There is a massive conflict of interests between producers of goods and services and those who demand and use these goods. How do Marxist plan to abolish this contradiction in a situation where its proletarians demanding these goods?
>>2511891
>Muh reddit
Give a short on point explanation or go away with your meme shit.
>>2511894
Sounds worse than market capitalist option. There must be some kind of synthesis between conflicting material interests.
I dont understand, what contradiction, producers and consumers are the same people.
>>2511901Have you ever heard of shitty clients?
>>2511907
Please open this train of thought.
>>2511894
And why shouldnt socialist production have 5 different flavors of milk for different consumers with different tastes.
>>2511908Yeah, but I am assuming OP was talking about some sort of broader societal contradiction, not "Marx never considered customer blowing up at Tesco cashier".
>>2511915This is exactly what I want to hear from more well read comrades. Is there some kind of synthesis in marxist or later theory?
>>2511922
>meaning that customers have no choice of what to consume.
But thats fucking horrible economic theory. In market economics im more well versed but I want to hear marxist opinions on how to get rid of this contradiction.
There is a massive skidmark in your underwear. How do Marxists plan to abolish this contradiction?
>>2511922
>meaning that customers have no choice of what to consume
Why, its not like supply and demand cease to exist, its just expressed in material units rather than moneyary ones. If you make a product and its just filling warehouses with nobody who wants to buy it, that sends signal to produce less, and vice versa.
>>2511913Some people are lactose intolerant or on a low fat diet, is it a waste to produce milk for these people?
Why couldnt consumers have more than one product in planned economy? More importantly how to abolish the contradiction between consumers and producers?
>>2511936You still havent elaborated what those contradictions are.
>>2511931Absolutely not planned economy should serve all possible kinds of milk for different kinds of consumers of milk. This is still not my point. There are classes of producers and consumers in this scenario.
>>2511913You can add flavoring to milk when you get home.
Chocolate ice cream is just vanilla ice cream with chocolate power mixed in, try it.
>>2511943Ok I can drink raw milk and survive unlike most people but this doesnt address my point.
>>2511926Once market economies monopolize your “choices” just become an illusion. You can choose a thousand different soda brands but they all come from the same company and often same factory.
>>2511947All raw milk goes to the pasteurization factory, there wouldn't be raw milk on the shelves. There would be milk varying in fat percentages for recipe purposes, then packets of flavoring nearby.
Under capitalism they don't sell purple flavored milk (where I live at least) but I can mix it at home with some koolaid.
>>2511958
Restaurants would be cafeterias, where someone could quickly blend your purple milk and other such ingredients together. Restaurants usually get ingredients separate anyway so their logistics wouldn't change much.
>>2511969
I suppose. There'd still be a place where someone preps ingredients into meals for people that just want something off a menu, that's what people want out of a restaurant, isn't it?
>>2511890I love this image, he's literally me. I look like that and sound like that
>>2511937
>there is no marxist solution.
marx's idea is that you work and get paid in coupons which purchase you items which you receive like tickets or rations for goods. in cuba for example, they have entirely limited goods and so nominally empty shelves, since creating too much would mean exceeding what was totally necessary. it is a deathly efficiency. the difference in capitalism is that so much is produced but so much is also wasted. the democratic idea of production is that everyone decides beforehand what they want rather than just buying whats available. so its efficiently inefficient.
Kek, no wonder leftypol has been turning to shit, nobody reads anymore (me neither), look at this shit.
OPs question has been settled since WW2, and no, the Soviet Union didnt collapse because of economic planning but because of a "course correction" after Stalins death that never needed to happen anyway. Fucking retards.
>>2511977
I mean the other visitors of the cafeteria would be there too. If you mean themed restaurants I figure the arcade restaurant model wouldn't change much, just remove the coin system.
>>2511996
>In fact everything is a market economy if you think for long enough
Thanks for the insight Mises.
>>2512010
Yeah uhhhh fucking planned demand
>>2511996
That Marx advocated for labour vouchers in the lower phase of communism I never denied you retard, your premise is wrong on its surface
>There is a massive conflict of interests between producers of goods and services and those who demand and use these goods
Ah yes, who doesnt remember the constant wars being fought in the trenches between the customers and the producers. There is no "divide" between "customers" or "consumers" on the one side and a supposed "producer", thats a fucking marketing trick and you fell for it. There is a reason why "consumer rights" shit never ends up in a street battle, because everyone in the supposed "invisible" hand of the market, is one. For Marx's sake, kill yourself.
>>2512046
Austrians never can read, why is that?
>>2512027
>markets are inevitable where you allow people to freely associate, yes. thats why central planners dont believe in free association.
Lel, those damn pesky central planners, the schizo thing is a projection of yours
>>2512027
The only place “free association” belongs is in the diaries of schizophrenics and in Jazz
>>2512060
>read what? you agree with me but somehow i am wrong. you are a man battling with yourself.
Ahh, so you agree with me when I state the fact that "markets" as such arent real and both they way I used it and Smith used the "invisible hand" example, is to simplify omplex economic relations between people down to a brain exercise?
The conflict of interest only exists because of the producer is able to accrue so much capital in the first place that he ends up not really needing the consumer's business anymore, he can expand his business by simply reinvesting the massive surplus capital he already has and that others have invested and continue to accrue capital without producing anything. See: Uber, crypto, AI, etc.
>>2512102
Welcome to 21st century economics, that is literally how it works. It's not about producing something of value to sell to consumers, it's about manufacturing a convincing growth story to sell to consumers and thereby turn them into investors, then use their investment money to attract more investors, and so on. Is Star Citizen out yet?
>>2512116
Cheap credit, that’s why the fed chair needs to get publicly executed for even thinking of raising rates, in fact we’ll do negative interest rates
>>2512116
Expensive marketing campaigns, spamming your brand all over social media, spending a fortune on SEO to get your brand name to the top of Google search results, whoring yourself out on YCombinator, scouring the Earth for rich whales who are stupid enough to believe your story and invest in your pyramid scheme.
>>2511913It require someone to make new and new flavors/type of milk drink. So you do not get free time, it becomes your job to invent new milk.. How it will end do you think? You will make milk on demand. How it will look like? Like a bar, like McDonalds, etc, where you mix a new milk when a customer ask you. Free time of prols will be spent like that. Not education, etc, but that.
So what do? If you look at coffee, there is already a machine that can make coffee, it is a single machine that can grind beans, add milk, etc. But sure it can't make all kinds of coffee a human can make. Why else they consume human made coffee? So we make this machine programmable by humans. It will be as good as coffee made by a human and can make anything you want, it is already as good, just not so many kinds of coffee it can make. Same, may be, with milk.
What if machine can't do that? It should be possible to say - no, I want less work time or do something else, not that.
>>2512150Also if you do it syrup and seltzer on site you could give more veriety since people may want a pump or so more or less than The Default that getting it pre-mixed enforces. Plus you could mix different syrups.
Mr. Ziq once said:
>Civilized people labor to create consumer goods because the system gives them no other option if they want to survive. The only way people will continue to toil in the factories and warehouses in "a communist society" is if they are forced to by the system. No free hunter gatherer will voluntarily give up their freedom to stand at an assembly line pushing buttons so other people can have Corn Flakes, weedkiller and AAA batteries. It's something that needs to be forced on humans by domestication and the joined threat of violence and starvation that props up the industrial system.
You'll notice that when the supposedly atheist socialists are pushed on this point they quote the Bible.
>>2512238
Oh yeah when the cup got placed on the counter I thought I missed a slight of hand or something but nah, wet, sticky overfilled cup be upon ye.
>>2511996Let's see in the texts what Marx and Engels wrote about the communist economy in its lower stage:
<Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.
<From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.
<These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.
<There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.
<Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.
<Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion – namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.
<The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.
<Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.
<Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.
<What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
<Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875)https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htmEverything that is produced and can be replicated will be planned by constantly acquiring information from popular councils and calculating the future probability of problems that are expected to occur over a given long period. The working population will be able to express itself better without the logic of exploitation for profit with what will be mass-produced, prepared within the national economic plan, with consistent and durable quality in the case of machinery and nutritious food. The other part, such as workshops, garages, and gardening, will already have a space for personal intellectual, cultural, and creative development, allowing workers to develop and express themselves without capitalist influence.
Now, regarding the question of commodity production in the post-NEP period with collectivization, this quote answers any questions you may have:
<But in the trading between the commune and its members the money is not money at all, it does not function in any way as money. It serves as a mere labour certificate; to use Marx's phrase, it is “merely evidence of the part taken by the individual in the common labour, and of his right to a certain portion of the common produce destined for consumption”, and in carrying out this function, it is “no more ‘money’ than a ticket for the theatre”. It can therefore be replaced by any other token, just as Weitling replaces it by a “ledger”, in which the labour-hours worked are entered on one side and means of subsistence taken as compensation on the other. [121] In a word, in the trading of the economic commune with its members it functions merely as Owen’s “labour money”, that “phantom” which Herr Dühring looks down upon so disdainfully, but nevertheless is himself compelled to introduce into his economics of the future. Whether the token which certifies the measure of fulfilment of the “obligation to produce”, and thus of the earned “right to consume” {320} is a scrap of paper, a counter or a gold coin is absolutely of no consequence for this purpose.[…]
<Thus neither in exchange between the economic commune and its members nor in exchange between the different communes can gold, which is “money by nature”, get to realise this its nature.
<Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels, 1877, Part III: Socialism, IV. Distributionhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch26.htm>>2512119cafeterias are oriented at speedily handing out food to large amounts of people and have separate handout and checkout lines with different workers at each, the food at handout is already cooked and can sometimes be pre-portioned
they are common in workplaces, hospitals and schools where lunch breaks are tightly regulated and the priority is feeding yourself, not the "experience"
restaurants and cafes typically don't have separate lines, there is either a bar or the waiters take and bring your orders to you personally. the majority of dishes in the menu are cooked on demand. all of this tends to result in longer wait times
>>2511977
>I LOVE larping as a slaveowner
>I LOVE disneyland but with slop instead toys
Cmon now. The reason people dont always eat at home is because delivery fees suck, and so does eating alone. But still, the working class mostly cooks their meals
>>2511890Labor vouchers and don't make job placement, unemployment benefits, etc. too good or else people won't fear firing enough. Slowly phase in the communism, ready to backtrack if it causes anti-social incentives.
>>2511901In abstract they're the same people, but in concrete they're different people playing different roles, who just happen to switch roles over time. In a given moment you have to think either as a consumer or a worker. A consumer adds to your workload, something workers tend to dislike. A worker will often cut corners in order to get a job done faster, or dilly dally if time isn't a concern. This goes against the consumer's interests. It's not inevitable that this contradiction exists, e.g. if there is no incentive for increased efficiency but also no way for the worker to gain while being intentionally inefficient. Maybe they have a relaxed work pace but are paid piecemeal, something like that.
>>2515625Someone could even be working on something they themself use and be in conflict with themself on and off shift.
Unique IPs: 15