Questions about a moneyless society

[Diello]

Disclaimer: I'm extremely new to socialism/anarchism/communism/etc.ism.

I've read people proposing a society in which all work is voluntary and there is no money (e.g., you don't make wages for working, and resources don't cost anything to obtain). There are a few potential issues that occur to me, and I'd like to know how someone who endorses this idea or is familiar with it would respond.

Firstly, how might the judicial system work? If all work is voluntary, would that mean that judges or other court officials might not show up for a trial? Or would the judicial system follow a completely different paradigm? A similar thing goes for doctors-- what happens in a hospital where the doctors can't be relied on to show up?

One page I read claimed that, in this society, people would voluntarily do even the most unpleasant jobs simply for the pleasure and fulfillment of doing useful work. It also claimed that far less work would be necessary since the elimination of the capitalist system would mean that a lot of frivolous functions would be eliminated. I can buy this to an extent-- but what about jobs that are both unavoidably demoralizing and which would apparently require as much of a time investment post-capitalism as they do now? Take the work of a prison guard, for instance. Is it realistic to believe that enough people would volunteer to herd inmates around all day to keep the world's prisons fully manned? And what if half the guards decide not to come in to work one day?

Say that, for instance, a teacher feels compelled to teach his students that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. In a decentralized society, would there still be some sort of organization to regulate education? How would people be penalized for minor crimes, if fines are a thing of the past?

Won't there still need to be some sort of scientific authority in order to help filter bad science out of publications (through things like the peer-review process) so that laypeople will be able to know that what they're reading is relatively accurate? Or would this be something we'd have to lose in order to create this kind of society?

[hatzel]

Ah...what happens in today's society if judges and doctors and prison guards decide not to show up to work? I guess this might be a good starting point...

[Quail]

Firstly, how might the judicial system work? If all work is voluntary, would that mean that judges or other court officials might not show up for a trial? Or would the judicial system follow a completely different paradigm? A similar thing goes for doctors-- what happens in a hospital where the doctors can't be relied on to show up?

Being a doctor is a rewarding job. I don't see why doctors would just stop showing up for work. Also, any respectful person would let their colleagues know when they would be in work, so it wouldn't be too difficult to arrange things so that there is always someone working a shift.


One page I read claimed that, in this society, people would voluntarily do even the most unpleasant jobs simply for the pleasure and fulfillment of doing useful work. It also claimed that far less work would be necessary since the elimination of the capitalist system would mean that a lot of frivolous functions would be eliminated. I can buy this to an extent-- but what about jobs that are both unavoidably demoralizing and which would apparently require as much of a time investment post-capitalism as they do now? Take the work of a prison guard, for instance. Is it realistic to believe that enough people would volunteer to herd inmates around all day to keep the world's prisons fully manned? And what if half the guards decide not to come in to work one day?

I actually disagree with the idea of prisons. Most crimes wouldn't occur without the motive of money, and antisocial crimes should be treated more like a mental health problem instead of being punished. I think that in a society based on mutual cooperation, people would do the unpleasant jobs purely because they need to be done to make society run properly. As an example, think about washing up. Nobody likes washing plates, but it has to be done so that there are clean plates to eat from, so even though people don't enjoy it, they get it done so that they can have a functional kitchen.


Say that, for instance, a teacher feels compelled to teach his students that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. In a decentralized society, would there still be some sort of organization to regulate education? How would people be penalized for minor crimes, if fines are a thing of the past?

Even in a decentralised society, it's possible to have guidelines on what children should be taught.
Also, as I said earlier, most minor crimes would be eliminated because there wouldn't be a motive.


Won't there still need to be some sort of scientific authority in order to help filter bad science out of publications (through things like the peer-review process) so that laypeople will be able to know that what they're reading is relatively accurate? Or would this be something we'd have to lose in order to create this kind of society?
I don't see why scientists reviewing the work of others wouldn't be possible in a communist society. It's not necessary to have some kind of authority to tell people what is good/bad science. It can be done by the people themselves.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

Okay, I'm by no means a veteran of this site, and I'm not sure about the judicial system part, but I'll do my best to try and answer these questions.

If all work is voluntary, would that mean that judges or other court officials might not show up for a trial?
The eventual idea is that people will do their work because it will be 'fun' and 'engaging'. However, I would also hope that these high-up officials would know of the gravity and seriousness of their position, and treat it accordingly. Worst comes to worst, if jobs are run democratically it's not impossible they could be warned of the consequences of their actions.

...but what about jobs that are both unavoidably demoralizing and which would apparently require as much of a time investment post-capitalism as they do now? Take the work of a prison guard, for instance.
One possible solution to this that I've heard is that undesirable jobs that could not be phased out could be done as public service that everyone would have to do at some point. Of course as time goes on and the system progresses, these jobs could be replaced if they are not made obsolete anyway (for example, prisons may not be necessary if crime is no longer an issue).

Say that, for instance, a teacher feels compelled to teach his students that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. In a decentralized society, would there still be some sort of organization to regulate education?
I would say yes, though some people might disagree with me on that. I don't think individual teachers could make up and teach their own curriculum, that job is probably better if done by experts. This is an iffy one, though.

How would people be penalized for minor crimes, if fines are a thing of the past?
Again, minor crime will most likely disappear as capitalism is eradicated. For example, why would someone steal a car if they could have their own for free? That kind of thing.

Won't there still need to be some sort of scientific authority in order to help filter bad science out of publications (through things like the peer-review process) so that laypeople will be able to know that what they're reading is relatively accurate? Or would this be something we'd have to lose in order to create this kind of society?

Bad science such as what? Religion obviously would probably be heavily restricted if it existed at all, but if someone can give reasonable evidence to their theories I don't see why it shouldn't be published.

EDIT: I see that kayl has gone and said more or less everything I put down.

[ckaihatsu]

Disclaimer: I'm extremely new to socialism/anarchism/communism/etc.ism.

I've read people proposing a society in which all work is voluntary and there is no money (e.g., you don't make wages for working, and resources don't cost anything to obtain).


Do you have any concerns here yourself about this overall premise?





There are a few potential issues that occur to me, and I'd like to know how someone who endorses this idea or is familiar with it would respond.

Firstly, how might the judicial system work? If all work is voluntary, would that mean that judges or other court officials might not show up for a trial? Or would the judicial system follow a completely different paradigm? A similar thing goes for doctors-- what happens in a hospital where the doctors can't be relied on to show up?


I advocate a very *policy*-oriented, or *macroscopic*-based, approach to all of this. A society-wide mass attention, though, would really not even *be* possible until *after* the chaotic and infinitely-sub-divided world of capitalist propertied concerns is pushed into the past once and for all.

I feel that I can confidently say that formal job positions for 'judging' -- decision-making -- or for medicine -- health and healing -- would really not be required once all physical walls and socially divisive boundaries are down for good. As things are *now* the social relations exist in the mode of segmented *institutions*, *careers*, *hierarchies*, and professionalized authority / "turf".

The judicial system is for the world of privatized, sub-compartmentalized property, including plenty of *intangible* private property (finance) that must be tended to and even argued and fought over. Medicine is for the caretaking of overstressed, overworked people with households to care for *after* work is done while trying to find a spare moment for some pleasure and self-development from a heavily restricted batch of extant possibilities.

With the overthrow of private property workers could finally remove themselves out from under this excruciating weight that falls on everyone. A rough analogy to illustrate my point might be that we don't have to worry about herding and keeping track of individual animals since the time that we left the farm long ago and now use modern agricultural methods on a mass scale for grain and meat (etc.), with the food distributed to where we live and work in urban centers.

Likewise we shouldn't have to -- if you will -- "keep track of" individual judges and doctors, etc., all while trying to live our *own* lives and make ends meet. While representative democracy and delegated occupations may have worked out nicely at one time when we all lived in small towns and could easily keep one ear in public life those days have long since passed. *Our* social reality is in the context of the *factory system* -- it's given rise to a complexity of society that *no one* could hope to keep good tabs on, much less be a part of, in the conventional political-citizen kind of way.

Instead, what would be of far greater concern to a post-capitalist *revolutionary* society is if large numbers of people have outstanding complaints and/or political issues, or symptoms of whatever kind of sickness, and what society *as an organism* could do to address these very personal, yet widespread, issues. This isn't just grandstanding or hand-wringing on my part by saying this -- again, consider that it's a *factory system* that currently exists for practically *all* such necessarily-commodified services. While services can certainly be customized they will *all* necessarily be *commodified* so that each person is a "customer" with a "case", whether legal or medical. The professionals' training will be of a reductionistic-minded kind, with all of the particulars around an individual *case* nicely accounted for and quantified, but it's at the expense of seeing larger factors that may be *connected to* the individual concerned, including sociological, historical, and political factors. The reductionistic practice *requires* that the practitioner *necessarily* "draw the line" somewhere -- actually more like a circular boundary limit -- and then use that enclosed area as "the case", excluding all other factors.

I'll contrast this bourgeois "divide-and-conquer" approach to a more *open*, large-scale *policy* approach, based on the mass attentions of liberated workers, to look at any and all outstanding ills from a "bird's eye", *political* perspective. Certainly we can already do plenty of this kind of generalizing in *description*, but *not* in *solving* -- that's where private interests, as those for profitability, *currently* take precedence over a large-scale comprehensive approach to treating festering problems of legality or health.





One page I read claimed that, in this society, people would voluntarily do even the most unpleasant jobs simply for the pleasure and fulfillment of doing useful work. It also claimed that far less work would be necessary since the elimination of the capitalist system would mean that a lot of frivolous functions would be eliminated. I can buy this to an extent--


A good answer here is one about the material *motivations* within the system of each society -- once all productive property is *collectivized* all liberated labor would have an interest in common to work *as little* as possible, especially for distasteful tasks. Why? Well, of course, because then as now, unless one is doing *exactly* what one wants to do, *exactly* as one would like to do it, it's going to *feel* like work -- onerous, in other words. In the present day the *economic* hierarchy decides who does what for all of us -- if you have enough money you don't have to do *shit*. But if you *don't* have money then *you're* the one who has to do the shit *work*.

In a post-capitalist society there'd be no hierarchy of wealth for *anyone* to use as a crutch -- *no one* could simply "offload" the problem onto a subordinate. The problem would remain in front of everyone, for everyone to see, with no "other" to blame but themselves / ourselves as a people. So, in such a situation, liberated workers would most likely want to *automate* tasks as much as possible so that *they*, as laborers, don't have to do the shit *manually*.





How would people be penalized for minor crimes, if fines are a thing of the past?




but what about jobs that are both unavoidably demoralizing and which would apparently require as much of a time investment post-capitalism as they do now? Take the work of a prison guard, for instance. Is it realistic to believe that enough people would volunteer to herd inmates around all day to keep the world's prisons fully manned? And what if half the guards decide not to come in to work one day?


These are issues of *authority* that you're getting at -- the institutions of a standing army (military) and a professional police force only beg the question of whose, or what type of, authority they're upholding. I'll throw *this* question back at you at this point, for political consideration.





Won't there still need to be some sort of scientific authority in order to help filter bad science out of publications (through things like the peer-review process) so that laypeople will be able to know that what they're reading is relatively accurate? Or would this be something we'd have to lose in order to create this kind of society?




Say that, for instance, a teacher feels compelled to teach his students that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. In a decentralized society, would there still be some sort of organization to regulate education?


I'll note here that I, myself, do *not* advocate any kind of *de*-centralized society. I've recently written here at RevLeft that the very *notion* of 'revolution' is a necessarily *centralized* political event, since, by definition, it takes place everywhere at more or less the same time. (Meaning that the forces of the bourgeoisie could fairly easily "sneak past" the revolution and defeat it if revolutionary forces weren't *coordinated* on a large-scale basis -- centralized.)

[Quail]

Please, ckaihatsu, use italics instead of asterisks. I'm drunk, but the stars fucking piss me off.

[Diello]

Ah...what happens in today's society if judges and doctors and prison guards decide not to show up to work? I guess this might be a good starting point...

You mean that they lose their ability to choose to be judges/doctors/prison guards/etc.? This was a possibility that occurred to me.



It's not necessary to have some kind of authority to tell people what is good/bad science. It can be done by the people themselves.

Are you certain of that? To my observation, laypeople aren't always equipped to distinguish between well-conducted studies and poorly-conducted studies. Do you think that, in a communist society, science education would be so much improved that it would be able to change this, or do you deny that it would be a problem in the first place?



One possible solution to this that I've heard is that undesirable jobs that could not be phased out could be done as public service that everyone would have to do at some point.

This sounds like a plausible solution to me.



Bad science such as what? Religion obviously would probably be heavily restricted if it existed at all, but if someone can give reasonable evidence to their theories I don't see why it shouldn't be published.

I just mean flawed studies-- not necessarily deliberately insidious things like creationists do nowadays. I can't see why the possibility of small but crucial mistakes in the extremely arduous and complicated process of doing a scientific study would disappear in a communist society. To my view, some sort of process would still be needed to check for errors before the study is summarized and published for the consumption of laymen.



Do you have any concerns here yourself about this overall premise?

The idea is an extremely attractive one to me; I'm just not yet entirely convinced that it's plausible. And, of course, one must be twice as skeptical of ideas one wants to accept.



These are issues of *authority* that you're getting at -- the institutions of a standing army (military) and a professional police force only beg the question of whose, or what type of, authority they're upholding. I'll throw *this* question back at you at this point, for political consideration.

The authority of the people, perhaps?

But surely you'd agree that some acts would have to be forbidden, e.g. murder. While the most common current impetus for one person to murder another (that is, to take their stuff) might be gone, surely you at least concede the possibility that one of the Earth's billions of inhabitants might happen to choose to run around murdering for some other reason. How, in a society with no prisons or police, would such a threat be removed?

And what about, say, suspected but unconfessed murderers? How would it be possible to fairly determine their guilt or innocence without the formation of some kind of court system?

Even if this sort of crime is dramatically reduced, it's difficult for me to believe that it would vanish completely.

[EvilRedGuy]

Automation to the fullest should be made for things that can be automated.

[ckaihatsu]

These are issues of *authority* that you're getting at -- the institutions of a standing army (military) and a professional police force only beg the question of whose, or what type of, authority they're upholding. I'll throw *this* question back at you at this point, for political consideration.





The authority of the people, perhaps?


Well this is the whole *substance* of the issue -- of the administration of the world, essentially.

You're at a very good forum to explore this question and make up your own mind. Nothing can substitute for that.





But surely you'd agree that some acts would have to be forbidden, e.g. murder. While the most common current impetus for one person to murder another (that is, to take their stuff) might be gone, surely you at least concede the possibility that one of the Earth's billions of inhabitants might happen to choose to run around murdering for some other reason. How, in a society with no prisons or police, would such a threat be removed?

And what about, say, suspected but unconfessed murderers? How would it be possible to fairly determine their guilt or innocence without the formation of some kind of court system?

Even if this sort of crime is dramatically reduced, it's difficult for me to believe that it would vanish completely.


I'll defer to someone else here who may be more interested in addressing this kind of issue in detail. Suffice it to say that it would be an *extremely* marginal concern once we've eliminated all objective social motivations for material acquisition at the price of dehumanizing others.

[Adil3tr]

Disclaimer: I'm extremely new to socialism/anarchism/communism/etc.ism.

I've read people proposing a society in which all work is voluntary and there is no money (e.g., you don't make wages for working, and resources don't cost anything to obtain). There are a few potential issues that occur to me, and I'd like to know how someone who endorses this idea or is familiar with it would respond.

Firstly, how might the judicial system work? If all work is voluntary, would that mean that judges or other court officials might not show up for a trial? Or would the judicial system follow a completely different paradigm? A similar thing goes for doctors-- what happens in a hospital where the doctors can't be relied on to show up?

One page I read claimed that, in this society, people would voluntarily do even the most unpleasant jobs simply for the pleasure and fulfillment of doing useful work. It also claimed that far less work would be necessary since the elimination of the capitalist system would mean that a lot of frivolous functions would be eliminated. I can buy this to an extent-- but what about jobs that are both unavoidably demoralizing and which would apparently require as much of a time investment post-capitalism as they do now? Take the work of a prison guard, for instance. Is it realistic to believe that enough people would volunteer to herd inmates around all day to keep the world's prisons fully manned? And what if half the guards decide not to come in to work one day?

Say that, for instance, a teacher feels compelled to teach his students that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. In a decentralized society, would there still be some sort of organization to regulate education? How would people be penalized for minor crimes, if fines are a thing of the past?

Won't there still need to be some sort of scientific authority in order to help filter bad science out of publications (through things like the peer-review process) so that laypeople will be able to know that what they're reading is relatively accurate? Or would this be something we'd have to lose in order to create this kind of society?

These things never even occurred to me, they seem kind of ascetic, and I think others can provide better answers, but here was my intro to all of this.

We Marxists have something called post scarcity economics. See, since we already have capitalism, we can progress, rather than just reorganize. We don't produce exactly to need, we produce far beyond demand. That way we can very soon knock money out completely, and undercut anyone who wants to be a capitalist. Imagine being able to simply walk into a store, pull something off a shelf, and go home. Since there is more than enough for everyone, theres no problem. With entertainment, we could all have computers whose parts are removable, then we can just replace them when better parts are made. Movies games and stuff we could just download and have large art departments making these things. Surpluses are good, and the waiting list would KILL the revolution.

[Obzervi]

Everything will be decided by the community at large, not by an elite group of extremely wealthy people. This includes things like crimes. The community will decide how to punish the offender with an emphasis on rehabilitation. The community will allocate jobs to each of its members and work will be something that people enjoy because they are working for the betterment of society, as opposed to the capitalistic system where workers are oppressed through capitalist wage extraction. Crime will go down too because people won't want all of the material things they want today. This is because once capitalism is eliminated so is consumerism. The post-revolutionary society will be centered around human needs, not corporate needs and profits. Does an 80 inch flatscreen tv REALLY make people happy? I think not. Private ownership is a capitalist invention and won't exist. In terms of religious nuts well we can simply ban religion and rehabilitate those who still hold irrational superstitious beliefs.

As technology improves we can simply get robots to make everything for us. You won't even have to work that much, maybe like 3 hours a day. Once we remove the capitalist wage extraction there will be so much production that people can simply take whatever they need. Much of the production the capitalistic system is inefficient because producers are more focused on what can sell for the highest price vs what people actually need. For example there will be no brand name clothing in the post-revolutionary society.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

The community will allocate jobs to each of its members and work will be something that people enjoy because they are working for the betterment of society...
This makes me a little uneasy. How can you be sure someone is going to enjoy their job if it's given to them? If people are going to work because they enjoy it then wouldn't it be better if they choose their own jobs?

[Obzervi]

This makes me a little uneasy. How can you be sure someone is going to enjoy their job if it's given to them? If people are going to work because they enjoy it then wouldn't it be better if they choose their own jobs?

I am strictly a materialist. If people choose their jobs there is a high likelihood that a large number of jobs will not get accomplished because most people would stay in the same few fields. The community could choose to rotate jobs to make it more fair. This solves the inefficiencies of capitalism. If someone refuses to work they shouldn't have access to the production. Note that this only applies to the early stages after capitalism, because many people will still have retained their capitalistic mindset. Eventually people will learn to enjoy working for the betterment of all. If they still refuse to work then camps could be set up with the goal of teaching of having people working in them and learning that work isn't that bad after all, its what makes a human being fulfilled. They will learn that work is a pleasure.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

I've always thought labour vouchers are a way around this (although strictly like you said: at first). Essentials provided freely, luxuries bought through vouchers. You work, you get stuff. You don't, you are provided for but have less than those who do work. Over a period of say, 50 years the 'essentials' category could be expanded to cover more and more, as the capitalist mindset is phased out.

But back to the original point of the community allocating jobs, why not let them pick their own jobs and assign undesirable ones as public service?

[ckaihatsu]

(The following are admittedly more-minor, *finer* points of argument. I'm going to "punch it up", though, for dramatic effect.)





[P]eople won't want all of the material things they want today.


The hell they won't!!! Once the capitalists are gone people are going to want MORE shit than ever before -- they're going to want fucking space travel since it's been kept from us for so long. And why shouldn't we put our heads together and get some FUN going, for a change?!!! Forget bullet trains -- we're going to want rocket-propelled ground-based travel for our political meetings, etc. And don't get me started on COMMUNAL fun -- we're going to party like it's 2099! (Etc.)





This is because once capitalism is eliminated so is consumerism.


What the fuck do you think people are going to do with all that free time??? Sit on their hands?!!! And are we expected to all entertain EACH OTHER when we'll have fucking Internet 5-point-oh around?!!! People are still going to be people, and -- oh, yeah -- they'll WANT SHIT.

(Okay, enough of that.)

People will continue to be people, and will want to explore their wants and desires, including the realm of material things. A post-capitalist political economy would be able to provide more flexibility and productivity, to satisfy fickle wants, but it would be post-*commodity* production, so not everything would have to be so individualized all the time -- I'd imagine that more could be common / communal property and shared / scheduled without the least bit of inconvenience to anyone.





Does an 80 inch flatscreen tv REALLY make people happy? I think not.


Speak for yourself -- besides the hardware it's the *content*, and the availability / selection of content, that matters.

[ckaihatsu]

Eventually people will learn to enjoy working for the betterment of all. If they still refuse to work then camps could be set up with the goal of teaching of having people working in them and learning that work isn't that bad after all, its what makes a human being fulfilled. They will learn that work is a pleasure.


Hmmmmmm, oligarchical collectivist, huh?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_and_Practice_of_Oligarchical_Collectivi sm

[ckaihatsu]

post scarcity economics


I wanted to hit the 'Thanks' button on your post *really* badly, but there's just one niggling technical detail that I have to address:





We don't produce exactly to need, we produce far beyond demand. That way we can very soon knock money out completely, and undercut anyone who wants to be a capitalist.


*This*, as a transitional program from the present day to a communist-type society, would *not* be possible.

Jesus, it sounds good -- it's like a shimmering pool of water in the desert, but here's the thing: The state is not going to let any group of workers use their shit for free. Recall, please, that the state only exists to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie, and it's the bourgeoisie that controls the means of mass production -- factories, basically. Yeah, if we all could just goof off and video it and put it on YouTube for each other then we as 99% of the planet could just ignore the elitist 1% and go on living, right?

But those who own the means of mass production, as through finance, etc., can always devise ways to "turn the screws" -- especially to the less fortunate among us -- and force people to work for wages, even if it requires producing weapons and jails and reducing some area to dust in order to facilitate such a plan.

So, in a word, you're over-emphasizing the *economic* dimension (in our current age of *digital* abundance) and ignoring the *political* side of things. (Oftentimes it's the other way around.)

[Jayshin_JTTH]

I've always thought that equalization of pay would be a transition as opposed to something overnight. My personal position is that dangerous or unhealthy jobs should be paid more in a socialist society, and it's just a matter of improving the means of production technologically so they gradually become less and less dangerous or unhealthy and are are gradually equalized.

I would imagine the national government would set up a planning commission, which would set up the plan over the next few years or so, it would state what is to be built, what products produced, and the targets for them, it would then state the amount of workers, and the division of labor in various industries according to skills.

The education system could also be planned in such a way to educate people to the jobs which are in the most scarcity at the time. But I would imagine those restrictions would be eased as the supply of skilled labor was put under control.

Also, as I understand it, in the 30's in Moscow, bread actually became 'communist', as in the bakers had an open shop in Moscow and the workers could simply turn up and get bread on demand, and no looting occurred either, before war broke out. But that's as far as it got I believe, everything else was 'socialist' (as in, you had to pay for it).

In my view, in a socialist state, you wouldn't have to pay cash for health-care, food, housing, or clothing, they would all be completely free as long as you worked the job you were given. The money you got however could be spent on other goods.

As for luxury goods, well you'd have to have some kind of big commission or something to really set out what is socially necessary and what isn't, in order from 1 onwards. Food, health, shelter and clothing (the industries that produce them) would obviously be first on that list, from then on you could just work down from there.