How many helpings would I be allowed under Socialism?
May 20 2008
Hello.
So, I hate capitalism and it's variants (state-Capitalism, Fascism, ect.) for the same reasons you do.
But I'm not sold on Socialism and Communism, because of the whole belief behind "abundance", and that we have abundance (but), or that we can have it simply by junking an economy based on the circulation of money (the practice of only printing so much money so as to regulate the economy).
According, to you-- my friends (politely) todays economy creates scarcity-- the printing/ minting of money is limited, and so must be the production of goods. Not to mention that those who have money, have goods allocated to them, those who don't have money; dont. Because of this, millions or billions of pounds of food is destroyed/ wasted. This waste is what some of you say is abundance in the land fills, and rotting away in silos. I've heard statistics that this waste could feed twice the population-- two questions:
1. What are the serving sizes of food that are hypothetically being allocated to every individual?
2. Are you counting personal waste into the equation?
(more to come).
May 20 2008
#2
As Socialism is born out of the womb of Capitalism through revolution, if we already have abundance-- it's just that we aren't able to rellocate resources to feed, clothe and house the population, then how would enacting HOW and WHERE people get resources be?
I understand workers' councils produce goods, decide how and what they produce in accordance with the needs of the population.
The thing is, if we're saying that we have abundance today, and this could feed twice the population-- we are partioning amounts to the populace: This really isn't abundance. If abundance is about there being way more than enough to go around; producing more than adequate; producing more than anyone can keep track of, then it's impossible. However, we do have enough to keep the populace from malnourishment and deaths from starvation, but, I can't help but forsee an elected body of people making sure all resources are utilized, little is wasted, that everyone eats their peas, and no one takes more servings than anyone else can take. This same body asking for more and more power from the councils. Sounds paranoid? Well redguards are elected from councils to make sure people are safe and no bourgeois sabotages the common utilities-- this body could be a division or duty of the red guard.
May 20 2008
#3
as many helpings as you need.
May 20 2008
#4
it's not the circulation of money that creates the inefficiency that prevents the large and multiple helpings you could otherwise have.
it's production for profit.
May 20 2008
#5
.
May 20 2008
#6
John, They're two sides of the same coin.
Khawaga-- how do you know this?
As many helpings per person to keep them well-nourished, for an adequate lifestyle?
May 21 2008
#7
I was just regurgitating that old "from each according to ability, to each according to need".
But yeah, enough helpings to keep you healthy would be the point.
And I'd recommend you to read first couple of chapters of Das Kapital Vol 1. Do you propose to go back to the gold standard?
May 21 2008
#8
Hates_capital_but... wrote:
John, They're two sides of the same coin.
sort of.
but money circulation isn't inefficient per se. it's production for profit that Marx identifies as the key factor restricting human development. but, yes, in a communist society I doubt there would be money
May 21 2008
#9
Hates_capital_but... wrote:
Hello.
So, I hate capitalism and it's variants (state-Capitalism, Fascism, ect.) for the same reasons you do.
But I'm not sold on Socialism and Communism, because of the whole belief behind "abundance", and that we have abundance (but), or that we can have it simply by junking an economy based on the circulation of money (the practice of only printing so much money so as to regulate the economy).
According, to you-- my friends (politely) todays economy creates scarcity-- the printing/ minting of money is limited, and so must be the production of goods. Not to mention that those who have money, have goods allocated to them, those who don't have money; dont. Because of this, millions or billions of pounds of food is destroyed/ wasted. This waste is what some of you say is abundance in the land fills, and rotting away in silos. I've heard statistics that this waste could feed twice the population-- two questions:1. What are the serving sizes of food that are hypothetically being allocated to every individual?
2. Are you counting personal waste into the equation?
(more to come).
Na industry doesn't decide what peoples demand would be it builds up or decreases supply in response to demand. So if people are eating lots of mars bars, more mars bars would get produced, if people start eating more snickers than the store orders more snicker from the deopt which in turn orders more snickers from te factory and hence more snickers are produced.
The only exception to this rule might be certain types of luxury goods which would have to be rationed to some degree, say £100 a bottle champagne or the regions best restaurants, it kinda stands to reason that there would have to be some equitable wy of sharing out those limited luxuries. However, 99% of goods can be produced in abundance on an industrial scale and i don;t really see the need for ''workers councils'' to plan out production of consumer goods in the fashion you are describing.
May 21 2008
#10
Quote:
But yeah, enough helpings to keep you healthy would be the point.
But if theres a limit to keep people healthy, then you don't have abundance. You have adequance.
Quote:
And I'd recommend you to read first couple of chapters of Das Kapital Vol 1. Do you propose to go back to the gold standard?
Read that, among many other works of Marx and Engels.
We sort of have the gold standard now, we just have to keep it in Ft Knox, and not print too much money.
Quote:
but money circulation isn't inefficient per se. it's production for profit that Marx identifies as the key factor restricting human development. but, yes, in a communist society I doubt there would be money
You can't have one without the other. Commodities must have a use-value inorder to have an exchange value, money is the universal commoditie, the purpose of commoditie production is to accumulate profit. Thats not to say all the commodities produced will find their way in the hands of the entire populace.
Inorder for there to be wealth there must be poverty. A characteristic of poverty, or classes-- lack of money or varying to degrees of money; this was what I was trying to say.
But, in a Socialist society or Anarcho-Collectivist sopciety there could be LTVs.
Quote:
. 99% of goods can be produced in abundance on an industrial scale and i don;t really see the need for ''workers councils'' to plan out production of consumer goods in the fashion you are describing.
Historically it was these workers' councils that produced goods for the populace-- and because of the counter revolutions these councils at their peak lasted for less than 6 months(?). This, or you are talking about command economies.
Quote:
So if people are eating lots of mars bars, more mars bars would get produced, if people start eating more snickers than the store orders more snicker from the deopt which in turn orders more snickers from te factory and hence more snickers are produced.
Yes, the councils should be able to see if more items need to be produced by their sales or by records of consumption.
However, if we are to happily produce in free association with eachother we'd have to have abundance.
Some already claim we have it, it's just that everythings geared to commodity production for profit. Whenever anyone says that theres enough food to go around (but it doesn't), they are basing it on todays production, and with the standard of nourishment-- which I said before isn't abundance. We've not seen abundance yet, and to say to fellow workers that we will have abundance; without any proof is like telling someone to have faith in a supreme being.
Yet, you say all the time, Capitalism has laid the framework for Socialism with its productive capabilities.
What, that we can all have the same amount of resources and live adequately without elbow room?
Well, I guess the adequance of Marxism will look pretty promising in a few decades.
Ah fuck it, raise the red flag-- better to eat something than have nothing at all.
Our living standards will the same as when capitalism wasn't obviously falling to its foundations... but whatever.
Atleast, no one will think they are better than me.
large, well heaped plates and we will reuse, recycle and compost most waste.