How do you counter the argument that the proletariat seizing the means of production won't actually have much effect on the standard of living for the proletariat since 99% of the goods being produced are already consumed by the proletariat?
Honest question.
I'm not really sure what the "argument" is even saying. The issue of capitalism isn't consumption. The issue is the logic of commodity production and the minority muh privileges granted to the owners of the MoP.
Consumption of goods is irrelevant to the argument of who is actually producing them and decides what is produced, and how ownership of this production is decided.
There is much more to socialism than just egalitarian Taylorism. This is why you need to listen to leftcoms, and why all the focus on 'inequality' (which to redditors is the biggest problem with capitalism) is narrow-minded. More important is for example how production isn't for exchange or profit, but for use. We can start developing renewable energies (fucking solar panels everywhere) because there are no oil companies bribing governments anymore, or keeping the price of a barrel down (often through war) to prevent developing renewable energies.
There's the issue of patents and intellectual property that is abolished aswell, every new invention can serve all of mankind. Automation becomes much more desirable.
I could go on all day really, but you make a good point about how we need to look further than unequal distribution of commodities.
Most people measure economic systems/policies based on how it affects their standard of living.
Are you basically saying that even by having a socialist revolution and taking back the means of production -and the surplus value- that living standards won't even rise?
That's going to happen under capitalism anyway.
Sure doesn't seem like it.
Nobody denies this. Capitalism constantly reduces socially necessary labor time, which will inevitably lead to the crisis that finished it. Then we have a bigger incentive to reduce it.
Still, a lot of development is being held back cause it'd damage profits.
Oh I absolutely agree. I think capitalism is an unbelievably flawed system riddled with conflicts of interests that damage the common good.
I just wanted to talk about living standards for the average person and how taking back surplus value will improve/not improve them.
you're still thinking of socialism as capitalism with redistribution of wealth
No. I'd say the vast majority of people on the planet would see better standards of living in a socialist economy.
How are you measuring SoL?
The problem is who owns and controls that automation. If it's a small minority and the proletariat have been completely removed from the production process then we're going to see even more wealth inequality and less political representation for the working class.
The distribution of capital between the workers will increase their standard of living as they will have more income. There won't be any capitalists skimming off the top and the workers will get righteously rewarded for their labour.
What? No. I'm saying that just because I'm a consumer capitalist economy, they the majority of products are consumed ostensibly by the people that make the products, had nothing at all to do with the arguments of the communist program. It's just 'ho hi peasants if feudalism is so bad then why do you eat the grain I allow you to grow for me check mate' nonsense.
Usually consumption. The more you can consume, the higher your standard of living. The less you can consumer, the lower your standard of living. Quality of life depends on non-economic measurements like family, relationships, religion. But I think standard of living is chiefly the result of consumption.
I thought about this but increasing financial claims on production doesn't increase real consumption levels. It's psychologically better to have more 0s in the bank though.
I know that's not the argument for socialism. They're are plenty of arguments for socialism. I just wanted to discuss this one issue in this thread.
like I said to OP, you're still thinking of socialism as capitalism as capitalism with redistribution of wealth
what's next? 'socialism will cause wages to rise'?
oops, discard one of those 'as capitalism's
That's your problem. You're using a capitalist measure of SoL for a completely different economic system.
I don't think it's unreasonable to talk about standards of living under differing economic systems. After all, I work to improve my standard of living.
I know there are plenty of justifications for socialism but I just wanted to discuss socialism and standard of living in this thread.
It sounds like the assumption is that Sol is being measured by how much people consume as opposed to the quality of what they are consuming and the effects that consumption had on them socially and ecologically.
How would you measure standard of living? Not Quality of Life which -as I mentioned- depends upon numerous non-economic measurements like health, family, friends, religion, life experiences. How would you measure economic standard of living without consumption?
I wouldn't. SoL is a purely capitalist notion that isn't very applicable in an economic system operating on use rather than exchange.
The collective proletariat will be able to enjoy higher standards of living since vast quantities of goods and materials aren't going to the tiny 1%. More so, the proletariat will have more free time and more freedom in the work place, which is preferable.
When you say vast quantities, is that really accurate? Doesn't the proletariat as a whole already consumer the vast majority of goods and services?
Agreed.
Let me give you an example. Let's take for instance, a super yacht, or a mansion. Imagine all the metals, fuel, and electronics that go into a super yacht or really any big boat. Simply put, a fucking lot of resources go into it. Imagine if those resources could be put forward to the construction of normal boats that anyone could have, or towards basic consumer electronics, or toward the construction of buildings like hospitals or schools. But no, in reality the boat is enjoyed by an extremely small group of very rich people, and absolutely ruins the environment (it chugs fuel like a motherfucker).
Another example is mansions. These buildings take up a lot of building materials, a long of land and space, and energy (keeping lights on, heating, normally having big in-ground pools) for porky to enjoy. Imagine if all of these resources could be put toward constructing things the Commune as a whole could enjoy. Imagine if instead of one big mansion, imagine if several homes were built instead.
I mean, in the US, doesn't the statistic go that the top 1% owns 40% of the wealth? Vast amounts of this wealth is represented in the form of assets IE things that constitute the means of production, or at least constitute material objects.
In short, it won't make a world-changing difference, but it will make a difference.
I think I agree with you. I can't see all the resources that go into mansions, planes, boats, fancy car and clothing would make a *huge* difference if they were devoted to non-luxurious production but it would make *some* difference.
Yea that's financial claims. Not really the same thing as real good and services.