The "Free Loader" Problem

[Robocommie]

Comrades, what is the correct counterargument to the assertion that in a Socialist/Marxist system, the most able will not provide everything they CAN, because they're guaranteed to be provided what they NEED regardless, thus contributing to an overall decline in productivity?

[ckaihatsu]

Comrades, what is the correct counterargument to the assertion that in a Socialist/Marxist system, the most able will not provide everything they CAN, because they're guaranteed to be provided what they NEED regardless, thus contributing to an overall decline in productivity?


I'll speak to this since I'm personally of the position that a revolutionary post-capitalist society could *easily* provide for everyone's basic needs with just a nominal active workforce.

I was introduced to the "free loader" term in a sociology course when I was in school, and, now, with hindsight, I can see that it's entirely a bourgeois-abstract formulation to begin with. It's one of those overgeneralized, easily spoken, poorly-defined terms that, at its core, is an anti-proletarian attack -- what's implied or invoked in the term itself, "free loader", is the stereotype of the *outcast* -- the anachronistic village idiot in a modern world of material abundance.

We should consider the *issue* of productivity in dealing with this "problem". We're not normally called to deal with this kind of societal question since it's conventionally out of our hands regardless, but for our own sakes it's worth taking under consideration -- exactly *how much* *should* be produced, anyway? And for whom or what should it be produced?

Once we've really thought this over much of the work currently going on then begins to seem quite meaningless -- not that you'd need *me* to tell you this...(!) Obviously work can be highly leveraged these days, thanks to the use of computer routines and mechanized assembly-line production techniques. All the rest of the (non-industrial) work done in First World economies takes on more of a *political* feel (and function) because of this lack of *real* *material* production.

The "free loader" formulation also implies a certain mechanistic one-worker-one-lever or one-worker-one-keyboard kind of work arrangement, which, again, is ludicrous considering the bounty of our industrial landscape. This will go on regardless of "how able" -- another bourgeois-abstract bullshit formulation -- people are in general. In a revolutionary society *we* would be the ones judging the *machinery* on *how able* they are at producing things for us, instead of *us* being judged on "how able" we are at jumping through this-or-that set of hoops.

I've also noticed a slight trend in the bourgeois pop culture where a distinct anxiety or fear of computers and machines is being cultivated in the mass cultural psyche -- note movies like '2001: A Space Odyssey', 'The Matrix', 'A.I.', 'I, Robot', and '9', where the message is that the machines will inevitably run amuk -- certainly they can't be easily harnessed by the average person because they're going to either rebel or become the societal "other".

This is decidedly anti-proletarian because we, as workers, are supposed to be the ones collectively controlling the equipment and machinery *ourselves*, without the bourgeois financial middlemen. Without the interlocution of the ownership class we'd be able to run the greatest technologies directly for our own benefit. By keeping the surplus for ourselves we could easily have a worker-run society that *leveraged* a small amount of human labor for mass productivity instead of *enslaving* human labor to the inefficient maintenance of machinery and finance.


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Better than all the rest in humility --

[Robocommie]

Very interesting read, if I am following you correctly, the very notion of the "free loader" is an irrelevance and an abstraction because when the proletariat controls the means of production, we will not be producing limited amount of consumer goods to sell on a basis of supply and demand, but simply to cover all the demands of the population?

[ckaihatsu]

Very interesting read, if I am following you correctly, the very notion of the "free loader" is an irrelevance and an abstraction because when the proletariat controls the means of production, we will not be producing limited amount of consumer goods to sell on a basis of supply and demand, but simply to cover all the demands of the population?


Yeah, exactly. I'm tempted to call myself a POST-communist because the orthodox socialist / communist theory from the 19th century is already outdated. With today's runaway productivity we don't need to *limit* ourselves even to the Communist Manifesto's "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", which is rather strict.

Instead we should just figure out what needs to be *supplied* on a mass scale, and then *supply it*, with whatever workforce is available, with the proceeds going to fulfill *everyone*'s basic needs for living. Anything beyond a generally agreeable *baseline* of production and distribution would then necessarily become *political issues* to be worked out by the self-liberated working class in the interests of the greater society / humanity as a whole.

I have some of this outlined at my blog entry, and I'm attaching a few diagrams that are relevant here.

[cenv]

From the perspective of bourgeois ideology, a "decline in production" would be a terrible disaster. But wouldn't a life free from exploitation, alienation, and the constraints of capitalism be worth sacrificing the sadistic logic of material productivity for? We wouldn't need all the useless shit we make to compensate for the poverty of our alienated existence.

Even so, there's no reason to believe that a post-revolutionary society would correspond to a decline in production. People who currently work useless jobs (lots of the service sector, the financial industry, etc.) would be free to participate in socially useful tasks, and we would harness technology towards liberating ourselves from unnecessary labor.

Of course we'd work less in a post-revolutionary society. The real question is: so what?

[Robocommie]

Yeah, exactly. I'm tempted to call myself a POST-communist because the orthodox socialist / communist theory from the 19th century is already outdated. With today's runaway productivity we don't need to *limit* ourselves even to the Communist Manifesto's "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", which is rather strict.

Instead we should just figure out what needs to be *supplied* on a mass scale, and then *supply it*, with whatever workforce is available, with the proceeds going to fulfill *everyone*'s basic needs for living. Anything beyond a generally agreeable *baseline* of production and distribution would then necessarily become *political issues* to be worked out by the self-liberated working class in the interests of the greater society / humanity as a whole.

I have some of this outlined at my blog entry, and I'm attaching a few diagrams that are relevant here.

This is some very interesting stuff comrade, thank you for sharing this with me. You've given me a lot of food for thought.

Incidentally I notice you're active in Chicago, do you have a website or other information source to find out some about groups operating in central IL?

[Robocommie]

From the perspective of bourgeois ideology, a "decline in production" would be a terrible disaster. But wouldn't a life free from exploitation, alienation, and the constraints of capitalism be worth sacrificing the sadistic logic of material productivity for? We wouldn't need all the useless shit we make to compensate for the poverty of our alienated existence.

Even so, there's no reason to believe that a post-revolutionary society would correspond to a decline in production. People who currently work useless jobs (lots of the service sector, the financial industry, etc.) would be free to participate in socially useful tasks, and we would harness technology towards liberating ourselves from unnecessary labor.

Of course we'd work less in a post-revolutionary society. The real question is: so what?

Well, the source of critique in a decline of productivity is not that we as individual workers would produce less, rather, that we would not be producing enough. It truly is absolutely essential that we are capable of making enough of the things people will need to live. Most importantly of course, is food. I don't see nearly enough discussion on land reform here, for example. At present I don't know if there's a single thread on the topic on any of the boards, correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm also not entirely sure if I agree with the idea of outright rejecting a lot of what currently falls under the category of consumerism in a post-capitalist society, it may seem frivolous and trite when so many people worldwide have barely enough to eat, but a lot of what IS so frustrating about capitalism is that no matter how hard the working class labors, generally speaking they can never recieve the full benefits of technology and development, not just in a bread and butter sense, but in all ways.

[ckaihatsu]

This is some very interesting stuff comrade, thank you for sharing this with me. You've given me a lot of food for thought.


Yeah, thanks for the thanks -- RevLeft has been just excellent in providing a dynamic environment in which one can really "mix it up" and develop new ideas. Through the months I've been able to better nail down a model of what would be possible for the proletariat once the foot is off of our necks....





Incidentally I notice you're active in Chicago, do you have a website or other information source to find out some about groups operating in central IL?


I'd suggest contacting the Socialist Appeal, or Marxist.com, folks -- they're the IMT and I've done some political work with them. They're closer to St. Louis, but they're closer to Central IL than I am....





Well, the source of critique in a decline of productivity is not that we as individual workers would produce less, rather, that we would not be producing enough. It truly is absolutely essential that we are capable of making enough of the things people will need to live. Most importantly of course, is food. I don't see nearly enough discussion on land reform here, for example. At present I don't know if there's a single thread on the topic on any of the boards, correct me if I'm wrong.


One of the earliest discussions I got into here was on this topic of land reform -- try this thread,


http://www.revleft.com/vb/land-reform-obsoletei-t74905/index.html?p=1158370


...with this post in particular:


http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1173603&postcount=37





I'm also not entirely sure if I agree with the idea of outright rejecting a lot of what currently falls under the category of consumerism in a post-capitalist society, it may seem frivolous and trite when so many people worldwide have barely enough to eat, but a lot of what IS so frustrating about capitalism is that no matter how hard the working class labors, generally speaking they can never recieve the full benefits of technology and development, not just in a bread and butter sense, but in all ways.


I appreciate this position -- unfortunately capitalism features a "mixed and uneven development" (Trotsky), so the range of consumerism will go from virtually zero in the most poverty-stricken areas of the world to some accumulations in the advanced economies that would pay several kings' ransoms....

We *shouldn't* reject consumerism *on principle*, because no matter how much a *working class* person buys with their better-than-average wages, they're *still* being exploited through the wages system itself.

Wagging a finger at someone who is a particularly able shopper is *not* politically appropriate since they have certainly *worked* for the ability to do that -- assuming, of course, that they *have* worked for the wages with which to buy products and that the money *hasn't* come from investments (which exploit *other* people's labor)....

We shouldn't get *moralistic* about consumerism and thus begin to slip rightward on the political spectrum towards the "progressives" / Greens consumer-centric (non-worker-centric) position.

[yuon]

Check out this thread on the issue.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/free-riding-anarchist-t57257/index.html

I think it provides a very interesting discussion. Including the point about whether or not it is "good" for 50% of the population to do all the work, and the other 50% to do nothing.

Conclusion: Where there are large amounts of "free riding" ("free loading") this may cause a problem in an anarchist communist society, however, it can be solved by kicking out the free loaders.

[New Tet]

"Productivity" is a capitalist term, a euphemism for the capacity of workers to churn out surplus value in behalf of their exploiters.

[Dr Mindbender]

it is my belief that only technocracy can answer the 'freeloading' question, because it fundamentally changes what we culturally deem to be acceptable work for humans and instead our understanding of work is recalibrated and defined by the roles we actually want to adopt.

[yuon]

it is my belief that only technocracy can answer the 'freeloading' question, because it fundamentally changes what we culturally deem to be acceptable work for humans and instead our understanding of work is recalibrated and defined by the roles we actually want to adopt.

Err, maybe I'm just showing some ignorance, but why is "technocracy" the only answer? Why not a non-technocratic increase in technology, associated with an anarchistic type society?

As machines do more and more of the "work", there is less and less that needs to be done by people, and thus work it self disappears as a meaningful concept, all without creating "technate".

I personally believe that a "post-scarcity" society is basically possible right not, though not without some amount of "work" (perhaps, however, as little as 2 hours a day). If all the "useless" jobs were abolished...

[robbo203]

I'll speak to this since I'm personally of the position that a revolutionary post-capitalist society could *easily* provide for everyone's basic needs with just a nominal active workforce.

I was introduced to the "free loader" term in a sociology course when I was in school, and, now, with hindsight, I can see that it's entirely a bourgeois-abstract formulation to begin with. It's one of those overgeneralized, easily spoken, poorly-defined terms that, at its core, is an anti-proletarian attack -- what's implied or invoked in the term itself, "free loader", is the stereotype of the *outcast* -- the anachronistic village idiot in a modern world of material abundance.--

True. And this "bourgeois-abstract formulation" might also be said to reflect the nature of a capitalist society in which a parasitic class of capitalists effectively freeloads on the rest of us

[Durruti's Ghost]

Err, maybe I'm just showing some ignorance, but why is "technocracy" the only answer? Why not a non-technocratic increase in technology, associated with an anarchistic type society?

As machines do more and more of the "work", there is less and less that needs to be done by people, and thus work it self disappears as a meaningful concept, all without creating "technate".

I personally believe that a "post-scarcity" society is basically possible right not, though not without some amount of "work" (perhaps, however, as little as 2 hours a day). If all the "useless" jobs were abolished...

I may be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure what you described would fall under the label of "technocracy".

[revolution inaction]

I may be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure what you described would fall under the label of "technocracy".

you are wrong, technocracy is an ideaology, not a term for someone who belives we can use machines to make our lives easier.

[ckaihatsu]

Where there are large amounts of "free riding" ("free loading") this may cause a problem in an anarchist communist society, however, it can be solved by kicking out the free loaders.





[A] parasitic class of capitalists effectively freeloads on the rest of us





"Productivity" is a capitalist term, a euphemism for the capacity of workers to churn out surplus value in behalf of their exploiters.


---





it is my belief that only technocracy can answer the 'freeloading' question, because it fundamentally changes what we culturally deem to be acceptable work for humans and instead our understanding of work is recalibrated and defined by the roles we actually want to adopt.





Err, maybe I'm just showing some ignorance, but why is "technocracy" the only answer? Why not a non-technocratic increase in technology, associated with an anarchistic type society?

As machines do more and more of the "work", there is less and less that needs to be done by people, and thus work it self disappears as a meaningful concept, all without creating "technate".

I personally believe that a "post-scarcity" society is basically possible right not, though not without some amount of "work" (perhaps, however, as little as 2 hours a day). If all the "useless" jobs were abolished...





I may be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure what you described would fall under the label of "technocracy".





you are wrong, technocracy is an ideaology, not a term for someone who belives we can use machines to make our lives easier.


I've been introduced to this 'technocracy' stuff fairly recently, through RevLeft. From what I can make of it I'd say that it *straddles* between (revolutionary leftist) ideology and technical-mindedness.

It's an approach that's basically ahead of its time, because it suggests that, given the abolition of artificial pricing schemes -- such as we see under capitalism -- the raw materials and labor capabilities would exist to construct the most humane living environments for the world's population.

Ideologically there could still be the differences of *scale* in restructuring society that we see advocated by socialists versus that advocated by anarchists. (I'm certainly more large-scale, centralized-minded myself.)

And, with large-enough scales at play we would *easily* have a situation of highly-leveraged material processes that would turn everyday "work" into far more of a *political* role, rather than a *laborious* one.

Perhaps in practice we'd see a mixed-development arrangement, where *some* functions could easily be agreed-to over a widespread area -- the convergence of the anarchistic 'confederation' with the Marxist 'communist administration' -- probably this would be the case for the most-life-critical things, like security agreements, policing, information exchange, food distribution, emergency medical services, and other similar non-controversial, humane services.

On more specific, consumer-oriented or local-culture-oriented things there might be more diversity and more regionalism -- perhaps Wal-Mart would be *dissolved* along with the capitalist state instead of *collectivized* (as I'd previously entertained). In its place there might be academia-like institutions that replicate and adopt best practices for the production of various common goods and services, leaving the discretion for local customizing and "flavoring"....

But I digress.... = )

[PossiblyLeft]

I am sort of unsure what you are all saying... if somebody sits on their ass and refuses to work or purposely disrupts a workplace what exactly is to be done about this issue? Are they entitled to food or healthcare even if they only put a burden on their fellow worker?

[ckaihatsu]

I am sort of unsure what you are all saying... if somebody sits on their ass and refuses to work or purposely disrupts a workplace what exactly is to be done about this issue? Are they entitled to food or healthcare even if they only put a burden on their fellow worker?


First, please see my initial response (#2), below....

Refusing to work, and *disrupting* a workplace are two *very* different things -- they can't be lumped together as "deleterious to the proper functioning of society".

Refusing to work just means that there's *potentially* one less worker -- but that worker may not have been absolutely needed anyway for the overall upkeep of society.... *Disrupting* a workflow is another matter, though, since it could potentially damage whatever *is* going on....

Two quick points:

- Using computer routines and automated assembly-line production means that *one* worker's labor is *highly leveraged* to output *far beyond* what that *one* worker could ever possibly consume him/herself off of the assembly line -- the *surplus* would go to others because, hey, the machine is running anyway.... (Therefore no "burden" on anyone else, materially.)

- Without all of the financial bullshit management that goes along with the massively wasteful, massively redundant overhead of capitalism millions of workers worldwide would be freed up while public services could be run on a widespread scale from *one* public works (communist) administration -- like the municipal water treatment facilities of today.

[Dr Mindbender]

Err, maybe I'm just showing some ignorance, but why is "technocracy" the only answer? Why not a non-technocratic increase in technology, associated with an anarchistic type society?
Because unless human labour has been divorced from the domain of menial labour, how will you be able to, in good conscience, 'force' people to do crappy jobs that are regarded as a chore, or generally unpleasant?

If we define our work around what we enjoy, what inspires us with self worth then ultimately we will have to greatly increase the proportion of automated labour. The only ideology whose onus this is is technocracy.


As machines do more and more of the "work", there is less and less that needs to be done by people, and thus work it self disappears as a meaningful concept, all without creating "technate".
That is because capitalism culturally defines work around the reactionary, traditional view of 8 back breaking hours in a hot, clammy factory with some little jumped up bastard breathing down your neck. Technocracy is based around challenging the view that it is acceptable to allow humans to stagnate in such conditions, and ultimately insuring that the entire workforce are able to acheive roles that make the root causes of freeloading redundant.

[PossiblyLeft]

Sorry for being a burden but if you refuse to work do you get food? Just yes or no.

[ckaihatsu]

Sorry for being a burden but if you refuse to work do you get food? Just yes or no.


Yes, in *my* formulation / estimate / model -- feel free to see my "sketch", at my blog entry....

[yuon]

Sorry for being a burden but if you refuse to work do you get food? Just yes or no.

Yes and no.

Forcing a simple answer to a complex question isn't going to provide a meaningful answer.

In cases where there are only a few individuals who don't work, society produces more than enough surplus for them not to have to work. (Perhaps they do other things, such as provide entertainment, or something else.)

If there are more people refusing to work than there is surplus, then something is going to have to give.


Of course, the real correct answer is, it will be up to the society and communities of the future. It is not for us to create blueprints and then expect them to be followed.

[Dr Mindbender]

Sorry for being a burden but if you refuse to work do you get food? Just yes or no.

Its unhelpful to ask such a question when as a society, we currently hold such a techno-conservative outlook on the nature of work.

The question we ought to ask is how humans can alter their relationship within the means of production so that culturally, work as a popular conception is no longer regarded as a 'burden' but more the subject of our hopes, aspirations and personalities.

[eyedrop]

Sorry for being a burden but if you refuse to work do you get food? Just yes or no.

Well, here, you do get cash and a home if you refuse to work (let's ignore the beraucracy preventing people from getting it) so I don't see why a socialistic/communistic society should be any worse.

[blake 3:17]

Sorry for being a burden but if you refuse to work do you get food? Just yes or no.

Yes of course. Food, health care, education and housing are or should be considered basic social rights. No one should be deprived of them.