Jobs in a communist paradise

[RedArno]

Let's imagine that the great worker's revolution came by and now the entire world is communist. It only seems fair to me that everyone gets according to his needs, but surely everyone will have to contribute to this.

How would jobs work in a communist world? Can we guarantee that there will be jobs for everyone? What would happen if there weren't? Would let's say... 2-hour days exist if every single person in the world would start working? Would we need to invent new products just for the sake of job creating?

Are there any direct views on this, cause I get that question from a lot of people who argue with me about communism and frankly, I can't answer it very well.

Thanks.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

I think if everyone really does need to have a job in the whole world then yes something like 1 or 2 hour work days would suffice :) as long as things are getting done. personally if someone cant find a job that is still ok, because the world wont be run on capitalism, and everything will still be a, ok.

[Potemkin]

In a true communist society (stateless, classless society), production and distribution would be based on the needs of the community. Capitalist "production for the sake of production" would be eliminated, as well as all the useless jobs that go along with it (sales, real estate, most service industry jobs, etc.). This would eliminate huge amounts of "work" that shouldn't exist in the first place. Take the remaining jobs and 100% employment, and you dramatically decrease the amount of time per day per individual that people need to contribute.

Yes, things still need to get done, but I think the goal of a true communist society should be as close to 100% unemployment as possible. This is done by spreading the workload as thinly among everyone as possible, reorganizing the work that remains to be more pleasant (even fun), though all members do need to contribute to the abilities.

As an anarchist communist, I recognize that everyone, regardless of ability, has a unique contribution to make to society that would be embraced under true communism, in return for a fulfillment of each individual's needs.

Again, as for "job creating" the goal should be to have the maximum amount of free time possible for the individuals in the community to live their lives the way they see fit. This means eliminating production of crap (or I guess Marx would say, overcoming the "fetishization of commodities") and focusing on production aimed solely at meeting the needs of the community, which are much less than current capitalist production levels, especially with current technology.

This does not mean that a reduction in production would equate to a lesser standard of living. Revolution does not mean poverty! With the expropriation of the ruling class and the even distribution of wealth, the living standards of perhaps 99% of the people on the planet would rise considerably.

[RedArno]

Thanks for your replies, but while reading them I came up with a new question.
Say if all banana plantations would be in Africa (hypothetically) but suddenly the need for bananas drops to 20% of it's original amount. As you guys say we wouldn't keep producing the bananas just for the sake of producing, but what would happen to the people working there? Would they get even less hours to work? Would they "have" to move to another part of the world/country to go work in another factory or something?
If they would get less hours, wouldn't that be unfair for the other workers on let's say olive plantations in Italy?

[Potemkin]

There are many points brought up in your second post, RedArno.

Firstly, from an anarchist-communist perspective, decentralization is vital. This means that all banana production would not be concentrated in one (or a few) location(s). The production in each locality reflects the needs of the people on a local level, as well as the assets each locality possesses. Now, each locality -- neighborhood, municipality, whatever -- probably could not produce everything needed from within the community itself. In this case, the different localities would enter into federative relationships for mutual aid, and might produce more of something (bananas, in this case) that they are better able to produce to exchange for something they cannot produce.

As an aside, the federations of localities might decide that in certain circumstances, it is more efficient to consolidate production. For instance, it's probably more efficient to have one plant to manufacture cars for a large area, rather than to have each locality build their own from scratch. In most cases, however, it is more efficient to have each locality fulfill their own needs to the best of their ability. For instance, it is not efficient or environmental to ship bananas across the world.

Moving on, this question does not take into account the entire reworking of "work." I don't think people would be assigned a specific position. It would fluctuate based on the needs of the community, and the strengths and interests of the individual. Brain work would be mixed with manual work; there would be more variety, and less monotony. Work would be more humane, productive, efficient, and enjoyable.

Therefore, no one would ever be laid off -- they would find some other way to contribute to society if what they were doing was no longer needed. In this way, there would always be 100% employment with the lowest amount of time required per person.

[senorsassycat]

if our production methods were efficient (amont produced by one person/how much one person uses) enough the ideal situation would be shortened years. at 200% efficiency 1/2 years 400% 1/4 years ect.

the truth of the matter is that we do have over 200% efficiency in most industrys but people are still over worked. this is one of the core values of comunism that we need to get out there.
more people would be on our side if they knew how overworked they were.

[JimmyJazz]

Say if all banana plantations would be in Africa (hypothetically) but suddenly the need for bananas drops to 20% of it's original amount.

Dude. Half the world is on an insufficient diet. The need for food is a lot bigger than what gets produced. Market "demand" =/= need.

In fact, I think the bottom line answer to your question is: there's loads of shit that needs to be done, that isn't getting done under capitalism because it doesn't turn a profit. Because those who need it don't have money. There's more than enough need to put everyone to work.

And if the job gets done with shorter working days all around, bonus. There's no way to really forecast that with any precision though.

[Yazman]

Better =/= paradise. I've never met any communist or anarchist who thinks that.

[alhop10]

Dude. Half the world is on an insufficient diet. The need for food is a lot bigger than what gets produced. Market "demand" =/= need.

Actually, the total amount of food produced in the world is more than enough to get every person very fat. Its just that the most advanced countries waste it all!

"The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day (FAO 2002, p.9). The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food."
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm

[Schrödinger's Cat]

For future purposes, please avoid the word "paradise."