This isn't an answer to your questions but a general overview of what people mean when they say socialism. There's socialism in the sense of having a socialist economy where workers control the means of production and socialism in the sense of a socialist society with a socialist base and socialist superstructure. In simple terms, the base is the economy and the superstructure is politics, so a socialist society has a socialist economy and a socialist politics that reinforce one another. What does a socialist politics entails? It seems an actual democracy (not this farcical version of democracy we have now), it means a completely politicized citizenry who has undying love for humanity and complete hatred for anything that would seek to divide, humiliate, or harm humanity, it means a people completely free of all forms of bigotry and who tremble at the sight of injustice.
In terms of consumer choices, why can't those choices be something that is consciously discussed within the community? There's no reason why something like toothpaste flavor can't be societal discourse, with the end result being whatever consensus that is reached being implemented in real life.You could have a social media post clowning on a particular flavor leading to a lively discussion on various official channels (official Lemmy instance, town hall meeting) about how the flavor sucks leading to an election to recall the surgeon general because they insist on not removing that nasty flavor. For crap like Funko Pop, why should society be oriented towards production of useless junk that no one but a select minority want? There's a concept within Marxism called "socially necessary labor," meaning labor that's actually useful to society. Making useless junk like Funko Pop is arguably not at the level of socially necessary labor and shouldn't even exist. In terms of things like orthotics, we're also assuming a certain level of political development within the people, and among this includes the conviction that disabled people ought to live dignified lives. You don't need a market economy to live in a society where diabetic people get free insulin and trans women get free estrogen pills. If anything, a market economy leads to people overcharging shit (the amount that insulin gets charged compared with the production cost of producing insulin is abominable).
I guess it's an open question on whether you could have a bigoted socialist society like say a white supremacist socialist society. In my opinion, you can't have a socialist society that isn't at least trying to combat bigotry because if bigotry isn't combated, economic stratification is going to form with the bigoted majority at the top and the targets of bigotry at the bottom. It might not be capitalist, but it really shouldn't be called socialist either.
I'm very enthusiastic about something like this... has it actually happened in socialist states though? or is it more of a goal?
There's Cuba where the 2019 Cuban constitutional referendum was proceeded by community meetings. There were around 135,000 of those meetings where ordinary Cuban people hashed out what they wanted to add to the constitution, what they want to take out, and so on. Cuba has around 11 million people, so there's a decent chance the majority of Cuban people has attended at least one meeting. This is why Cuba being slandered as some dictatorship by some reactionary gusano living in Miami completely falls flat.
I can see the point if only Funko Pops are produced, but it's more about the collection of niche things, one alone is not very useful but if there's a lot of products that appeal to some select people it just generally makes a more happy society in my opinion, I like that I can collect fumo plushies and figurines about my favorite characters, I like that I can have 12TB external hard drive to hoard data stuff, I like that I can wear shoes that don't deform my feet and hurt me, etc etc. there's thousands of products like these that on their own aren't that useful but the collection of them means everyone can find a solution fit for them. If these things disappear and all choices are reduced to only a few "general" things, I feel like people would be a lot less happy
There's a Marxist concept called commodity fetishism, the idea that the social relations towards commodity production gets obscured and turns into inherent properties of the commodity itself. So, the fact that a certain car is more expensive than another car is taken as evidence that the car is somehow better rather than the social relations that goes towards producing that car. Maybe the more expensive car is just more expensive because they don't exploit their workers as much or the car company didn't get as much government subsidies and so on. The consequence of commodity fetishism is that the labor that goes towards producing that commodity is ignored, which means if that labor is exploitative, consumers won't recognize or care about that exploitation because it's not even factored in when they see the commodity. This is why gamers start malding when you talk about how game development is filled with exploitative practices like crunch time and rampant sexual harassment.
The reverse side is another Marxist concept called worker alienation, the fact that workers are alienated from the commodities they produce. A worker has no control in what they produce or how they produce it. They largely do what their supervisors tell them to do, which goes up to the chain of command up to the owner, who largely plans out what commodities gets produced based on what the market demands. So, the ultimate arbitrator of what and how a commodity gets produced isn't even a human, but an inhuman entity called the market. The ultimate expression of worker alienation would be something like a grocery worker living on food stamps forced to destroy excess food by dumping it and pouring bleach on it so homeless people can't dumpster dive.
If you combine the two, you have a situation where workers are alienated from the commodity they produce and consumers are alienated from production process of the commodity. To use chocolate as an example, you have cocoa farmers who never tasted chocolate before and chocolate consumers who have never seen what coca beans actually look like. This is a form of estrangement between worker and consumer. And since every worker is themselves a consumer and almost every consumer is themselves a worker, what commodity fetishism and worker alienation ultimately entails is workers being alienated from each other, everyone living as atomized individuals, which leads to the horrible capitalist hellworld we live in right now. This is why nobody gives a shit about wearing mask.
But in a socialist society where commodity fetishism and worker alienation aren't a thing (or far less of a thing because there's probably going to be some residual forms of commodity fetishism and worker alienation), consumers will recognize the labor that goes towards making the commodity and workers will have a say in what or how the commodity gets produced. To finally loop back to things like Funko Pops, what if the workers in the Funko Pops factory say, "Fuck you, we're not producing this plastic crap anymore. We're going to make plastic plates for disabled people who have a hard time washing dishes instead. If you want Funko Pop, you can go make it yourself."
I should've used the example of workers refusing to make the niche product. This is how capitalist ideology like commodity fetishism constantly slips into your mind. But to rephrase the question: why should workers be forced against their will to produce what they and the vast majority of society consider to be useless junk for a small select minority? Is this not unfair for the workers who have to make that useless shit?
I think useless niche products will still exist, but they will most likely exist on an artisan level. Furry porn is a niche product, but you don't need a factory to produce furry porn. Furry porn is something between the client and the artist. In fact, the production of furry porn isn't as hard hit by commodity fetishism and worker alienation. The client has to research what artist they want and the artist has a clue of what particular sexual tastes the client has when the client asks for a commission. Unlike the production of most commodities, the production of furry porn preserves the social relationship between consumer and worker. This means that in a socialist society, the production of furry porn would largely be the same. If anything, it's the production of other commodities that will start to closely resemble the production of furry porn.
This isn't an answer to your questions but a general overview of what people mean when they say socialism. There's socialism in the sense of having a socialist economy where workers control the means of production and socialism in the sense of a socialist society with a socialist base and socialist superstructure. In simple terms, the base is the economy and the superstructure is politics, so a socialist society has a socialist economy and a socialist politics that reinforce one another. What does a socialist politics entails? It seems an actual democracy (not this farcical version of democracy we have now), it means a completely politicized citizenry who has undying love for humanity and complete hatred for anything that would seek to divide, humiliate, or harm humanity, it means a people completely free of all forms of bigotry and who tremble at the sight of injustice.
In terms of consumer choices, why can't those choices be something that is consciously discussed within the community? There's no reason why something like toothpaste flavor can't be societal discourse, with the end result being whatever consensus that is reached being implemented in real life.You could have a social media post clowning on a particular flavor leading to a lively discussion on various official channels (official Lemmy instance, town hall meeting) about how the flavor sucks leading to an election to recall the surgeon general because they insist on not removing that nasty flavor. For crap like Funko Pop, why should society be oriented towards production of useless junk that no one but a select minority want? There's a concept within Marxism called "socially necessary labor," meaning labor that's actually useful to society. Making useless junk like Funko Pop is arguably not at the level of socially necessary labor and shouldn't even exist. In terms of things like orthotics, we're also assuming a certain level of political development within the people, and among this includes the conviction that disabled people ought to live dignified lives. You don't need a market economy to live in a society where diabetic people get free insulin and trans women get free estrogen pills. If anything, a market economy leads to people overcharging shit (the amount that insulin gets charged compared with the production cost of producing insulin is abominable).
I guess it's an open question on whether you could have a bigoted socialist society like say a white supremacist socialist society. In my opinion, you can't have a socialist society that isn't at least trying to combat bigotry because if bigotry isn't combated, economic stratification is going to form with the bigoted majority at the top and the targets of bigotry at the bottom. It might not be capitalist, but it really shouldn't be called socialist either.
deleted by creator
There's Cuba where the 2019 Cuban constitutional referendum was proceeded by community meetings. There were around 135,000 of those meetings where ordinary Cuban people hashed out what they wanted to add to the constitution, what they want to take out, and so on. Cuba has around 11 million people, so there's a decent chance the majority of Cuban people has attended at least one meeting. This is why Cuba being slandered as some dictatorship by some reactionary gusano living in Miami completely falls flat.
There's a Marxist concept called commodity fetishism, the idea that the social relations towards commodity production gets obscured and turns into inherent properties of the commodity itself. So, the fact that a certain car is more expensive than another car is taken as evidence that the car is somehow better rather than the social relations that goes towards producing that car. Maybe the more expensive car is just more expensive because they don't exploit their workers as much or the car company didn't get as much government subsidies and so on. The consequence of commodity fetishism is that the labor that goes towards producing that commodity is ignored, which means if that labor is exploitative, consumers won't recognize or care about that exploitation because it's not even factored in when they see the commodity. This is why gamers start malding when you talk about how game development is filled with exploitative practices like crunch time and rampant sexual harassment.
The reverse side is another Marxist concept called worker alienation, the fact that workers are alienated from the commodities they produce. A worker has no control in what they produce or how they produce it. They largely do what their supervisors tell them to do, which goes up to the chain of command up to the owner, who largely plans out what commodities gets produced based on what the market demands. So, the ultimate arbitrator of what and how a commodity gets produced isn't even a human, but an inhuman entity called the market. The ultimate expression of worker alienation would be something like a grocery worker living on food stamps forced to destroy excess food by dumping it and pouring bleach on it so homeless people can't dumpster dive.
If you combine the two, you have a situation where workers are alienated from the commodity they produce and consumers are alienated from production process of the commodity. To use chocolate as an example, you have cocoa farmers who never tasted chocolate before and chocolate consumers who have never seen what coca beans actually look like. This is a form of estrangement between worker and consumer. And since every worker is themselves a consumer and almost every consumer is themselves a worker, what commodity fetishism and worker alienation ultimately entails is workers being alienated from each other, everyone living as atomized individuals, which leads to the horrible capitalist hellworld we live in right now. This is why nobody gives a shit about wearing mask.
But in a socialist society where commodity fetishism and worker alienation aren't a thing (or far less of a thing because there's probably going to be some residual forms of commodity fetishism and worker alienation), consumers will recognize the labor that goes towards making the commodity and workers will have a say in what or how the commodity gets produced. To finally loop back to things like Funko Pops, what if the workers in the Funko Pops factory say, "Fuck you, we're not producing this plastic crap anymore. We're going to make plastic plates for disabled people who have a hard time washing dishes instead. If you want Funko Pop, you can go make it yourself."
I should've used the example of workers refusing to make the niche product. This is how capitalist ideology like commodity fetishism constantly slips into your mind. But to rephrase the question: why should workers be forced against their will to produce what they and the vast majority of society consider to be useless junk for a small select minority? Is this not unfair for the workers who have to make that useless shit?
I think useless niche products will still exist, but they will most likely exist on an artisan level. Furry porn is a niche product, but you don't need a factory to produce furry porn. Furry porn is something between the client and the artist. In fact, the production of furry porn isn't as hard hit by commodity fetishism and worker alienation. The client has to research what artist they want and the artist has a clue of what particular sexual tastes the client has when the client asks for a commission. Unlike the production of most commodities, the production of furry porn preserves the social relationship between consumer and worker. This means that in a socialist society, the production of furry porn would largely be the same. If anything, it's the production of other commodities that will start to closely resemble the production of furry porn.
deleted by creator