Andronicus wrote:
One of the most important questions in socialism is the organization of the socialist economy itself. What I mean is does the state have to control, besides big production plants, medium bussinesses?
Perhaps the vanguard / workers state would only have the role of a 'security'-type, or 'paramilitary' force, to 'clear' certain critical factories out of private hands for public-goods-only production. Once a workplace is 'secure' and producing directly for unmet human need, internally it could be controlled by the workers themselves, within a larger context of *all* 'liberated' production centers, on a sliding scale of distance and/or ease of transport. (In other words, geographically *closer* supply-chain possible locations, and/or materially-easier routes would be preferred / weighted more favorably by any given local location.)
I'll add that I conceive the whole revolutionary undertaking to be one of a gradually expanding circle of revolutionary productive workplaces, in relative size and sophistication -- basic human needs would have to come first, so that all revolutionary worker and consumer-type humane needs are supplied-to first, so as to initially be as collectively independent and collectively self-sufficient as possible, although at a rudimentary level of quality depending on actual supplies. This would be the standard / benchmark for all subsequent collective activity, as into increasingly more sophisticated creature-comforts later on, depending on the prevailing conditions of class struggle.
[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy
If mass proletarian control of big production plants -- say for agriculture and transportation -- was sufficient to supply to *everyone*, barring no one, then that would be a 'Phase 1', to be followed by increasing qualitative increments across-the-board, for 'Phase 2', etc.
If medium-sized-and-smaller businesses weren't necessary (were superfluous) for this kind of endeavor, then they could probably be safely ignored, since the direct-distribution for human need (for free) would *undercut* such businesses anyway.
Andronicus wrote:
By what means does the state take the factories back into its hands?
There would have to be a mass movement -- like historically in Venezuela -- that would politically *support* such radical-reformist policies of nationalization / socialization of the means of mass industrial production.
Again, I would go so far as to suggest that only the most-humanely-needed and most-logistically-simple types of production be prioritized for such a vanguardist / workers-state kind of control, depending on actual prevailing political sentiment and actual productive capacities at the time.
Andronicus wrote:
By nationalization or buying it off its owners?
Nationalization, to cut-against and *reverse* decades of austerity measures that have been imposed by the capitalist ruling class.
Andronicus wrote:
These are only some of many questions on which not all socialists agree on and depends on the individual opinion of the socialist himself.
What are your opinions on these issues?
It's disingenuous to term revolutionary-minded responses on these issues as being merely 'opinions', since there have been objective *trends* against the working class, like the ongoing austerity measures and imperialist warfare against non-Western countries.