Results 1 to 20 of 51
How are rare items disributed in communism?
It's obvious we have enough produced to supply all with their needs; we can have free access and not run short in things like food. But what of rare commodities? What of diamonds? Of that which will always be scarce? How are scarce things distributed, basically?
Diamonds aren't actually scarce, so..
And our productive agricultural capacity could (or is close to) feeding everyone in the world, on demand, for most food items. What we'd have to figure out is how to deal with the ridiculous amount of food waste that we produce.
Last edited by Creative Destruction; 30th November 2014 at 17:47.
The main attraction of rare things is that they're valuable, obviously that doesn't apply anymore. Outside of that I think the 'to each according to his need' rule works fairly well here. If you want to make a drill to fulfill your contribution to society then you need that diamond, but if you want to just make yourself look pretty with a new necklace or a fancy new vajazzle (not judging) you don't really need it.
“If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.” -Mikhail Bakunin.
To each according to their need only applies in situations where said goods are scarce. Diamonds are artificially scarce due to a monopoly over their mining and production.The main attraction of rare things is that they're valuable, obviously that doesn't apply anymore. Outside of that I think the 'to each according to his need' rule works fairly well here. If you want to make a drill to fulfill your contribution to society then you need that diamond, but if you want to just make yourself look pretty with a new necklace or a fancy new vajazzle (not judging
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...nd-smorgasbord
If the OP is talking about goods that are exceedingly rare, ie. paintings, vintage cars, ect. Then there is only one good method with dealing with such goods.
Fashionable avatar in solidarity with Five Year Plan.
I imagine the waste would be reduced by not letting kids in Africa starve to death like Capitalism does... but yeah you have a point. I suppose the fact that people are cooperating to produce food for one another then they would probably have a better idea of how much is needed, and they wouldn't be producing for maximum profits anymore...
Interesting dynamic, and one which I hadn't considered. Gold star (or red as the case may be)
You are wonderful.
“If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.” -Mikhail Bakunin.
I actually have wondered about this topic before.
For example, one of the greatest (if controversial) delicacies in the world is shark fin soup. Shark fin is expensive, of course, due to the risks involved in commercial fishing, the increasing rarity of certain shark species, government regulations, etc. Due to the factors of the profit motive and shady government-corporate practices, the practice of shark finning (i.e. catching sharks only to cut off their fins and then releasing them back into the water, rather than selling the entire shark for consumption, fin included) has endangered the shark population in ways that are unprecedented.
So, in a socialist society, if one wanted to eat shark fin soup (and I do recommend that everyone try it just once), you would have two options.
You could either obtain a fishing boat, get some friends, and go fishing for sharks (and why wouldn't you? Fishing is quite enjoyable). You could then take the fin this way, and bring the shark back to the local commune to feed family and friends.
OR
You could wait for special occasions, perhaps certain holidays, where the commune may decide to have fancy dishes like shark fin soup during a communal feast. You know, in between the holiday games and the communal fucking.
"I've never read Marx's Capital, but I've got the marks of capital all over my body." -Big Bill Haywood
"...Experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe, and to the general prey of the rich on the poor."- Thomas Jefferson
-=UTOPIA IS THE MORAL RIGHT OF HUMANITY=-
A more long-winded (and also more-comprehensive) treatment of this topic is here:
Luxuary in a Planned Economy
http://www.revleft.com/vb/luxuary-pl...193/index.html
well right now they're distributed via the lottery of birth so really anything you can think of would probably be just as good
my question to you, denizen of the learning forum, is what kind of system could possibly be worse than birth lottery, other than just giving all of the shit to a few people and....
wait a minute.
---
but (more) seriously, it would probably depend on the good.
diamonds: not rare
gold: not really rare
priceless artifacts: museum that shit
three examples already in this thread. another two could be like
expensive tea from across the world in some special tea region: lottery for those who actually want some
[product that is not being produced enough]: sign up on a list and first come first serve
i mean there are a billion ways to do it i don't get why people ask these questions but hopefully that answers yours. you seem to have a lot of them!
Reason 1) When you envision the perfect world (the Communist world for most of this forum I would assume) and you come across even one little tiny problem it will drive you crazy. You've got to find a solution.i don't get why people ask these questions but hopefully that answers yours. you seem to have a lot of them!
Reason 2) These are the sort of problems people will try and find in a Communist society, because they have very few legitimate flaws to poke at.
Reason 3) BANTER!
“If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.” -Mikhail Bakunin.
Communism is more interested in the distribution of goods that we actually need. Rare items will probably be distributed in some way, but this is not a primary concern for communists.
☭ “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.” - Karl Marx ☭
When it comes to "rare items" like gold much of their value comes only from the fact that their rarity is a source of exchange value. Socialism abolishes exchange value so...
I personally think that *any* -- even the most seemingly trivial -- gap in our revolutionary theory only makes our case *weaker* overall.
Rare items like truffles and time-aged fine wine may not be social *necessities*, but a revolutionary order *will* inevitably be confronted with the administrative question of 'Who gets to have that stuff, and on what basis?'
The problem with 'first come first served' and 'lottery' is that while both are potentially doable and expedient -- as for new technological devices, and timeshares for vacation lodges, respectively -- neither approach is 100% fail-proof, and neither is really *politically satisfying* since they're both algorithmic instead of being socially-consciously hands-on. (One prime 'getaway' vacation spot could potentially become overbooked, regardless, during a certain time of the year which would be a *failure* of the entire political approach and ethos of egalitarianism. And if a sudden shortage of key materials for the production of a new device cropped-up unexpectedly, for whatever reason, it would become impossibly difficult to determine just who exactly is 'first' in the 'first come first served' lineup, due to crushing numbers of virtually simultaneous requests.)
Fortunately I'm pleased to say that I developed a sound approach to this area of problems, and fairly recently -- see 'additive prioritizations', at this post:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...5&postcount=34
Great visual chart. I'm a very visual learner so this helps, thank you.
You are probably right about that, but, in any case, it will be a secondary issue. This must be stressed even in revolutionary theory.
☭ “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.” - Karl Marx ☭
I'll say yes-and-no to this. Of course I understand where you're coming from, but in reply I'll note that people have individual personal needs for 'self-actualization', or 'self-determination', in their *own lives*.
Besides the obvious point that many luxury-type goods would just *continue to exist* beyond the happenings of a worldwide proletarian revolution, there's the question of one's own individual self-determination, and the socially-acceptable access to whatever materials might be required for one's own self-fulfillment:
I am not sure whether I agree with lumping luxury and rare items together, as if they were one and the same thing. Luxury items are not necessarily rare, nor do rare items necessarily constitute as luxury items.
☭ “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.” - Karl Marx ☭
Actually, for all matters of *political* context, these meanings *are* one-and-the-same -- anything that's scarce, in relation to outstanding organic demand, should be considered a 'luxury good', since it's not abundant and readily available.
Yeah, give me all ur stuff and I'll keep it safe in a bank for a special monetary fee. Come on give me ur jewelry n shit I'll take good care of it
Nah, actually I could care less about the distribution of rare, scarce, specialty, and luxury items. Let them be distributed according to what people want and need. People will also produce things to be distributed and so forth.
This subject isn't my specialty, so there is my two cents
Yeah, give me all ur stuff and I'll keep it safe in a bank for a special monetary fee. Come on give me ur jewelry n shit I'll take good care of it
Nah, actually I could care less about the distribution of rare, scarce, specialty, and luxury items. Let them be distributed according to what people want and need. People will also produce things to be distributed and so forth.
This subject isn't my specialty, so there is my two cents
(I'll refer you to post #12.... There could realistically be more sincere mass demand -- as for a newly developed tech device -- than could be readily fulfilled, early-on. A post-commodity social order would have to be able to differentiate, or 'prioritize', among the many claims to new production, on some kind of socially egalitarian basis.) (Etc.)
The vast majority of goods are not scarce or rare.. just because we won't exactly know what to do with all of the diamonds doesn't really mean much to me. People would find some sort of arrangement, I'm sure.
If you want to go mine a diamond, do it. No one is stopping you. Go on, get it.
