No, I mean goods are not distributed according to need. They’re distributed according to the profit they can make, and this is bad. Capitalism is incredibly inefficient at distributing goods to people that actually need them. Always remember that the number of empty homes far outnumbers the number of homeless people.
This really is nonsense that is hardly worth responding to. Lots of people are stuck in low-paying jobs they can’t escape from, and many people don’t have a route towards a higher standing of living.
Decreasing prices only ostensibly benefits the buyers. An increase in supply of goods beyond the purchasing power of the market does decrease prices, but this in turn decreases the profits of capital. As the capitalist is forced to decrease production, and thus lower work hours and fire people, this in turn decreases the purchasing power of the market as people lose their jobs, and so prices decrease even further, and the cycle goes on. This is the root of economic crisis under capitalism - the tendency for the supply of goods to increase beyond the purchasing power of the market. Capitalism is the only economic system where producing an abundance of goods can be a bad thing! Capitalism enforces artificial scarcity, and only the transition towards communism will be able to solve this insanity within the economy.
The root of the tendency for the supply of goods to increase beyond the purchasing power of the market comes from the fact that the worker under capitalism is not paid the full value of what they produce. A factory worker who produces $80 worth of goods in a day may only be paid $40 for that day of labour. There is a $40 difference between what they produce and what they can buy, and this means that there is always eventually a difference between the value of the goods in the market and the value of goods that can be bought back. This makes capitalism an incredibly unstable system, being thrown into economic crisis after crisis.
Exactly, which makes it harder to distribute labour equally. It is better to have two people doing as much work as possible than ten people doing a minimal amount of work each. Communism would solve this problem, because an individual’s access to material necessities would not depend on the amount of hours they work.
They are both problems. It is bad under capitalism when someone cannot get enough hours to work, because it means they are unable to effectively provide for themselves. However, looking at it more broadly, it is also absurd that everyone should have to work a certain amount of hours a day when it’s clear that we could organize labour in such a way that each individual person could do less work. However, capitalism makes this more rational form of organizing labour impossible.
A bureaucracy existed in the USSR that was greatly at odds with the masses. This bureaucracy was a fetter on the development of socialism, and should have been abolished through political revolution. When discussing the modern potential for socialism, I do not believe that the socialism antagonisms that gave rise to the bureaucracy - the lack of productivity in the USSR - would be an issue today, though socialism would need to become an international phenomenon.
The USSR used prices because productivity hadn’t yet developed to a point where goods could be distributed without any regulation at all. I don’t think prices would be necessary though - labour tokens could be used, “certificates” showing someone had performed labour.
As I said, for most people this isn’t the reality of life under capitalism. That also doesn’t really solve the anarchy of the capitalist market, and the tendency for capitalism to enter crises in which the necessities of life are often ripped away from people.
The state and capital are tightly interwoven. The state exists to mediate class antagonisms, and the state works for the interests of those who own the most capital. The only way to abolish the state is to abolish capitalism.