Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[Tehon]

The capitalist is unnecessary to the process of producing a commodity. The only two requirements are nature and labor. The capitalist increases the cost to society in the process of producing the means of our existence. The trade off is that we have developed the techniques of production and increased our wealth at a more rapid pace.

I'm always impressed the ability of Marxist blind themselves to the function of capitalists in a free market economy. They entertain a cartoonish stereotype, but never give it much though beyond that.

In the early nineties, I had a formative discussion with a former economic planner for the Soviet Union. He was insistent that the most important lesson of the USSR experiment was the intractable difficulty of managing a command economy. From his perspective, that's what really sunk them - not the Cold War, not corruption - but the impossibility of equitably commanding production of goods and services from a centralized authority. He said, that in later years, they conceded that the planning needed to be more localized and distributed - but even with that improvement, the local agents had very little incentive to efficiently distribute the capital entrusted to them, ie no skin in the game.

The point is, getting rid of capitalists doesn't do away with the need to distribute capital. Someone still has to decide which projects go forward and which do not. Someone still has to organize people and resources in a way that produces real value - use value, not Marx's abstractions.

You didn't answer the question. I wonder why.

 

[Tehon]

Marx doesn't concern himself with the market here. The market obscures the definite value contained in a commodity, as has been plainly demonstrated in this thread. He looks at commodities as exchange values, how they compare quantitatively one to another.

I want keep this post as brief as possible. Let me provide an example of how labor is exploited. One that I've already used.

If I hired someone to chop down a tree in my yard, mill the wood and create a piece of furniture that I intended to exchange for something of equal value with the intent of building capital, how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?

Your example does exactly what I claimed Marx is doing all along - it conflates market value with your "socially necessary labor value". When you say that a capitalist gives "the worker less than the value that he created through his labor" you're mixing values. The amount the worker is paid is the market value of their labor and, as you've acknowledged repeatedly, has nothing to do with the "socially necessary labor value" of the products they create - they are two different measurements of two different things. It's like comparing inches and pounds. It makes no sense.

You didn't answer the question that was posed.

If I hired someone to chop down a tree in my yard, mill the wood and create a piece of furniture that I intended to exchange for something of equal value with the intent of building capital, how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?

Nothing is being conflated.

Ostrich much? Explain "giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor". How can the amount you pay the worker - the market value of their work - be less than the "socially necessary labor hours". How can you compare hours and dollars?

You didn't answer the question. It is fundamentally sound.

 

[Tehon]

Marx doesn't concern himself with the market here. The market obscures the definite value contained in a commodity, as has been plainly demonstrated in this thread. He looks at commodities as exchange values, how they compare quantitatively one to another.

I want keep this post as brief as possible. Let me provide an example of how labor is exploited. One that I've already used.

If I hired someone to chop down a tree in my yard, mill the wood and create a piece of furniture that I intended to exchange for something of equal value with the intent of building capital, how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?

Your example does exactly what I claimed Marx is doing all along - it conflates market value with your "socially necessary labor value". When you say that a capitalist gives "the worker less than the value that he created through his labor" you're mixing values. The amount the worker is paid is the market value of their labor and, as you've acknowledged repeatedly, has nothing to do with the "socially necessary labor value" of the products they create - they are two different measurements of two different things. It's like comparing inches and pounds. It makes no sense.

You didn't answer the question that was posed.

Because the question makes no sense. It compares two different unrelated measures and pretends it's a meaningful comparison.

If I hired someone to chop down a tree in my yard, mill the wood and create a piece of furniture that I intended to exchange for something of equal value with the intent of building capital, how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?

Nothing is being conflated.

Ostrich much? Explain "giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor". How can the amount you pay the worker - the market value of their work - be less than the "socially necessary labor hours". How can you compare hours and dollars?

We are not discussing the market here, we are talking about an exchange of equal value between two individuals. You are attempting to obfuscate.

 

[Tehon]

Because the question makes no sense. It compares two different unrelated measures and pretends it's a meaningful comparison.

The question makes perfect sense. It is not conflating two different values. There is only one value represented in the question. It is you who attempts to obfuscate because answering the question proves Marx correct.

Dismissed

 

[bripat9643]

Marx doesn't concern himself with the market here. The market obscures the definite value contained in a commodity, as has been plainly demonstrated in this thread. He looks at commodities as exchange values, how they compare quantitatively one to another.

I want keep this post as brief as possible. Let me provide an example of how labor is exploited. One that I've already used.

If I hired someone to chop down a tree in my yard, mill the wood and create a piece of furniture that I intended to exchange for something of equal value with the intent of building capital, how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?

Your example does exactly what I claimed Marx is doing all along - it conflates market value with your "socially necessary labor value". When you say that a capitalist gives "the worker less than the value that he created through his labor" you're mixing values. The amount the worker is paid is the market value of their labor and, as you've acknowledged repeatedly, has nothing to do with the "socially necessary labor value" of the products they create - they are two different measurements of two different things. It's like comparing inches and pounds. It makes no sense.

You didn't answer the question that was posed.

Because the question makes no sense. It compares two different unrelated measures and pretends it's a meaningful comparison.

If I hired someone to chop down a tree in my yard, mill the wood and create a piece of furniture that I intended to exchange for something of equal value with the intent of building capital, how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?

Nothing is being conflated.

Ostrich much? Explain "giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor". How can the amount you pay the worker - the market value of their work - be less than the "socially necessary labor hours". How can you compare hours and dollars?

On the one hand tehon claims that the "intrinsic value" is simply the labor cost of a product, but on the other hand he claims labor is being ripped off if itsn't paid all the revenue sale of the product generates. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

 

[bripat9643]

Marx doesn't concern himself with the market here. The market obscures the definite value contained in a commodity, as has been plainly demonstrated in this thread. He looks at commodities as exchange values, how they compare quantitatively one to another.

I want keep this post as brief as possible. Let me provide an example of how labor is exploited. One that I've already used.

If I hired someone to chop down a tree in my yard, mill the wood and create a piece of furniture that I intended to exchange for something of equal value with the intent of building capital, how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?

Your example does exactly what I claimed Marx is doing all along - it conflates market value with your "socially necessary labor value". When you say that a capitalist gives "the worker less than the value that he created through his labor" you're mixing values. The amount the worker is paid is the market value of their labor and, as you've acknowledged repeatedly, has nothing to do with the "socially necessary labor value" of the products they create - they are two different measurements of two different things. It's like comparing inches and pounds. It makes no sense.

You didn't answer the question that was posed.

Because the question makes no sense. It compares two different unrelated measures and pretends it's a meaningful comparison.

If I hired someone to chop down a tree in my yard, mill the wood and create a piece of furniture that I intended to exchange for something of equal value with the intent of building capital, how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?

Nothing is being conflated.

Ostrich much? Explain "giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor". How can the amount you pay the worker - the market value of their work - be less than the "socially necessary labor hours". How can you compare hours and dollars?

We are not discussing the market here, we are talking about an exchange of equal value between two individuals. You are attempting to obfuscate.

Every voluntary exchange is a market exchange. The only kind of exchanges that aren't market exchanges are the kind where force is involved, like armed robbery and taxation.

 

[Tehon]

Marx doesn't concern himself with the market here. The market obscures the definite value contained in a commodity, as has been plainly demonstrated in this thread. He looks at commodities as exchange values, how they compare quantitatively one to another.

I want keep this post as brief as possible. Let me provide an example of how labor is exploited. One that I've already used.

If I hired someone to chop down a tree in my yard, mill the wood and create a piece of furniture that I intended to exchange for something of equal value with the intent of building capital, how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?

Your example does exactly what I claimed Marx is doing all along - it conflates market value with your "socially necessary labor value". When you say that a capitalist gives "the worker less than the value that he created through his labor" you're mixing values. The amount the worker is paid is the market value of their labor and, as you've acknowledged repeatedly, has nothing to do with the "socially necessary labor value" of the products they create - they are two different measurements of two different things. It's like comparing inches and pounds. It makes no sense.

You didn't answer the question that was posed.

Because the question makes no sense. It compares two different unrelated measures and pretends it's a meaningful comparison.

If I hired someone to chop down a tree in my yard, mill the wood and create a piece of furniture that I intended to exchange for something of equal value with the intent of building capital, how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?

Nothing is being conflated.

Ostrich much? Explain "giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor". How can the amount you pay the worker - the market value of their work - be less than the "socially necessary labor hours". How can you compare hours and dollars?

On the one hand tehon claims that the "intrinsic value" is simply the labor cost of a product, but on the other hand he claims labor is being ripped off if itsn't paid all the revenue sale of the product generates. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

I never said the intrinsic value was the labor cost, liar. You were already asked to produce the evidence that I did. You provided nothing.

You're dismissed as well.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a mixed-market economy. Socialism must start with a social Contract like our Constitutions.

 

[Billy000]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

Citation needed. It looks to me like you're considering infrastructure as Socialist, despite that being totally false, and debunked by me the last time we discussed it.

There’s really no need to cite anything. Any program funded by tax payers is socialism. You will figure that out if you look up the actual definition. Our defense budget, for example, is the biggest socialist institution in the world. Lol and of course our infrastructure is socialist. It’s funded by tax payers.

Just looked up the actual definition.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
   synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
   radicalism, progressivism, social democracy;
   communism, Marxism, labor movement
   "my appreciation for certain aspects of socialism does not mean I'm a socialist"
   • policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
     synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
     radicalism, progressivism, social democracy;
     communism, Marxism, labor movement
     "my appreciation for certain aspects of socialism does not mean I'm a socialist"
   • (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

So -any- tax funded program is socialist? Not unless it actually takes control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange and puts them in the hands of the "community as a whole" (government). Or if it's based on the theory that all means of production should be under such control.

Seems that YOU can't seem to accurately define socialism, either.

This all reminds me of the bible. Something about a speck in my neighbor's eye and a plank in mine.

This isn’t hard to figure out. Let’s put it all into context. This is from your own post:

“a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”

Lol are you stupid enough to think “community as a whole” is the government itself? No obviously it’s referring to citizens. “The means of production” means programs funded by tax payer revenue coming from the citizens.

 

[bripat9643]

Marx doesn't concern himself with the market here. The market obscures the definite value contained in a commodity, as has been plainly demonstrated in this thread. He looks at commodities as exchange values, how they compare quantitatively one to another.

I want keep this post as brief as possible. Let me provide an example of how labor is exploited. One that I've already used.

Your example does exactly what I claimed Marx is doing all along - it conflates market value with your "socially necessary labor value". When you say that a capitalist gives "the worker less than the value that he created through his labor" you're mixing values. The amount the worker is paid is the market value of their labor and, as you've acknowledged repeatedly, has nothing to do with the "socially necessary labor value" of the products they create - they are two different measurements of two different things. It's like comparing inches and pounds. It makes no sense.

You didn't answer the question that was posed.

Because the question makes no sense. It compares two different unrelated measures and pretends it's a meaningful comparison.

If I hired someone to chop down a tree in my yard, mill the wood and create a piece of furniture that I intended to exchange for something of equal value with the intent of building capital, how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?

Nothing is being conflated.

Ostrich much? Explain "giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor". How can the amount you pay the worker - the market value of their work - be less than the "socially necessary labor hours". How can you compare hours and dollars?

On the one hand tehon claims that the "intrinsic value" is simply the labor cost of a product, but on the other hand he claims labor is being ripped off if itsn't paid all the revenue sale of the product generates. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

I never said the intrinsic value was the labor cost, liar. You were already asked to produce the evidence that I did. You provided nothing.

You're dismissed as well.

Then what is the intrinsic value? It's not the market price. It's not the labor cost. So what is it? How is it determined?

 

[Tehon]

Your example does exactly what I claimed Marx is doing all along - it conflates market value with your "socially necessary labor value". When you say that a capitalist gives "the worker less than the value that he created through his labor" you're mixing values. The amount the worker is paid is the market value of their labor and, as you've acknowledged repeatedly, has nothing to do with the "socially necessary labor value" of the products they create - they are two different measurements of two different things. It's like comparing inches and pounds. It makes no sense.

You didn't answer the question that was posed.

Because the question makes no sense. It compares two different unrelated measures and pretends it's a meaningful comparison.

If I hired someone to chop down a tree in my yard, mill the wood and create a piece of furniture that I intended to exchange for something of equal value with the intent of building capital, how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?

Nothing is being conflated.

Ostrich much? Explain "giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor". How can the amount you pay the worker - the market value of their work - be less than the "socially necessary labor hours". How can you compare hours and dollars?

On the one hand tehon claims that the "intrinsic value" is simply the labor cost of a product, but on the other hand he claims labor is being ripped off if itsn't paid all the revenue sale of the product generates. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

I never said the intrinsic value was the labor cost, liar. You were already asked to produce the evidence that I did. You provided nothing.

You're dismissed as well.

Then what is the intrinsic value? It's not the market price. It's not the labor cost. So what is it? How is it determined?

Put on your dunce cap and go sit in the corner with the op.

 

[bripat9643]

You didn't answer the question that was posed.

Because the question makes no sense. It compares two different unrelated measures and pretends it's a meaningful comparison.

Nothing is being conflated.

Ostrich much? Explain "giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor". How can the amount you pay the worker - the market value of their work - be less than the "socially necessary labor hours". How can you compare hours and dollars?

On the one hand tehon claims that the "intrinsic value" is simply the labor cost of a product, but on the other hand he claims labor is being ripped off if itsn't paid all the revenue sale of the product generates. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

I never said the intrinsic value was the labor cost, liar. You were already asked to produce the evidence that I did. You provided nothing.

You're dismissed as well.

Then what is the intrinsic value? It's not the market price. It's not the labor cost. So what is it? How is it determined?

Put on your dunce cap and go sit in the corner with the op.

In other words, you can't explain it. You've been using these terms, but you thought no one was keeping track of how you used them. That's the problem with Marxism. There's a lot waving the magic wand around and misdirection. It's quackery, not economics.

There is no such thing as "intrinsic value." That's a myth left over from the days before economics examined the issue of value. There is only the market price.

The labor theory of value is erroneous. If someone spends 1000 hours building a piece of furniture and then spills paint all over it, he has produced nothing of value. That value of a commodity can change by 90% in a single day. The empirical evidence that the labor theory of value is invalid is massive and irrefutable.

 

[dblack]

The capitalist is unnecessary to the process of producing a commodity. The only two requirements are nature and labor. The capitalist increases the cost to society in the process of producing the means of our existence. The trade off is that we have developed the techniques of production and increased our wealth at a more rapid pace.

I'm always impressed the ability of Marxist blind themselves to the function of capitalists in a free market economy. They entertain a cartoonish stereotype, but never give it much though beyond that.

In the early nineties, I had a formative discussion with a former economic planner for the Soviet Union. He was insistent that the most important lesson of the USSR experiment was the intractable difficulty of managing a command economy. From his perspective, that's what really sunk them - not the Cold War, not corruption - but the impossibility of equitably commanding production of goods and services from a centralized authority. He said, that in later years, they conceded that the planning needed to be more localized and distributed - but even with that improvement, the local agents had very little incentive to efficiently distribute the capital entrusted to them, ie no skin in the game.

The point is, getting rid of capitalists doesn't do away with the need to distribute capital. Someone still has to decide which projects go forward and which do not. Someone still has to organize people and resources in a way that produces real value - use value, not Marx's abstractions.

You didn't answer the question. I wonder why.

Because the question contains an internal contradiction. I pointed it out to you. Resolve that, and I'll consider what's left of your question.

 

[dblack]

Because the question makes no sense. It compares two different unrelated measures and pretends it's a meaningful comparison.

The question makes perfect sense. It is not conflating two different values. There is only one value represented in the question. It is you who attempts to obfuscate because answering the question proves Marx correct.

Dismissed

Listen dude, you're not nearly smart enough to get pompous here. You're not making any sense and you've been called on it. Posturing and running away resolves nothing.

 

[dblack]

On the one hand tehon claims that the "intrinsic value" is simply the labor cost of a product, but on the other hand he claims labor is being ripped off if itsn't paid all the revenue sale of the product generates. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

Here's what I don't get: "how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?"

How can we establish that the pay given the worker, measured in dollars, is "less than" the value created through labor, which Tehon has claimed is measured in "accumulated labor hours"? If I pay the worker $100 and it takes him 5 hours to complete the job, for example, how do we decide if $100 is less than 5 hours? How does that even make any sense?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

Citation needed. It looks to me like you're considering infrastructure as Socialist, despite that being totally false, and debunked by me the last time we discussed it.

There’s really no need to cite anything. Any program funded by tax payers is socialism. You will figure that out if you look up the actual definition. Our defense budget, for example, is the biggest socialist institution in the world. Lol and of course our infrastructure is socialist. It’s funded by tax payers.

Just looked up the actual definition.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
   synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
   radicalism, progressivism, social democracy;
   communism, Marxism, labor movement
   "my appreciation for certain aspects of socialism does not mean I'm a socialist"
   • policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
     synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
     radicalism, progressivism, social democracy;
     communism, Marxism, labor movement
     "my appreciation for certain aspects of socialism does not mean I'm a socialist"
   • (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

So -any- tax funded program is socialist? Not unless it actually takes control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange and puts them in the hands of the "community as a whole" (government). Or if it's based on the theory that all means of production should be under such control.

Seems that YOU can't seem to accurately define socialism, either.

This all reminds me of the bible. Something about a speck in my neighbor's eye and a plank in mine.

This isn’t hard to figure out. Let’s put it all into context. This is from your own post:

“a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”

Lol are you stupid enough to think “community as a whole” is the government itself? No obviously it’s referring to citizens. “The means of production” means programs funded by tax payer revenue coming from the citizens.

If something isn't privately owned, it's collectively owned. If something is collectively owned, the government arbitrates it, making it government owned.

This isn't complicated. If the government is arbitrating it and there is no private owner, it means the government owns it.

 

[bripat9643]

On the one hand tehon claims that the "intrinsic value" is simply the labor cost of a product, but on the other hand he claims labor is being ripped off if itsn't paid all the revenue sale of the product generates. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

Here's what I don't get: "how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?"

How can we establish the pay you give the worker, measured in dollars, is "less than" the value created through labor, which Tehon has claimed is measured in "accumulated labor hours"? If I pay the worker $100 and it takes him 5 hours to complete the job, for example, how do we decide if $100 is less than 5 hours? How does that even make any sense?

That's the problem with the labor theory of value. Economists established around the turn of the century that value is entirely subjective. There's no way to measure it. Whenever someone starts talking about "intrinsic value," we know automatically that he's blowing hot gas. The only quantity that can be measured in economics is the market price, and even that is difficult at times. What's the market price of the Mona Lisa? No one really knows because it's never been sold.

 

[Billy000]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

Citation needed. It looks to me like you're considering infrastructure as Socialist, despite that being totally false, and debunked by me the last time we discussed it.

There’s really no need to cite anything. Any program funded by tax payers is socialism. You will figure that out if you look up the actual definition. Our defense budget, for example, is the biggest socialist institution in the world. Lol and of course our infrastructure is socialist. It’s funded by tax payers.

Just looked up the actual definition.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
   synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
   radicalism, progressivism, social democracy;
   communism, Marxism, labor movement
   "my appreciation for certain aspects of socialism does not mean I'm a socialist"
   • policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
     synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
     radicalism, progressivism, social democracy;
     communism, Marxism, labor movement
     "my appreciation for certain aspects of socialism does not mean I'm a socialist"
   • (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

So -any- tax funded program is socialist? Not unless it actually takes control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange and puts them in the hands of the "community as a whole" (government). Or if it's based on the theory that all means of production should be under such control.

Seems that YOU can't seem to accurately define socialism, either.

This all reminds me of the bible. Something about a speck in my neighbor's eye and a plank in mine.

This isn’t hard to figure out. Let’s put it all into context. This is from your own post:

“a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”

Lol are you stupid enough to think “community as a whole” is the government itself? No obviously it’s referring to citizens. “The means of production” means programs funded by tax payer revenue coming from the citizens.

If something isn't privately owned, it's collectively owned. If something is collectively owned, the government arbitrates it, making it government owned.

This isn't complicated. If the government is arbitrating it and there is no private owner, it means the government owns it.

The government itself is not funding and utilizing it therefore it belongs to the citizens.

 

[danielpalos]

let's muster the militia for a Pax Social

since we know, a Pax Capital, will never happen.

 

[rshermn]

let's muster the militia for a Pax Social

since we know, a Pax Capital, will never happen.

We are trying to make pricing way too difficult. The idea of pricing a painting, the Mona Lisa, for instance, has little to do with pricing a manufactured desk. So, think for a minute.
A painting ia a one off thing, and the price you will start off with will likely be what you would think the value (price) would be for like paintings. And, you are not going to offer the item at a fixed price, because it is difficult to find the upper range the painting would sell for. So, you sell it via auction, and let buyers set the selling price. Labor costs has nothing to do with it, except to suggest there is probably a minimum price under which you would not sell the painting. So, maybe you start the bidding at $1M and let buyers bid the price up until time runs out. Then, the highest bid IS the price.

But if you are building some item and making ongoing copies, you need a fixed price. So, you establish the price based on what similar items sell for. You set the price, offer the items for sale, and see what happens. You may well need to adjust prices up or down depending on how many are sold. Basic considerations include costs of manufacture in materials and labor costs. You obviously have to meet some minimum price, or you have no market price that you can live with. So, over time, you adjust materials, labor, and profit expectation to reach a market price at which you sell your product. And, over time, you can determine if the market price to continue, or if you need to take the product off market.

But this is the same whether you are a socialistic economy, or a capitalistic market, or some combination. It is done all the time, is not a difficult issue at all. And, as said, whether the economy is socialistic or capitalistic, the decision making on pricing and productions are pretty much the same. Price is determined by buyers and sellers. Period.