: [Dull Marxist theory deleted]No, why don't we look at a democratic conception of production again:
A truly democratic (socialist) society will decide collectively what its labor priorities are. Unlike THIS (capitalist) society where immiserated proletarians crank out vast piles of luxuries they will never enjoy for the 'liberty-loving' bourgeoisie and their boot-licking labor aristocrats to enjoy. If enough people want something (in a collective economy), then the level of productivity will exist to met those demands; if there are not enough people, then the level of productivity will be too low to sustain the demand.
Consider how the organic composition of capital ('capital' being investment in a socialist economy) determines productivity. If a 1000 people want to spend their free time making scuba gear, great (that's unalienated labor)---but they will also have to spend some of their free time getting the raw materials and making the machines that make the scuba gear. Since the abolition of alienated labor, there will no longer be wage-slaves who 'just happen' to do these tasks in the first place.
So, to answer your question directly (and I believe in being direct, as you no doubt noticed), a lot of luxuries would probably get nixed in a collective economy. On the other hand, you wouldn't be compelled to print the collected works of Lenin for me if the majority of NONALIENATED workers said to hell with that!
And THIS is your response:
: Are you totally without any possessions at all in this world? Get off your high horse for a change.
Stoller:
MY point is that SOCIETY AS A WHOLE should make these determinations.
: I haven't formed an opinion on that validity of that assertion yet, which is why I'm talking to you (dull though I may be, but you seem like an understanding and patient type, so do bear with me).
Well, I've now explained it THREE times.
You seem more concerned with whether or not you get to scuba in the socialist future BEFORE making a committment TO socialism.
That's opportunism, mister.
None.
