How would a socialist planned economy work in a country like the US?

How would a socialist planned economy work in a country like the US?

I have a number of questions.

-How exactly would you re-organize production? Would you allow workers to elect their own managers?

-Would small businesses like restaurants be allowed to retain autonomy from the plan?

-Would it be necessary to transition first to some kind of NEP co-op thing, or should everything be immediately incorporated into the plan?

pic unrelated

Other urls found in this thread:

the US is already producing goods like foodstuff and medicine in capacities that can nourish it's own populus even without a planned economy. you'd obviously have to do very good demoscopic analyses of the needs of each region, but i believe if the us went socialist this question would have to relate to its policy on spreading socialism. if the us did so aggressively, they'd most likely have to tailor production to feed newly liberated areas accordingly. but the infrastructure is there, it's not like they need a plan to build it from scratch like they did in the ussr

autonomy in the operation process, but i imagine you'd work with the state for a license and supplies etc.

no. remember the historical circumstances under which the NEP and war communism were established. if we assume an 100% victorious revolution (no military segments revolting etc), no civil wars, the us wouldn't need any "adapting" period.

this is pointless anyway, the us will never be the bastion of the progressive forces of revolution since it's the head of the imperialist alliance of capitalist nations. only the most exploited nations have revolutionary potential

Elaborate question.
of course, coops are superior to party-issued managers.
Of course not, how would that restaurant get food, supplies and other stuff it requires to function?
everything should be incorporated asap


it is true, for many reasons. why would a petty-bourg in switzerland want to establish socialism? the countries within the imperialist alliance don't hold revolutionary potential, nor have they historically

why would a petty-bourg in Kongo want to establish socialism?
You are joking, right?

he won't. but the percentage of people in kongo that belong in that class is significantly smaller than the percentage of petty-bourg in switzerland

have you actually read marx or lenin?

the US is the country with the most violent labor history (or maybe 2nd place after Russia, but my point still stands), millions of now dead workers are rolling in their graves cause of your post

That does not matter. Majority of people in Switzerland are still just normal proles.
I did. Can you point me out the section where they talk how revolution is not possible in advanced capitalist country?

yep is the country that has never formed a semblance of a fighting worker's movement that's achieved anything. in the us, proles are structured by waves of immigration. plus the anti-communist apparatus is perfected, and the reality is that the conditions will never deter enough to create revolutionary potential since porky can afford to make concessions when a threat arises

there's no point discussing this with you though, since you don't adhere to scientific methodology of studying the subject

they aren't. a prole that owns 2 apartments and 3 cars is a petty-bourg. there is no revolutionary potential under these conditions

in imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, which is literally m-l 101 reading.

woah you're right that brainlet really can't compare to the advanced critique of your scientific methodology

owning mop makes you a petty-bourg. if you don't understand this, you are a brainlet indeed

This is either Agela "there is nobody in Germany earning less than 2000 EUR" merkel-tier bullshit, OR I'm moving to switzerland.
I don't remember that Lenin was turd-worldist shill, but I'll reread it tomorrow.

You sound like petty-bourg living in some closed community which spends free time reading leftist theory in order to feel superior in front of friends.

I didn't know apartments and cars were the means of production so can you link me to the chapters in capital where marx explains that tia

It's a shitty balance though. The most exploited nations would be invaded if they had a socialist revolution, or a coup would be funded, because that'd be in the interests of their previous imperialist fuckdaddy. The most imperialist nations are much better candidates for revolution. If a large portion of the US rose up it would send shockwaves around the world, because of how intertwined the US is in world affairs. So the other countries would be too busy to stop the revolution.

anything that can generate capital is a mop. if i have a car, i can rent it. an apartment can also be rented

it is hard, but there is no revolutionary potential in the imperialist nations because the bourgeoisie have a greater influence there. it's easier to paint a revolutionary movement as terrorists inside us soil than fund a coup in a 3rd world country.

Aaaah so everyone is a bourg because they can use the P*nis or V*gin* to generate capital it all makes sense

thanks bookposter you really helped this poor brainlet out

Let's take a number of businesses next to me.

-Non-chain Sushi restaurant


-McDonalds (Chain restaurant)

How would you re-organize production within these establishments?

1. The Sushi one, I think most would agree, should retain some autonomy. But how exactly would it work? Would the previous boss own the restaurant? What would change, if anything?

2. The Wal-mart. What do you do with this? Much of the goods there come from third world sweatshops, so until a US re-industrialization is completed, it's going to be half empty most days. You could tear it down and put something else, but you'd be putting people out of work and possibly screwing up the supply. Or, this makes the most sense, you simply turn it into a nationalized consumer goods distribution center. But then how would it work? Who would be the manager? Is it even necessary to have such a massive (in size) consumer goods dispensary? More than half of those goods are useless shit anyway.

3. The McDonalds. Terrible food, but changing that is the easy part. Would the workplace be democratized? Would each McDonalds have the ability to cook its own style of food,instead of everything being standardized?

How many layers of seizing toothbrushes are you on?
Try to name one(1) non-western country where bourgeoisie do not have much greater influence than general population.
And it's easier to organize, unionize and protest in liberal democratic capitalist nation than some third world military junta.

All stores like Wal-Mart are just for distribution of goods to the population. Nationalizing and consolidating them isn't difficult. The manager can be elected by the workers.

The question of service industry is that they can be autonomous, but regulated (co-ops only). However they will get left-overs after the state is done distributing goods to the population, and the question of that is a question of continuing over-exploitation of the environment, and food waste.

The entire thing is an abomination, and it needs to be redone, all of it, from the bottom up.

read marx, seriously.

-What do you think should be the maximum wage differential? Albania's was the lowest, 2:1 IIRC. Should managers be paid more than workers? Seems like this would encourage a bourgeois mentality in the managerial strata, sowing the seeds of revisionism down the line.

-How would you deal with education? Definitely every new teacher should have a solid Marxist-Leninist education. There would have to be entire new schools created for this purpose.

How would you try to fix the schools in places like Baltimore (if you've ever watched The Wire)?

-How do help the Native Americans? What, if anything, can the socialist state do to rectify their situation?

-What about the other nations within the US? Should the black population have its own state? What about the appalachians? The chicanos also could be considered a nation. Would they have complete independence, or just autonomy?

There is no good reason to actually own things like vehicles or housing. Housing cooperatives and transportation cooperatives could provide for everyone. Private ownership is booj.

kill yourself my dude

The hierarchical relationship that exists between chefs/servers and diners is eliminated. Customers become guests, waitstaff is eliminated, everyone pitches in to help prepare the meal to some extent. Shorter and more regular work hours make it possible for people to prepare meals at home, so what restaurants remain are a luxury rather than an effort to feed people as cheaply and quickly as possible.
People take things and walk out, so the labor required to run a retail establishment is much smaller than it is now (no cashiers or security). People still have to restock the shelves, at least in the short term, and a computer terminal in the back of the store is used to track what items people are taking in order to request deliveries and properly calibrate production (the heaps of sensors Amazon is using at its Seattle retail location might eventually be deployed to simplify this process). Despite the wishes of nostalgic liberals, a highly centralized system for distributing goods, a la Walmart, is probably going to be the new reality in most areas.

the concept of a wage is inherently bourgeoisie. workers, especially in a scenario of a country with already established industry, will be allocated resources and not wages.

as for the allocation itself, i wouldn't go as far as to say it should be "double" for people higher up the ladder. in a scenario where the country is rich and has the capital for everyone to live comfortably (like a socialist usa with it's current infrastructure), I don't see a reason. Some people with key positions should obviously be protected until the revolution is globally dominant and secured. However, the concept that people who work "harder jobs" do so out of an antagonistic spirit is purely bourgeoisie.

There are some problems that arise in this aspect, but not from the pov you see it. If you're familiar with Luria's works and activity theory, the question that's more important is how to promote the psychological development of people doing repetitive manual labor. this was one of the internal contradictions of early-stage socialism.

A model like the one the USSR obviously. One of the biggest achievements of the USSR was it's discoveries in the field of developmental psychology and pedagogy.

the situation in these areas is due to the poverty that results in the criminality. eradicating the structures that oppress them will remove the cause of criminality. it's the poverty that affects the quality of education in the bourgeoisie system, not the other way around

just how you'd help all the exploited groups. nationalize industry, provide jobs and education, homogenize the population.

why would you strive for ethnic separations? any sentiments of racial or ethnic identity will be discouraged to the point of eradication. providing regions with autonomy is one of the biggest mistakes the early-stage socialist countries made. it serves no purpose, if anything it gives a platform for anti-revolutionary struggle masked as "ethnic Independence"

Holla Forums is consisted of couch petty bourg socialists who have never actually read marx or studied theory, like you. you don't have a grasp of basic marxist concepts, yet believe you're right like the dumb liberal you are

i didn't mean to disrespect fallen worker's that struggled for emancipation. what i meant was that no movement succeeded in any 1st world imperialist country in the sense that they couldn't bring a solid part of a state under their control, let alone topple the ruling completely. this has only historically been achieved in 2nd and 3rd world countries, from the ussr to the whole eastern block, from asia to the zapatistas etc. The one obvious exceptions is the GDR, but those were special circumstances.



proud ignorance is a staple of liberals

You don't even know what the word prole in Marxist discourse means. It doesn't mean a particular level of income and it doesn't mean being muscular. It means being a worker, which is the normal thing, even if the country you live in is particularly prosperous.

Bourgeoisie is a noun. The adjective is bourgeois. That people will be directly allocated consumption is a niche idea that some people like Neurath had. But is that what Marx recommended? No, what he described in Critique of the Gotha Program was a system with people having individual consumption budgets.

proletarian := he who is obliged to sell their labour to live since they don't own means of production (MoP)
petite-bourgeois := he who owns MoP but uses his own labour force to produce (such as a small business owner)
bourgeois := he who owns MoP and employs labour as to not work at all

read a fucking book.

If I ran the zoo…
1. Minimize distance goods need to travel partly by establishing more local production. Food should be grown wherever it can and made completely free to forage. I think some farms should exist which would produce exclusively for distribution centers. Expend lots of social effort in changing the upbringing of children, including directly preparing them for work and social life (visit farms and factories, learn skills). Utterly standardize industrial production ON A METRIC SYSTEM (burger here…). I think the question of workers and managers is a bit superfluous.
2. ABOLISH RESTAURANTS read the pamphlet at
Restaurants are bourgie as fuck, communal kitchens all around that serve standard meals at standard times.
3. Hard to say. To me communism is nothing but a period of endless transition. And of course we can't foresee the process.

4. From each, to each. No more oiko nomos.

5. I sort of addressed this as part of organizing production generally. I am very sympathetic to the views of R. Vaneigem on children and childhood.
6. Just abolish them, they are prison camps for the children of the less fortunate. Teach for life, a way of being-in-the-world, an idea lost on pretty much everyone these days. Never watched the Wire but I work in "diverse classrooms" in a metropolitan area.
7. Rewild. No really. This is a policy for humanity and life on earth.
8. Can't say.

Please stop being so rude to each other, guys.
I know this is a chan and a contentious board but really

Yeah, and this is how it looks now

dog bles ::DDDDD

miners used to be the most radical burgers.
holly shit.

Coal and steel companies own the state outright. Their politicians are owned by the companies. Coal and coal related industries are the only real jobs there. The coal companies poison them, and no one helps them. The coal companies ruin their state, and no one helps them. The coal companies depress wages, and no one helps them. For all intents and purposes, WV is one big company town.

So yeah, that's what happens in the absence of a radical left. They have no choice but to grovel at the feet of their employers, because it's either that or starvation.

It wouldn't, just like any planned economy. But I guess Americans could use losing some weight.

And things were worse in the 20s, yet they actually resisted back then.

Why you need to reorganize anything? Its about ownership. Do you even know whos the owner of mcdonalds? No?. Well, that unknown people will be changed to the state. Done.