[MB.]

How is the production of goods enabled and how are these goods distributed in a socialist economy? Do workers and agriculturists democratically elect what goods they will produce, or is central planning the answer?

[Eauz]

A socialist economy (in the Marxist sense) has the assumption in itself that there was a transition into the dictatorship of the proletariat. We must not fool ourselves though that class in its present existence has disappeared.

The production of goods will be through the development of central planning, leaving no alternative to economic development or theory. We must though understand that this does not mean a limit on knowledge or ability, nor a rise in alienation amongst the members of society in regard to the economy. To comprehend this point, we must view it in regard to the collective as opposed to the segregated groups of people that support and encourage the continued existence of both capitalism and capitalist ideology. The segregated groups, in regard to humans is the being-in-itself, as Hegal presented it. What was once a being-in-and-for-itself has been deformed into a simple being-in-itself. What as once an individual of a healthy society, who was a master of creativity and thought has become enslaved and seen its creative, productive, ability and potential separated. Transform this being-in-and-for-itself to the class and it becomes a class-in-and-for-itself.

Therefore, why attempt to limit the knowledge and progress of society and individuals by separating the mental and physical abilities by keeping ownership private while productivity continues to become socialized? If we assume that humans as a race are inventors (and it’s not tough, since it can be see throughout history), it is logical that more people participating within the class-in-and-for-itself concept, the more productive society is and the greater is the advancement of society.

Having an understanding of this concept, we can set the goals and policies that are desired for the production of products and commodities. If one is limiting the ability for a human to be a productive member of society, it not only alienates that person but reduces the potential growth of society (not speaking in economic terms). Equally enough, the individual should be part of the class-in-and-for-itself concept to progress beyond notions of class. Therefore, a socialist economy attempts to move away from the regressive and alienating need for economy, since the main purpose of a　national economy, even in its elementary form, was to measure the ability of a state to maintain debt or to develop policies that favour the ability of a state to maintain such debt.

[MB.]

Right, so we heard your answer; central planning.

[Eauz]

So, in other words, you were just looking for a lol-response to your question. Why didn't you just post this in Gorkiy?

[MB.]

I'm not looking for a 'lol response' whatever that is.

I'm looking for some information on various forms of production in socialized economies. Your post told me one thing: you think centralized planning is the way to go. I'm curious; can you elaborate on the process by which such an economy sets production targets and ensures the correct distribution of goods?

[Eauz]

can you elaborate on the process by which such an economy sets production targets and ensures the correct distribution of goods?

Uh, I just did, please read above. If you're looking for a direct answer like:

Here is how we'll do it, first we'll do this, second, we'll do this, third we'll do this and finally, perfection., then I really can't expend, since it's not like there is a manual for socialist economic success. I've just explained the base required for developing a centralised economy, but I can't really go beyond that, before getting into the realm of fantasy.

[MB.]

How successful do you think was the soviet (marxist-leninist) example?

[Eauz]

How successful do you think was the soviet (marxist-leninist) example?

You'd first have to define what you mean by successful.

[MB.]

Was the marxist leninist example capable of producing goods at a rate that if uninterrupted by outside influences would have inevitably engendered a state of communism?

[Ademir]

Was the marxist leninist example capable of producing goods at a rate that if uninterrupted by outside influences would have inevitably engendered a state of communism?

It also depends what you mean by marxism-leninism. It's usually referring to Stalin, but most Trotskyists oppose the idea that Stalin was a true marxist or leninist

[MB.]

Well we're sort of getting off topic.

Ademir, what do you think is the best means by which a modern communist economy should be structured?

[Kasu]

All aspects of society, production, distribution, etc will be decided democratically by the people. It will be a planned economy, but that plan will be a democratic plan. Everyone has a say.

As for the Soviet Union. The fate of the soviet union rested on the fate of the socialist revolution throughout the world. It was not socialist, but instead, a degenerated workers' state, stuck between capitalism and socialism.

[MB.]

All aspects of society, production, distribution, etc will be decided democratically by the people. It will be a planned economy, but that plan will be a democratic plan. Everyone has a say.

Can you possibly elaborate on how this system of democratic production will be implemented and operated?

[Kasu]

While socialism has no blue-print, it can be deduced that after people rise up and overthrow their oppressors, and seize the means of production, they will use their democratic power to resolve these issues in the most efficient way possible.

[MB.]

I think it is highly unlikely that people will democratically select 'the most efficient' means of production. Democracy by its nature is inherently inefficient. What I'm getting at is that though it seems obvious that some form of democratic selection is the socialist ideal, in practice such an economy would be easily outproduced by more ruthless capitalist economies.

[Kasu]

Well, socialism is inherently an international system, it can't exist nor survive in an isolated country surrounded by hostile capitalist countries. The revolution will start on the national arena, take place on the international arena, and end on the world arena.

There won't be competing capitalist countries, they too would have "fallen" to socialism.

Production in socialist society would be planned to meet social need. The problem with Capitalism is that it produces more than what people can afford, or what they need, and the inefficient method of distribution prevents people from getting what they need. Most of the population in the world is living in extreme poverty, not able to afford basic necessities like food and clothes, yet the advanced capitalist countries are overproducing everything. It's wasteful.

A socialist economy would plan production to produce what everyone needs. People would work according to their ability, and receive resources according to their needs. The profit-motive would be removed, and things will be used in the people's best interests, not for a private profit.

[MB.]

A socialist economy would plan production to produce what everyone needs.

Would it not be more accurate to state that a socialist economy would decentralize production so that collectives can decide to produce what they think they need? Capitalism does essentially the same thing but uses markets as the regulatory body rather than a ballot.

Edit: just as capitalists dominate the market structure, so demagogues would dominate the socialist structure you describe.

The problem with Capitalism is that it produces more than what people can afford, or what they need, and the inefficient method of distribution prevents people from getting what they need

A trite way of putting it might be to suggest that capitalism produces for a maximum (what people want) while socialism produces for a minimum (what people need). Would not the ideal economic system be a system that falls in the middle, producing above the impoverished minimum but below the wasteful maximum?

[Eauz]

Was the marxist leninist example capable of producing goods at a rate that if uninterrupted by outside influences would have inevitably engendered a state of communism?

There were both positive and negative points with regard to the Soviet Union's economy. The most positive point was that goods were being produced even under a state-capitalist economy, unfortunately, state-capitalism was not really involved with the labourers themselves, in other words, there was no direct involvement or a communal understanding of what goods were desired within society at the time. However, with this in mind, we must eliminate the consumer ideology that encourages waste of production, and develop it within the understanding of the class-in-and-for-itself philosophy. The Soviet Union, no matter if it lived in a vacuum, was not going to be the next communism, although, there really is no difference between socialism or communism in terms of Marx.

[MB.]

Do you recommend a socialist democratic method of production, wherein citizens elect what goods to produce, or something similar? Presumably a nation wide plan could be compiled and forwarded to a central authority for distribution.

[Eauz]

Do you recommend a socialist democratic method of production, wherein citizens elect what goods to produce, or something similar?

This is idiocy, outside of any understanding of class-in-and-for-itself. As you see with our present democracies, it's mostly a failure at development, so any idea that we'll have an election to decide what we'll produce today and the 51% wins the decision, would be based in utopian minds.