Help, please!

[Velkas]

I was debating Anarchist Communism with someone (a socialist, who believes in a meritocratic rather than fully equal system), and he had some criticisms of Anarchist Communism which I haven't been able to find a way to argue against his criticisms.

His criticisms are the following:

It may be just, from the perspective of the weaker of two groups, but look at what you're proposing from the standpoint of the man who can work hard, and does. He's going to see the bum on the street getting everything he gets, so his desire to work hard will fade to nothing.

That's why I have to question the practicality and wisdom of such a policy. If we fulfill everyone desires, equally, all of society will suffer. Everyone will mooch off of everyone else, because it's easier, and nothing will get done anymore.

Think about what you're proposing from an evolutionary viewpoint. If you help the sickly creature so that it has an equal chance of reproduction as the strong and healthy creature, you're only harming future generations. If you reinforce bad behavior (being a selfish bum) with the same rewards as good behavior (hard selfless work), there will be no incentive for the bum to make himself better. The hard worker will see that the bum gets the same reward for less work, and that good-old lazy gene will kick in... Why work hard for a reward, when you can get it for less effort? We see that same lesson in all life on Earth: from plants to apex predators, saving energy by being lazy is the universal survival tactic.

Showing a little favoritism to the naturally gifted is the lesser of two evils, and the only logical choice. At least this way, our society is guaranteed to have a workforce that propels itself, even if there is a slight tint of injustice in the way it works. It's still far superior to capitalism. If we make the bonus things varied enough, then someone who couldn't do task A or B could do task C, right? There are myriad ways to help society, and get recognized.

There's no such thing as a true utopia. Every pro has a con. The trick is finding the right balance, and stacking the deck so that your pros address all the really important things.

[Catbus]

It may be just, from the perspective of the weaker of two groups, but look at what you're proposing from the standpoint of the man who can work hard, and does. He's going to see the bum on the street getting everything he gets, so his desire to work hard will fade to nothing.

Unless my views on how things would work in an communist society are wrong, I'm pretty sure that a person couldn't just leech off of society. If person A works, and person B doesn't (and they have no justifiable reason not to work), then why should the community give person B the resources to get by? Why waste electricity on someone who isn't willing to work when it can be used on something that's beneficial to the whole.


That's why I have to question the practicality and wisdom of such a policy. If we fulfill everyone desires, equally, all of society will suffer. Everyone will mooch off of everyone else, because it's easier, and nothing will get done anymore.

Once again, I don't think that people who don't work (for no justifiable reason) would be benefited by a communist society.



Think about what you're proposing from an evolutionary viewpoint. If you help the sickly creature so that it has an equal chance of reproduction as the strong and healthy creature, you're only harming future generations.

I would ask him to go into more detail on this, because the way he puts it, it sounds like we shouldn't help those who can't work. Helping those with debilitating illnesses to live comfortably can't possibly harm future generations.


If you reinforce bad behavior (being a selfish bum) with the same rewards as good behavior (hard selfless work), there will be no incentive for the bum to make himself better.

Once again, I'm pretty sure no one suggests this.

[Decolonize The Left]

I was debating Anarchist Communism with someone (a socialist, who believes in a meritocratic rather than fully equal system), and he had some criticisms of Anarchist Communism which I haven't been able to find a way to argue against his criticisms.

His criticisms are the following:

I shall address them presently.


It may be just, from the perspective of the weaker of two groups, but look at what you're proposing from the standpoint of the man who can work hard, and does. He's going to see the bum on the street getting everything he gets, so his desire to work hard will fade to nothing.

Who is "the bum?" Why doesn't the bum contribute?

The truth is that this individual has posited this bum, not fully understanding anarchism-communism. Under such a system, all individuals would be free to contribute to society in many different fashions - a plethora of fashions such that each individual would be capable of contributing without extending their abilities beyond capability.


That's why I have to question the practicality and wisdom of such a policy. If we fulfill everyone desires, equally, all of society will suffer. Everyone will mooch off of everyone else, because it's easier, and nothing will get done anymore.

All "desires" will not be filled. Anarchism-communism is merely a synthesis of anarchist political ideology and communist economic theory.

What this means, in practical terms, is that the means of production will be controlled by the proletariat and this control will be conducted and exercised in a de-centralized, direct democracy.


Think about what you're proposing from an evolutionary viewpoint. If you help the sickly creature so that it has an equal chance of reproduction as the strong and healthy creature, you're only harming future generations.

I admire his Nietzschean approach, but it is utterly incorrect. Currently, the sickly and the strong have equal chances at reproduction and hence this isn't actually an objection.


If you reinforce bad behavior (being a selfish bum) with the same rewards as good behavior (hard selfless work), there will be no incentive for the bum to make himself better. The hard worker will see that the bum gets the same reward for less work, and that good-old lazy gene will kick in... Why work hard for a reward, when you can get it for less effort? We see that same lesson in all life on Earth: from plants to apex predators, saving energy by being lazy is the universal survival tactic.

This is a classic objection to leftism. It has been dealt with by countless individuals, in countless arguments, and yet will have to be dealt with countless times in the future.

This objection is founded entirely upon misunderstandings. The individual raising this question has not considered the material realities of a leftist society, whereby private property has been abolished, the means of production controlled by the workers, and direct democracy implemented. Within such a society, "bums" couldn't exist. A "bum" is a creation of a class society, for the bum is that individual which cannot survive according to the rules of the ruling class.


Showing a little favoritism to the naturally gifted is the lesser of two evils, and the only logical choice.

I see no logic yet.


At least this way, our society is guaranteed to have a workforce that propels itself, even if there is a slight tint of injustice in the way it works. It's still far superior to capitalism. If we make the bonus things varied enough, then someone who couldn't do task A or B could do task C, right? There are myriad ways to help society, and get recognized.

Within anarchism-communism, "a workforce" isn't distinct from "a non-workforce." Within such a society, the workforce is everyone.


There's no such thing as a true utopia. Every pro has a con. The trick is finding the right balance, and stacking the deck so that your pros address all the really important things.

Pros and cons are constructed from a specific perspective, in this case a moral one. The economic theory of communism is rooted in material reality - more specifically - historical materialism. It does not cast pros and cons beyond the material conditions of the working class.

This individual is confusing his/her personal beliefs and moral prejudices with an analysis of a political/economic system.

- August

[JohannGE]

I risk being shot down in flames for being an idealist but I believe anyone who wished, in a genuinely anarcho-communist society, to deliberatly and conciously take advantage of their brothers and sisters by not contributing to their full ability, would need help and education, not discriminating against.

To "sponge" might appear to be an easy and attractive option to some but I believe that it would actualy be severely detrimental to personal satisfaction, happiness and developement (never mind anti-social) and ultimatly to be self destructive.

How any potential "bums" might be enlightened of these, to me, self evident facts is another matter altogether.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I was debating Anarchist Communism with someone (a socialist, who believes in a meritocratic rather than fully equal system), and he had some criticisms of Anarchist Communism which I haven't been able to find a way to argue against his criticisms.

Then he isn't a Socialist.



It may be just, from the perspective of the weaker of two groups, but look at what you're proposing from the standpoint of the man who can work hard, and does. He's going to see the bum on the street getting everything he gets, so his desire to work hard will fade to nothing.

Firstly, there won't be any bums as everyone will have a good standard of living. Complete strawman argument. The work hard argument is a fallacy that Capitalists (as this person is definitely not socialist) will throw at you. It has proven, when workers gain control of the means of production that productivity will increase. A quote from Anarchist Economics by Abraham Guillen:

"Despite their limitations, the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists established libertarian collectives where the means of production and exchange were socialised, through direct management by the workers and not through imposition by the state. Economic surplus was also self-managed. Also, and once again in contrast to the USSR, the workers of the collectives were rewarded equally, without productivity falling or initiative lacking. The bourgeoisie and the bureaucracy believe that if there is not a large wage differential, initiative and interest in increasing production will be lost. This idea was shown to be false in the Spanish libertarian collectives, where solidarity between the collectivists made self-government function satisfactorily"

I have looked at everything else he said and it seems to be just regurgitating the first point he made.

[Invincible Summer]

You know how when some people win the lottery or have lots of money from inheritance, yet still do some work/volunteer, etc? When people have their needs taken care of and therefore don't need to work their asses off to survive (just like in an anarchist/communist society!) they still choose to invest their time and effort into endeavors which they feel contribute to society (or at least the community).

I don't buy the argument that anyone loses his/her will to work due to the situation outlined in the OP; just look at workplaces in capitalism, a supposedly meritocratic system... your co-worker may get a raise/promotion even if he/she doesn't "deserve it" because they are deemed as "less skilled" or "unworthy" of the raise/promotion. Yet it's not like all the other workers who feel this way stop working because they feel it's unfair. There might be some complaining, but it hardly grinds things to a halt.