Ennui in a communist society

[Thunder]

Lets say we have a successful revolution. It works according to plan and we have moved into being a truly communist society.
...Now what?
What would there be to do?
It seems boredom would assail all of us, if it doesn't already at the present time.
We go to school so that we may learn skills for our future jobs. We have our jobs so that we may live. Then we die
It seems our jobs currently control us. In the communistic society we might still have jobs, or we might program robotics to do our work. Either way, it would still be comfortable more so then present society in this regard.
But what would be there to do? What would give us purpose? What currently gives us purpose?
Sorry if this is unorganized but I've been pondering upon this for many, many months now.

I saw this in another forum and I believe the person put it in better words then I do:
" Lately I feel like I've honed in on the source of my ennui regarding the things I'm told are important for me to accomplish.. Education and employment. I have difficulty investing myself in either and I try again and again. I think it is because simply I feel no compulsion to pursue success on these terms. Maybe you could call them societies terms. I should put my everything into my education I am told again and again but to what end? To what end should I spend my hours studying books I have no interest in or working for wages? So that I may work further? I see no happiness in the fruits of these labors. Only money and the sickening sensation of being forced to expend your time in the most arbitrary and irrelevant way.. A depression of the soul. Of which I am all too familiar and feel I can barely stomach any more. I see nothing in this.

I'm not sure what I want, but certainly nothing which has been placed before me. I know what the inevitable response will be.. Suck it up, that's life. My only escape seems to be living in the woods as a hermit or taking up a life of crime.

I'll get over it and make do I suppose.. But god damn this. I feel like I must do something for myself and no one else. "

[Meridian]

A very nice post.

I think there are two questions.

1. What will a communist society be like and offer in terms of actual living situation, ie. what will give people "meaning" and what are the opportunities in terms of activities?

2. What can we in industrialized nations do today that gives meaning beyond the mundanity and hopeless feeling of wage slavery?

I think I can only give a reasonable answer to number two.

If living like a hermit, and moving to the woods seems appealing to you, then set that as your goal. If creating your own association, party, whatever, of any kind seems appealing to you, set that as your goal. Perhaps you, maybe together with your close ones, can work together to create the kind of life you want. You can do certain things within capitalism that doesn't necessarily mean whoring yourself out, even though that is what the entire system is based on. Work for yourself and your close ones, and create something. A legacy if you will. That is what matters.

[Dean]

A very nice post.

I think there are two questions.

1. What will a communist society be like and offer in terms of actual living situation, ie. what will give people "meaning" and what are the opportunities in terms of activities?

2. What can we in industrialized nations do today that gives meaning beyond the mundanity and hopeless feeling of wage slavery?

I think that the answer to both of these is a very simple one: family. More specifically, the extension of the family values to the lower and more direct levels of the social organization. By this I mean, the intimate social relations in the parent/child, peer/peer relationships would be extended to a broader, widely inclusive group.

Anything short of this would not be revolutionary. But we can achieve this, and people constantly struggle to achieve this everywhere, it is the basic aquisition and expansion of the loving relationships that friends and family have. Therein lies the nature of communist struggle, and the hopes for a better tomorrow.

[Kléber]

I would imagine that a democratic society where workers actively participated in the management of their own jobs, and by virtue of running the economy were able to secure for themselves much more free time, then there would be more healthy social relationships and less lonely and depressed people than in a society where all human activity is subordinated to the profit motive.

That said, not every psychological or personal problem can be directly attributed to class relations or the economic system. People are born with slightly different brains and they will always develop in different ways. Some of us are just stuck being weird and alone :p . That's what the internet is for.

[bcbm]

But what would be there to do?

everything. beyond the social examples already mentioned, you would be left with more time and resources to pursue any project you like- painting, music, building, grinding through your 5th WoW character, whatever.

[poeticrevolution12]

I agree with all of the above, but here's what occurs to me: If people are doing different things with their free time, won't there be some difference in the quality of the work they produce? Ie, one person will be better at painting than another is at singing, or something. And once this occurs, won't that lead to recognizable differences in a person's public standing, and thus the need for some achievements to be recognized over others? And doesn't that sort of throw off the entire system?
Food for thought.

[ChrisK]

I admit I'd be very bored in a communist society. Quite honestly all I want to do is be a part of the revolution to end classes. All those other things in life aren't appealing.

[FreeFocus]

Communism is not a perfect system and humanity will never have a perfect society, because there is no such thing as one. Human relationships and interaction are dynamic.

[ZeroNowhere]

Lets say we have a successful revolution. It works according to plan and we have moved into being a truly communist society.
...Now what?
What would there be to do?1. Read Dunsany.
2. Read Clark Ashton Smith.
3. Listen to 'Ample Destruction'.
4. Reread Dunsany.
5. Repeat steps 2-4 until death or blindness.

Point being, there's no single answer, and there are probably a few billion. Though the above is still probably optimal.


I agree with all of the above, but here's what occurs to me: If people are doing different things with their free time, won't there be some difference in the quality of the work they produce? Ie, one person will be better at painting than another is at singing, or something. And once this occurs, won't that lead to recognizable differences in a person's public standing, and thus the need for some achievements to be recognized over others? And doesn't that sort of throw off the entire system?I don't believe somebody holding George R. R. Martin in higher regard as a writer than Stephenie Meyer is really that much of a cause for concern? We aren't trying to create the utopia of army ants (or apotheosis of the piss-ant).

[ckaihatsu]

Lately I feel like I've honed in on the source of my ennui regarding the things I'm told are important for me to accomplish.. Education and employment. I have difficulty investing myself in either and I try again and again. I think it is because simply I feel no compulsion to pursue success on these terms.





[N]ot every psychological or personal problem can be directly attributed to class relations or the economic system.





I'd like to make the point that the very notion of stored value -- from past labor -- is predicated on there being something in the future to put it into, to invest in. Without a plan for putting the capital into motion there's no need in the present for the stored value, or capital -- it may as well not even exist.

The latest financial bubbles, in virtual real estate (dotcom), wars of aggression in the Middle East, telecom, energy, housing, food, and carbon credits, are all nonproductive sectors -- it's basically the capitalists' floating craps game looking for a venue to play in.

So what really separates us from life on the farm? Civilization itself is predicated on substantial innovations, massive works projects that serve as "the next big thing" for rulers to use as hype and as a carrot to lead us along into working for them.

I would argue that the past century or so was about four top-level developments in modern civilization which the bourgeoisie used to ensnare millions and then fight over in their world wars: industrialization, modernization, standardization, and digitization. Could these developments have been enacted in less destructive ways, without the bourgeoisie? Absolutely.

So what's after digitization? Should we wait around to find out, from the likes of corporate raiders? They're obviously not the desired leadership for any kind of decent future for humanity.


---





I agree with all of the above, but here's what occurs to me: If people are doing different things with their free time, won't there be some difference in the quality of the work they produce? Ie, one person will be better at painting than another is at singing, or something. And once this occurs, won't that lead to recognizable differences in a person's public standing, and thus the need for some achievements to be recognized over others? And doesn't that sort of throw off the entire system?
Food for thought.





I agree that a post-capitalist economy should not try to pretend that all types of labor, regardless of requisite education and training, are the same in difficulty and value.




[P]ast the baseline public provision there can be a more sophisticated, flexible economy that can operate in more complex ways to cover all the rest of society's needs and desires. Societal needs / requests for certain job positions would have to include built-in provisions for directed, tracked transition programs of education, training, apprenticeship, employment, and compensation, particularly for any positions that are understaffed.




A labor-time *multiplier* could be used, determined by mass exit-polling, or surveying, of people at those respective positions, to convert labor hours into labor-hour *credits*. More study for a position or greater occupational hazard would be reflected in the mass surveys and translated into relatively higher labor-hour *multipliers* for higher rates of labor credit compensation.

But this labor-credit-fueled, post-capitalist economy would *not* attempt to translate labor credits into the "purchase" of assets & resources, goods & services -- instead, these flows of labor credits for work completed would serve as a *labor-empowering*, *political* tool in organizing *active* labor to *empower* *other* workers into the continuously rolling provisioning of labor supply, forever into the future

[MarxSchmarx]

I agree with all of the above, but here's what occurs to me: If people are doing different things with their free time, won't there be some difference in the quality of the work they produce? Ie, one person will be better at painting than another is at singing, or something. And once this occurs, won't that lead to recognizable differences in a person's public standing, and thus the need for some achievements to be recognized over others? And doesn't that sort of throw off the entire system?

No. There are people who are e.g., much, much better cooks than me, and others comment on it. But that doesn't mean I still don't enjoy making good food and working at it.

The whole advantage of being able to pursue your many passions under communism is that you are actualizing yourself without regard for external reinforcement. In this sense, it is ironically more individualistic than any other economic system.

[black_tambourine]

I agree with all of the above, but here's what occurs to me: If people are doing different things with their free time, won't there be some difference in the quality of the work they produce? Ie, one person will be better at painting than another is at singing, or something. And once this occurs, won't that lead to recognizable differences in a person's public standing, and thus the need for some achievements to be recognized over others? And doesn't that sort of throw off the entire system?
Food for thought.

The answer to the first two questions is yes. The answer to the last question is no. The abolition of capitalist inequality does not mean the abolition of all ceteris paribus differentials in ability between human beings. In fact, the two modes of difference have very little to do with one another, contrary to the narrative of bourgeois apologetics. Just because X is acknowledged as a better poet and/or doctor than Y does not mean that X now has free reign to exploit Y and impede Y's potential for improvement.

[maya]

Hope this makes sense..

Capitalism idolizes those who live without producing, who can live their lives passing judgement on others. There is an entire substratum of the ruling class that only give the appearance of living a productive life, without making anything themselves.

Many people try to copy that lifestyle, by following fashion trends, identifing with subcultures etc. because they seek to identify with what is desired. The disconnect from a life of meaning - actually making something - to a life of appearances; this is the source of ennui in modern society.

It is utterly perverse - the specially branded clothing has the meaning, while the 40 hours of labor required to purchase them is meaningless. (The clothing would have had the same value whether it was worked for, stolen etc. another perversity IMHO but off topic here..)


A socialist society would not have a place for a 'life of appearances', everyone would contribute and labor and production would be held again as virtues, as it was in previous socialist societies.

[ckaihatsu]

---





I am admittedly of two minds about this, because we would not even be *human* without our tool-using facilities / capabilities. But since the productive capacities of capitalism have been so prodigious to-date -- ignoring its monstrous genocidal price in human lives for a moment -- we're more or less *stuck* with *its* mode of production for the varying choices we have around us.

Also, I think you're being a little *presumptuous* about people's sense of their own self-direction and personal sovereignty -- you're being borderline pessimistic about the human condition by implying that people are out of control, *mindlessly* purchasing and consuming just for the sake of shopping. It's kind of simplistic to only focus on the *process* of shopping and consumption itself, and not on the *actual* material items and what they may be used for in personal ways.

Moreover, the overall world's population of nearly 7 billion, including the better-sided standards of living that have resulted for some, are again made possible by capitalism, by default. So the question is more about to what *extent* of our creative and manufacturing abilities we should employ ourselves to, in the overall best societal mode of productive ability.

You're basically raising a *humanities* issue here, which is more *philosophical* than anything else. I'm not drawn to such discussions usually, because, in the political context, I don't think it really makes that much difference -- I acknowledge that time spent preoccupied with a materialistic *obsession* is time *not spent* at working class politics, but there can be a very fine line between what is genuine, materialistic-aided self-development and what is personality-losing whirlwind materialistic obsession. I think you're moreso addressing the latter of the two.

[maya]

Also, I think you're being a little *presumptuous* about people's sense of their own self-direction and personal sovereignty -- you're being borderline pessimistic about the human condition by implying that people are out of control, *mindlessly* purchasing and consuming just for the sake of shopping. It's kind of simplistic to only focus on the *process* of shopping and consumption itself, and not on the *actual* material items and what they may be used for in personal ways.


The value system of capitalism idolizes the life of leisure. I am not against shopping per se, but against the detatchment of form and function that capitalism promotes. It is easier for a capitalist to sell on form - brand X will make you more attractive - and give the consumer a psychic boost.

When born and raised in a value system people will by default adapt to that system. Part of the task of socialists as I see it is to reclaim the value of labor as a virtue in itself.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't want to belabor this issue in the least or try to be argumentative, maya, because all of your points are valid and I'm basically in agreement with them.

Without meaning to appear politically opportunistic or split hairs too much, I'd just like to mix in some perspective on this topic:





The value system of capitalism idolizes the life of leisure. I am not against shopping per se, but against the detatchment of form and function that capitalism promotes.




It is easier for a capitalist to sell on form - brand X will make you more attractive - and give the consumer a psychic boost.

When born and raised in a value system people will by default adapt to that system.


While I agree that the capitalist society *fetishizes* the life of leisure, as through the dominant cultural paradigm promoted by its marketing (through the mass media, commercial culture, prevailing societal institutions, and default commercialized attitudes within the general population), we can't let ourselves slip into the convenient position of being *moralistic* about consumerism, either.





We *need* to emphasize that we have *no* *cultural* interests in a revolutionary context -- that we, as political people, can only justifiably concern ourselves with issues of labor and material productivity on a mass scale, and nothing else.





Part of the task of socialists as I see it is to reclaim the value of labor as a virtue in itself.


I'm concerned here with the use of the term 'virtue', and 'labor-as-a-virtue-in-itself'. These are implicitly *moral* judgments -- *not* material-based *value* judgments -- which could potentially skew one's political trajectory into a *workerist*-type of course.

There's no reason we should even *appear* to glorify work itself. There is *nothing* "virtuous" about work -- either it is a necessity for the worker or else it most likely should not be done. Until we have realized a societal setup in which workers have collective sovereignty over *how* they work *and* the *destination* of their resulting work product, we should be careful *not* to glorify the inherently exploitative nature of *present* labor efforts, or wage-slavery.

Work is a strictly *material* process -- if one has the fortune of being able to work solely for oneself, for pleasure or gain, then that is a much *finer*, or *refined* mode of work than having to be exploited by others through the labor market, but it *still* is *not* "virtuous".

And even in a *revolutionary* post-capitalist society work should not be beholden as "virtuous" -- even with workers collectively in charge of their own labor power they should not take to an attitude of being somehow exalted for voluntarily taking up work duties for the greater good of the collectivized society.

The *danger*, or *hazard*, with *all* moralizing is that it contains the potential to occlude a *material* perspective, all the way to the most absurd, bitter ends. If we were to go to the lengths of making "labor-as-a-virtue" into a *political principle* we could wind up at the end of a path in which we find ourselves in an Orwellian hellscape of work-for-its-own-sake, *by consensus*.




I think that a post-capitalist society would still feature the *social* landscape of fads, fashions, "in"-crowds, techno-geeks, cliques, and so on. This is the human condition, regardless of the surplus-enabled material basis. A post-capitalist society would *enable* all of these social forms, but without inflicting the pain on workers that our society currently requires to realize these cultural enjoyments. Only by replacing human wage-slavery by machine slavery can we continue to enjoy a civilized culture while improving on it.


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


-- Tearing up more shit than a weightless astronaut on the toilet --

[Yawn]

Communism is not a perfect system and humanity will never have a perfect society, because there is no such thing as one. Human relationships and interaction are dynamic.

Very true quote. Communism is the best out of all the other systems though.