Production Under Socialism

[RedOctober]

In the practical program that Marx set up in The Communist Manifesto, he states in clause number 5 "extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state..." If the instruments of production are owned by the state and if the state is runned by the "dictatorship of the proletariat" then the working class owns the the tools and factories and such. But for everything thats made does the working class as a whole vote on what being produced? Or would there be a comittee deciding whats being produced? Or does the state run certain things while it leaves the more unimportant things such as nick nacks and luxury items?

And if the instruments of production are owned by the state, then what happens to corporations? Would companies with the same trade eventually merge and becomes State Soda?

[mir]

Good Question, RedOctober.
I myself believe that workers will run individual businesses and they will decide what and how much to produce and there will be co-ordinating committees to ensure there is no cause like there is under capitalism.

[RedOctober]

thats what i was thinking for awhile, but then i read princples of communism and the communist manifesto and i was kinda confused that the state completly owned everything. does anyone else disagree with this?

[des-esseintes]

Well the state shouldn't own everything, that's a Stalinist idea. Tiny businesses, restaurants, and the like will probably be privately controlled, at least for a while. What should definitely be nationalised is the commanding heights of the economy: steel, iron, oil, cars, soda, airplanes etc.

Big redundant multinationals would definitely merge, but there will be economic democracy unlike under Stalinism. So if someone didn't like the taste of the soda, or the color of the cars they could just suggest changing it. The productive forces would be developed to extreme heights, every country will be littered with the most advanced factories and machinery. So everyone can choose different colored cars and different tasting soda without diverting the economy from more "important" tasks.

Today corporations can know, in advance, more or less exactly what people want. Toyota even has introduced "just-in-time" production, where the product isn't even designed or made until it is ordered. This provides unlimited possibilities for socialism.

[mir]

We must remember what Lenin wrote in The State and Revolution.  In which he said that industries would be owned by the workers and co-ordinated by committee i.e. Soviets.  des-esseintes, today, corporations don't know what people want because there is overproduction and chaos.  Sometimes, some industries gamble on a big shopping season in Christmas and that will either make or break them.  And RedOctober, the state will own everything for a while, that's true because the proletariat state will own the means of production under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[djn]

The first condition for the economy would be the conditions. For example, the problems of the civil war forced Trotsky to propose privately owned agricultural production in the NEP. Any successful planned economy under the Bolsheviks was readily acknowledge to require revolutions in Europe, which did not materialize.

I think that everything should be under state (ie: worker) control if the conditions allow it. Consumption must also be considered, since it is inseperable from production. Not only must production be planned, but so should consumption. Of course there should be choice, but much capitalist production can be completely done away with. Luxuries, valued by capitalists, can be eliminated allowing for labour to be freed up for more important production, such as food, housing construction, vehicles, machine tools, computers, etc. I'm not suggesting that consumption be drastically reduced so people starve, but it should be rationally regulated so we do not overproduce relatively unnecessary goods and underproduce vital goods. We wouldn't want a shortage of shoes and a surplus of slippers. All of these decisions should be done democratically, of course. Many automatically associate rationally planned economics with totalitarian Stalinist control.

In a preferably short transitionary period, corporations would become nationalized and then their structure would be changed to reduce bureaucracy, increase worker democracy and control and therefore increase efficiency.

[Volkov]

Since the state will be the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the Proletarians will use common sense and produce what is needed and desired.  Plus, without all of that Capitalist shit going on, things would be around in more abundant supply (especially things like food, medicine, and drink).

[mir]

Exactly right, Volkov.

[richard]

Hi Everybody,

You are making a mistake when you talk of the workers owning the means of production.

They will never gain economic supremacy AS A CLASS.  For as Engels pointed out in Anti-Duhring, the state as a state and the workers as a class wither away when the workers take control of the MoP.

What we will have is a central administrative structure.  Socialism comes after proletarian dictatorship.  The dictatorship is the period of dispossessing the capitalist class.

You shouldn't talk about the state owning everything, simply because the state cannot exist in a socialist society, something Stalin kind of forgot.

regards,
Richard

[mir]

Richard,
You have obviously never read The State and Revolution.  In it, it says that the state will exist during the dictatorship of the proletariat, the workers will disposses the capitalists, the workers will take the means of production, the proletariat state WILL administer and control and use the means of production.  The State (the proletariat state) will not whither away as a result of the workers seizing the means of production, but only after classes themselves have whithered away because of the end of class distinctions caused by 1)end of the bourgeoisie as a class and 2)state (proletariat state) ownership of the means of production.  To think that the state will immediately whither away because of the seizure of the means of production is anarchist (because you deny the neccessity of a state following the initial revolution) and to believe the classes will end by the same means is utopian.  To blame us Stalinists for recognizing the need for a state throughout the time until true Communism is low.

Friendly,
Mir

[turnoviseous]

Hey,

Richard and Mir, you are talking on a different level of definitions while saying the same thing. What Mir has for socialism, Richard has for dictatorship of proletariat, and what Richard defines as socialism, mir defines as communism.

BTW, didnt know you were a stalinist, mir. :confused:

[mir]

turnoviseous,
I don't know what kind of definitions and names Richard has for the different phases but I assure you that the state will last through the dictatorship of the proletariat until finally communism is achieved.  That has been my stance all along!  And I assure you I'm not a Stalinist but Richard was indirectly trying to call me and everyone else who recognizes the need for a state during the dictatorship of the proletariat one.  Sorry, if I confused you into believing I was one! :D

Comrade,
Mir

[Aky]

I agree with Mir here. The state as an overhead will last through the dictatorship of the proletariat, it will be a bit different from the one we have now though. Only the classless society could survive the whithering away of the state.

[turnoviseous]

What I want to say is that it is not productive to split our movement just because one uses different terminology on dictatorship of proletariat and classless society, while describe them the same as we do.

[mir]

But see turnoviseous, Richard is using different terminology and not describing the same thing.  He says that during the dictatorship of the proletariat and after, the state is not needed while I say it is.  I'm not trying to split anything up.