time and the conditions that led to the revolution.

I'd favor (and I think something at least analogous is probably necessary) workplace and community councils. But they will make the decisions, not us now.

[Rafiq]

Abolishing the core of society seems pretty difficult to me, especially when so many people are emotionally connected to it.

FACEPALM TIMES TEN


Okay, listen here, your lucky I'm still talking to you about this, now listen:

By abolishing the core of society, things will GRADUALLY change. It's not like fucking religion will just dissapear over night, no, it will take hundreds of years for that, and yes, your right, we will all die before religion whithers away, it's not hard.

Let's take an example, is religious behavior better in the third world or in the developed industrialized first world? The FIRST WORLD!

More education = less religion.

Better economic advancement = less religion.

Christ, you have a lot to learn.

[Rafiq]

Religion is far more than personal beliefs. Do you consider conservative Islam as compatible with Communism?

As a former religious person, no it's fucking not.

And no, conservative Islam is not compatable with communism, but listen here you idealist headed fuckwit, conservative Islam originates in underdeveloped nations with little education and such.

Fixing those things will literally destroy conservative Islam. *Cough* TURKEY *Cough*

Hell, I remember stories by my grandfather, the economies in the middle east were slightly better, the secular left was rapidly rising, hell AFGHANISTAN was one of the most SECULAR countries in the Middle East EVEN UNDER MONARCHY.

Once the countries were destroyed by Imperialism, and the countries were left to no advancement or education, THAT is when Islamism rose.

Listen here and say it with me: THOUGHTS AND IDEAS ARE MERELY REFLECTIONS OF THE SOCIETY IT ORIGINATES FROM.

Was that hard? Say it twice! Three times?

It's so fucking ironic how you call us Idealists yet you have no comprehension of what Idealism or Materialism is.

You are an Idealist, sir.

[spens]

Honestly I'm not seeing a problem with that. It's fine if some people have some knowledge that others don't, so long as the knowledge is available to everyone.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Marx against a division of labor?

[Rafiq]

That is quite a jump there. And I don't agree that religions aren't really much of a barrier.

Good luck getting all the Muslims to agree that women serve an equal role in society...

It takes basic fucking education. You are such a dumb shit.

The year is 1732 and I say:

BAHAHAHHA, GOOD SIR, GOOD LUCK TELLING THESE CHRISTIAN MEN TO NOT BURN WOMEN FOR BEING WITCHES! I WIN THE ARGUMENT! HO HO HO! CAPITALISM WILL NEVER BE BETTER THAN FUEDALISM ITS IMPOSSIBLE AND IDEALISTIC

[spens]

Okay, listen here, your lucky I'm still talking to you about this, now listen:

By abolishing the core of society, things will GRADUALLY change. It's not like fucking religion will just dissapear over night, no, it will take hundreds of years for that, and yes, your right, we will all die before religion whithers away, it's not hard.

Let's take an example, is religious behavior better in the third world or in the developed industrialized first world? The FIRST WORLD!

More education = less religion.

Better economic advancement = less religion.

Christ, you have a lot to learn.

I've already addressed what you have addressed. Religious groups will probably form the biggest resistance to communism, and there is quite some time to go before religion dies off. Religion still persists in even the most educated countries, so I think it will be a slow death.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE]

I think people have answered this - instead of CEOs making decisions based on what they expect will turn a profit, workers in workplaces and communities will develop (and have in historical examples) means for the coordination of resources and production.

Yes. And you need to describe "coordination" in a socialist community. A pursuit of profit in a general sense, describes "coordination" in a capitalist community.

If a community is organized democratically, then either members of that community themselves or elected representative (or some other form that I alone can not come up with, but millions of creative and engaged workers undoubtedly could) will work with representatives of the workplaces and manufacturing plants to coordinate what they need.

Millions will coordinate amongst themselves...how? Everyone votes on what items they need and want??? What??

No, that is utopian idealism. We can give suggestions, but Thom Pane did not come up with the bill of rights or how the Supreme Court would work, he argued for republicanism and an end to the monarchy - that's the state we are at, not dreaming up planes for future people to carry out like drones. Socialists shouldn't be telling people what to do, but advocating for self-rule by workers.

Yes, but Tom Paine would not have accepted a monarchial restoration even if it was called a republic.
Presumably socialists would be in favor of workers taking those steps which would lead to greater socialism and would be opposed to those steps which would step away from socialism.

The alternative to economic despotism by corporate princedoms is democratically run production by workers. Marx (let alone someone like you or me) can no more predict what and how people will decide the details than Adam Smith could decide what G.E. CEOs should do.

It would seem that committed socialists would be in favor of decisions along socialist lines as opposed to capitalist lines. Are not there plenty of notes on this board explaining where the workers went wrong in the past, and what they ought to do in the future?

As far as "how" this should could be accomplished, again, through democracy. Worker's democracy is essential for a real collective rule of society and production and there are different ways this could be set up and I'd imagine that workplace bodies would coordinate with community bodies (and other workplaces in the exchange of raw-materials to production facilities) to figure out what resources are available and how to get them to the correct places.

Yes again. So how do the workers coordinate this while advancing the cause of socialism?

I also think that one of the big pressures and incentives on people would be getting rid of "shit-work" and making labor as efficient and pleasant as possible while also providing what people want and need.

I would think so too, but again... it requires explanation how this comes about.

Workers making decisions collectively is "socialist lines" full stop.

Then you have changed nothing. A worker owned industry is fully consistent with capitalism.

If it will work out or not is just pure speculation - it has failed in Russia, it was destroyed in Paris, and never got past a few baby-steps in many other revolutions from Russia in 1905 to Portugal in 1975.

So thus far, failure is the expectation of such reorganisation of society.

Reorganization of society along democratic lines is better because a small minority can not ruin the lives of the majority in the drive for profits; a society built on cooperation rather than competition means that we can coordinate things based on what people need and want rather than for profits

Says who? Your slogan? You have already admitted it has failed when tried.

What part of "socialism is not a set of policies" isn't clear. "Our ideas" are simply that the majority who actually run production already should have control over it

But since production is to satisfy needs and wants, the people who should have control over the production are the consumers of those items, and not the producers of them. Why should farmers democratically decide how much lettuce is available for everyone? Yet if the "democratic society" tells those workers how much lettuce to grow, in what sense are those farmers controlling their production?

Realizing that the current order is unworkable, that a new system is needed and desired and can be organized around your interests, and THEN figuring out how to ensure that those interests can be met is how ALL mass revolutions have happened. Again, the list of colonists grievences came BEFORE the consitution, not the other way around as you are demanding of us.

But again, a monarchial restoration would mean nothing much has changed.

I'd favor (and I think something at least analogous is probably necessary) workplace and community councils.

Who in turn would have to 'do things' to not only repair the previous grievances but also show its a better way. So again one would expect capitalist methods of production would not be embraced. But something has to. If the councils can't figure it out, then by definition it fails. If socialists TODAY, can't think how workers and councils might coordinate that too should be seen a sign of failure. Particularly considering the earlier admissions of failure in previous socialist efforts.

[spens]

Rafiq, I am not saying it is impossible, but that it will take time. Witch burnings were around for centuries. I stand by my assertion that religion is one of the biggest barriers to communism, and that it will take some time for religion to die off, whatever the method of extinction.

If you've noticed, I didn't want to bring up whether communism was achievable or not because quite frankly I don't know what the future holds, and I've already admitted that it is theoretically possible. It seems as though that's where you wanted the conversation to go, so that you could ridicule me with large font as to how silly I am for having even the slightest doubt. Congratulations sir.

Or should I say Congratulations sir.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Absolutely. But speculation needs to be based upon socialism and what it claims to want and whether its speculation actually leads to what it says it does.

Another point on this. Asking how a worker's society could work is a real and sincere question for people who actually do recognize how unsustainable and unstable capitalism. It's a sincere question due to the failure of the Russian Revolution and the legacy of the so-called socialist countries that followed the USSR (undemocratic beurocratic) model (rather than the model of worker's power through councils that actually might have allowed for worker's control). Personally I think the OP is only interested in apologizing for capitalism by painting any alternative as impossible, but, again, there is a serious version of the question. Part of the reason people want assurances that socialism won't lead to USSR Stalinism or Chinese one part rule IMO is due to viewing socialism as a series of policies or whatnot. This view was put forward by both anti-communists and USSR apologists. Ultimately, as almost all the non-Stalinist radical left agrees (though with varied and often contradictory explanations), Russia didn't fail because of X, Y, Z, policy mistakes (though many would argue that these contributed) but because worker's power was not fully established and maintained. In my view, the party began to substitute itself and eventually "emergency measures" taken during the civil-war and attacks from outside countries, were utilized by an internal counter-revolution in which a new class took power.

And no, it wasn't because "power corrupts" in the abstract since monarchs are fine with absolute power and don't end up oppressing themselves, even capitalists who have power over the shape and functioning of our society keep eachother somewhat in check to prevent monopolies or "illegal" practices that would hurt the entire capitalist class. Power is "corrupting" and leads to tyranny when a class that does not have the same interests as you hold power. In other words: power is only corrupting from your view depending on who has power and what they are using it for. Workers would probably say that corporations getting huge bail-outs and then firing workers and giving bonuses to CEOs is corrupt... but from a capitalist standpoint, it's good business. Companies getting tax breaks and moving overseas is seen as corrupt by workers, but again, it's smart business if your goal is profits.

[#FF0000]

Not really- and its not at all an abstract problem.

Look, if the socialist community is going to give an extra benefit or two for certain jobs which the community values more than others, that community:
1. Concedes that certain jobs are more valuable to it than others. This pretty much eliminates the proposal from Robbo and others on this thread that people can just take a bunch of jobs offered. The community has to be able to channel workers into jobs which it judges to be more beneficial to it than other jobs. The interests of a particular worker to a particular job cannot just be the final end all authority.

They sure can, actually. And the extra benefit (whatever that might be) would be for a job that's particularly unpleasant, especially if it's a job that requires a lot of specialized training.

Can we have an example of what kind of highly technical, highly specialized job we're talking about, please?

2. Needs to have a way to objectively determine the value of that labor to the community, compared with other jobs. An answer of "democratically" answers nothing.

What do you mean?

3. Needs to recognise that while it can offer extra benefits to work in a particular job, the worker does not have to accept the offer (this in its own turn means certain understandings about the workers in such a community, and thus the impact it has upon the stated goals of socialism in general).

That's a given, actually.

Every time you post a point it seems like you're stretching.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes. And you need to describe "coordination" in a socialist community. A pursuit of profit in a general sense, describes "coordination" in a capitalist community.

Yes, it's about how to plan production and the running of society, through democracy or through the capitalist drive for profits. Since organizing society around profits produces problems not only for workers but for the profit-system itself, such as over-production and competition leading to wars, I think democratic organization of society is much more desirable and sustainable in the long-run.

Millions will coordinate amongst themselves...how? Everyone votes on what items they need and want??? What??

How is it decided now, where to put a supermarket or why to have supermarkets instead of corner stores - who decides that houses should be built miles from where people work and socialize? Who decides it's a good idea to then drive from those remote areas and sit in traffic for an hour to get to work? All the aspects of how we live are out of our hands and based on profit-considerations. Cheap land means developers want to build in outlying areas, supermarkets make deals with produce providers and have the start-up capital to create larger stores than mom-and-pops so they can have fewer workers covering more customers and more product and therefore can undersell the mom-and-pops, food is grown overseas and shipped even to agricultural areas not because it is more efficient but because it is more profitable in the short-term etc.

CEOs make these decisions now for the most part - or government bureaucrats and the considerations they make are based on what will turn a profit or help the profit-system.

On the other hand, if workers democratically made decisions in their workplaces and communities set up neighborhood and town councils (as happened during the economic crisis in Venezuela at the beginning of the last decade) then they can organize what kinds of materials they need and want and then work it out with people at the production-sites for these things. For more complicated decisions or larger infrastructure-building, workers could set up democratic bodies for these decisions too. In capitalism, big plans mean going to banks and investors, in a worker's democracy it would mean going to a regional council or an industry council or whatnot.

Not everything would be available all at once (especially in the immediate aftermath of a revolution where there'd still be a lot of structural inequalities like lack of good housing in poor areas or schools and hospitals in rural areas) and so this is why socialism needs real grassroots worker-democracy so that people can prioritize things in a democratic way.

Yes, but Tom Paine would not have accepted a monarchial restoration even if it was called a republic.

Yes, this is why I do not think that the USSR, Cuba, China, or North Korea are "worker's states" even though they wrap themselves in red flags and place "People's" onto every undemocratic institution they have. Again, the problem though is not in policy decisions they made but in that worker's power was erroded and pushed back in Russia and never even occurred in these other regimes.

And on a historical note, Paine did initially support Napoleon, met with him and even advised him, though to his credit, he later denounced him for his autocratic rule.

Presumably socialists would be in favor of workers taking those steps which would lead to greater socialism and would be opposed to those steps which would step away from socialism.

Again, I don't think it would be up to me to tell people how to democratically run things, but my personal viewpoint would be that in the phase right after the revolution, people should put together a "bill of rights" of sorts that would grantee freedom of personal behaviors and actions that don't negatively impact other people (such as freedom to believe whatever religion you want provided it isn't the Church of the KKK or something; freedom to love and be in a relationship with whoever you want if they love you back; freedom to express yourself, etc) a guarantee of worker's to strike or recall their elected officials, decrees against racism and sexism, to name a few possibilities.

Then you have changed nothing. A worker owned industry is fully consistent with capitalism.

You are taking me out of context. Sure, 5 workers makeing a democratic decsion about where to eat is not socialism, however, socialism is workers (as a class) collectively making decisions.

But to this new point about decisions in a workplace, yes one factory as a co-op doesn't change anything ultimately because they still are subject to paying rent to capitalists, buying their goods to capitalists and dealing with capitalist banks and so on. That's why society must be reorganized along democratic lines by workers.

So thus far, failure is the expectation of such reorganisation of society.

These societies never got the chance to fully reorganize themselves and in Paris and Russia, the capitalists invaded... if failure was the inevitable outcome, why send 14 countries in to crush it? Why would warring France and Prussia team up and fight street-by street in Paris to restore the old regime? Why would workers fight and man barricades to defend liberated Paris if it was such a failure? Why would workers who just overthrew a Tzar because they were sick of war, then run to the front lines to defend the Russian Revolution?

But since production is to satisfy needs and wants, the people who should have control over the production are the consumers of those items, and not the producers of them. Why should farmers democratically decide how much lettuce is available for everyone? Yet if the "democratic society" tells those workers how much lettuce to grow, in what sense are those farmers controlling their production?

How are consumers not also workers - are there people who don't work but only consume and why should they decide anything?

I'd assume that lettuce farmers collectives would want water to grow the crops, want electricity and maybe farming equipment... unless they decide to build all these things themselves, they are going to coordinate things with other groups of workers and so therefore, coordination is necessary. It happens in capitalism too but is mediated by the profit-system and the subjective decisions of handfuls of capitalists.

As to requests by food distribution hubs or stores or whatnot for lettuce, would make their requests for how much they need (just as store managers or chin purchasers do today) and there would be a negotiation. If not enough lettuce is being produced, then people would have to organize and figure out ways to bring in some more workers or set aside more land for growing, etc. Worker's would not want to produce more than is needed, because there are other things to do with their time. As farming people have done for most of history, they would kick back or do other desired work instead.

Industrial society is already a collective effort, the problem is that this effort is controlled and organized by a tiny minority.