So I think part of this is based on a really commonly held misconception and another part because of the economic conditions that countries like the USSR and Cuba face(d).
The the first part, when we think of the state having total command of the economy we almost always consider it to be one single company having a monopoly over production.
While this has been the case in some instances, and it can be very beneficial with regards to industries that require or would benefit from standardisation (e.g. railways, utilities, recycling) or that require tight regulation (e.g. water supply, pharmaceuticals), there's a false notion that competition either cannot exist under socialism or that it did not exist.
In fact, neither are true - the USSR had competing companies operating in the same industry or in monopolies in different regions, with the view that the practices which were most efficient would be expanded and adopted more broadly.
China actually does this with social policy today; they use different regions as test labs to try out changes in policy, to assess their effectiveness and potential consequences, and to either abandon these policy changes or to expand them depending on how successful they are.
The second part of this is that countries like the USSR and Cuba faced extremely harsh economic blockades and they were essentially pre-industrial at the point of their revolutions. The USSR especially had to deal with a huge military buildup in Europe and in Asia (due to having borders in each continent).
The upshot of this is that there were/are limited consumer goods because there were higher priorities, such as preparing for WWII and the need to modernise agriculture and industrialise the nation, meaning that often consumer goods were/are limited.
With this in mind, most western countries have deindustrialised and it's likely that a revolution in a western country would necessitate a rapid reindustrialisation for reasons that I won't go into here but I would anticipate that there would be a period of limited consumer goods for a post-revolutionary western country as well.
Do you think this is better for an average person? main things that scare me are that, much like with companies in a market, how could we ensure the state produces things that benefit us and not benefit itself instead?
I have a few thoughts on this.
One thing to consider is that under modern manufacturing, often our consumer goods are produced in factories that are similar if not identical (and often they are produced in the very same factory) using similar or identical raw materials.
A lot of what we see in consumer choice is a mirage or it's so subtle in its distinction from similar goods that it's barely a difference at all.
I think that the west upholds the absolute glut of consumer choice as inherently good although I'm not convinced that it's nearly as beneficial as we are led to believe but I'll spare you the rant on that particular issue.
Another consideration is that, while an abundance of choice in consumer goods may well be beneficial for the individual, this often is the opposite case for the environment and so we would need to be responsible and weigh the needs of the individual against the needs of the community, the world, and especially the environment.
There would need to be democratic structures in place for a socialist society to function and be sustainable. This would necessarily extend to influence over production of consumer goods as well.
this is what worries me about only having a single national bank too. Ideally if we only have one choice we have to make sure it's the right one, no?
A single national bank is about the state having total control over fiscal policy and the economy. That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be regional banking institutions that could operate beneath a national bank at the consumer and/or industry level though.
How would niche things, that benefit some part of the population but not everyone, be produced? Things like... fumo plushies, board games, or to put a less banal example, something that helps a condition that is uncommon and doesn't spread but still exists, like special shoes to help some kinds of foot deformation for example...
This is a really good question and it's one that remains to be answered by the future post-revolution society in question.
I envision that there would be the necessity for upholding regional production, especially for marginalised ethnic groups, so that their cultural traditions would be supported (and even strengthened) by the socialist system.
I know it probably sounds odd to put it in these terms since cultural traditions seem abstract, and some definitely are, but so much of what determines a thriving cultural tradition is based on material things - food and food production, clothing, arts and crafts, musical instruments, architecture and so on.
With that in mind, a post-revolutionary society must uphold regional production of goods.
I also think that there will always be a place for artisanal production, whether by necessity due to limited access to raw materials (think of something like truffles or particular wild honey which is culturally significant), or as you've mentioned to cater to the needs of people who are outside of the norm for whatever reason. This might be people of unusual stature or body type, for example, and thus there would always be the need for a small but not insignificant industry for bespoke goods. Tailoring and shoemaking would be some example of this sort of small, artisanal production to meet the needs of a small minority of people for whatever reason.
Board games might be produced by hobbyists and enthusiasts in their spare time. This happens more and more under capitalism with the GoFundMe model. There's no reason why a similar system of government grants couldn't be established in a socialist society where people could use a democratic process (e.g. voting) to support a particular pre-funded project to create a new board game.
I'm going to use the idea of money just to keep this example simple and easy to relate to but imagine if the government gave every citizen an allocation of credits to use in a national GoFundMe style model. Say each person gets awarded $1000 worth of non-transferable credits for use in this model per year. People could "donate" these credits to support a project and, if successfully funded, the project could be awarded a grant to create their new product.
also, what would inspire innovation if it's not competition?
I think that there's a common misconception that the market is the only way to innovate or compete.
Ultimately, people compete and they strive for excellence regardless of market incentives or otherwise; when kids compete in a race, competive sports more generally, or things like gaming, we don't award food only to the kids who excel. Sure, there can be prizes and money awarded to competitors but typically that's only in higher level competitions.
It's worth noting that USSR was extremely technologically innovative during its lifespan.
In many ways the market inhibits innovation due to things like patent law (you know how we're living through this huge boom in 3D printing, right? That's only because the patent for 3D printing expired in recent years and for the previous decades there was essentially no innovation because of the way the market works) or financial competition, such as between pharmaceutical companies; pharma corporations do not share their research with one another because they seek to maintain their competitive edge and thus their profit model. This ultimately means that we almost certainly have multiple pharmaceutical companies duplicating research and development rather than dedicating those resources towards expanding a greater, shared body of knowledge on pharmaceuticals.
I'll try to respond to your other points when I get the chance. Apologies for rambling. I hope that some of this comment is useful to you.
Thanks for your questions!
Section 18
So I think part of this is based on a really commonly held misconception and another part because of the economic conditions that countries like the USSR and Cuba face(d).
The the first part, when we think of the state having total command of the economy we almost always consider it to be one single company having a monopoly over production.
While this has been the case in some instances, and it can be very beneficial with regards to industries that require or would benefit from standardisation (e.g. railways, utilities, recycling) or that require tight regulation (e.g. water supply, pharmaceuticals), there's a false notion that competition either cannot exist under socialism or that it did not exist.
In fact, neither are true - the USSR had competing companies operating in the same industry or in monopolies in different regions, with the view that the practices which were most efficient would be expanded and adopted more broadly.
China actually does this with social policy today; they use different regions as test labs to try out changes in policy, to assess their effectiveness and potential consequences, and to either abandon these policy changes or to expand them depending on how successful they are.
The second part of this is that countries like the USSR and Cuba faced extremely harsh economic blockades and they were essentially pre-industrial at the point of their revolutions. The USSR especially had to deal with a huge military buildup in Europe and in Asia (due to having borders in each continent).
The upshot of this is that there were/are limited consumer goods because there were higher priorities, such as preparing for WWII and the need to modernise agriculture and industrialise the nation, meaning that often consumer goods were/are limited.
With this in mind, most western countries have deindustrialised and it's likely that a revolution in a western country would necessitate a rapid reindustrialisation for reasons that I won't go into here but I would anticipate that there would be a period of limited consumer goods for a post-revolutionary western country as well.
I have a few thoughts on this.
One thing to consider is that under modern manufacturing, often our consumer goods are produced in factories that are similar if not identical (and often they are produced in the very same factory) using similar or identical raw materials.
A lot of what we see in consumer choice is a mirage or it's so subtle in its distinction from similar goods that it's barely a difference at all.
I think that the west upholds the absolute glut of consumer choice as inherently good although I'm not convinced that it's nearly as beneficial as we are led to believe but I'll spare you the rant on that particular issue.
Another consideration is that, while an abundance of choice in consumer goods may well be beneficial for the individual, this often is the opposite case for the environment and so we would need to be responsible and weigh the needs of the individual against the needs of the community, the world, and especially the environment.
There would need to be democratic structures in place for a socialist society to function and be sustainable. This would necessarily extend to influence over production of consumer goods as well.
A single national bank is about the state having total control over fiscal policy and the economy. That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be regional banking institutions that could operate beneath a national bank at the consumer and/or industry level though.
This is a really good question and it's one that remains to be answered by the future post-revolution society in question.
I envision that there would be the necessity for upholding regional production, especially for marginalised ethnic groups, so that their cultural traditions would be supported (and even strengthened) by the socialist system.
I know it probably sounds odd to put it in these terms since cultural traditions seem abstract, and some definitely are, but so much of what determines a thriving cultural tradition is based on material things - food and food production, clothing, arts and crafts, musical instruments, architecture and so on.
With that in mind, a post-revolutionary society must uphold regional production of goods.
I also think that there will always be a place for artisanal production, whether by necessity due to limited access to raw materials (think of something like truffles or particular wild honey which is culturally significant), or as you've mentioned to cater to the needs of people who are outside of the norm for whatever reason. This might be people of unusual stature or body type, for example, and thus there would always be the need for a small but not insignificant industry for bespoke goods. Tailoring and shoemaking would be some example of this sort of small, artisanal production to meet the needs of a small minority of people for whatever reason.
Board games might be produced by hobbyists and enthusiasts in their spare time. This happens more and more under capitalism with the GoFundMe model. There's no reason why a similar system of government grants couldn't be established in a socialist society where people could use a democratic process (e.g. voting) to support a particular pre-funded project to create a new board game.
I'm going to use the idea of money just to keep this example simple and easy to relate to but imagine if the government gave every citizen an allocation of credits to use in a national GoFundMe style model. Say each person gets awarded $1000 worth of non-transferable credits for use in this model per year. People could "donate" these credits to support a project and, if successfully funded, the project could be awarded a grant to create their new product.
I think that there's a common misconception that the market is the only way to innovate or compete.
Ultimately, people compete and they strive for excellence regardless of market incentives or otherwise; when kids compete in a race, competive sports more generally, or things like gaming, we don't award food only to the kids who excel. Sure, there can be prizes and money awarded to competitors but typically that's only in higher level competitions.
It's worth noting that USSR was extremely technologically innovative during its lifespan.
In many ways the market inhibits innovation due to things like patent law (you know how we're living through this huge boom in 3D printing, right? That's only because the patent for 3D printing expired in recent years and for the previous decades there was essentially no innovation because of the way the market works) or financial competition, such as between pharmaceutical companies; pharma corporations do not share their research with one another because they seek to maintain their competitive edge and thus their profit model. This ultimately means that we almost certainly have multiple pharmaceutical companies duplicating research and development rather than dedicating those resources towards expanding a greater, shared body of knowledge on pharmaceuticals.
I'll try to respond to your other points when I get the chance. Apologies for rambling. I hope that some of this comment is useful to you.
deleted by creator