Involuntary labor

[Catma]

I feel that the goal of a society should be to reduce, and if possible eliminate, involuntary labor. That is, labor that's required for the state or society to run, like food production and so on. The basics (food, clothing, shelter, education... whatever else society decides) should be provided to the population, and beyond labor to provide those, working should be totally optional.

How should a socialist state manage production? Should it try to minimize labor hours? What mechanisms would control this in a communist society? I was speaking with someone who said that there would be administrative functions - state-like activity - but without coercive power.

Honestly this question makes me feel pretty :blushing:, but I don't really understand it.

[DaComm]

I feel that the goal of a society should be to reduce, and if possible eliminate, involuntary labor. That is, labor that's required for the state or society to run, like food production and so on. The basics (food, clothing, shelter, education... whatever else society decides) should be provided to the population, and beyond labor to provide those, working should be totally optional.

How should a socialist state manage production? Should it try to minimize labor hours? What mechanisms would control this in a communist society? I was speaking with someone who said that there would be administrative functions - state-like activity - but without coercive power.

Honestly this question makes me feel pretty :blushing:, but I don't really understand it.

Pretty? Anyway, administration would ideally function through democratic-worker councils, a de-centralized planned economy, if you will. Anton Pannekoek:
"The workers councils are bodies of delegates, sent out by the personnels of the separate shops or sections of big enterprises, carrying the intentions and opinions of the personnel, in order to discuss and take decisions on the common affairs, and to bring back the results to their mandatory’s. They state and proclaim the necessary regulations, and by uniting the different opinions into one common result, form the connection of the separate units into a well-organized whole. They are no permanent board of leaders, but can be recalled and changed at every moment."

Generally speaking, what minimizes the amount of labor necessary to complete a task would be efficient re-organization, which will be done democratically by the workers, or by the advent of new technologies. A new technology is introduced in the place of work, if it is decided that this new thing could be of service, and is workable, then I would assume it would be implemented.

By the way, a measurement of labor will be necessary (labor vouchers) as a just means of rationing, and so not performing labor and at the same time getting remuneration will be rather distant, which is until abundance is created. And just keep in mind that labor in a Socialist society will become more of a means of pleasure, that is, labor will not be boring and un-enjoyable. Being able to freely express your creative, mental, critical, etc. abilities means that work can be a means of manifesting creative spirit which creates an individualistic and empowered personality. "pride in one's work", as they call it. So, I think a socialist society would not have the total abolition of work as it's main attitude, but will still recognize the benefit of more easily performed work.

[AK]

I feel that the goal of a society should be to reduce, and if possible eliminate, involuntary labor. That is, labor that's required for the state or society to run, like food production and so on. The basics (food, clothing, shelter, education... whatever else society decides) should be provided to the population, and beyond labor to provide those, working should be totally optional.
Anarchists such as myself make it one of our goals to abolish alienating labour and instead automate production to the fullest extent possible.


How should a socialist state manage production?
The workers themselves should be doing that.


Should it try to minimize labor hours?
Definitely. Most of the time that workers today perform labour for is only done for the purposes of producing surplus value for the capitalist.


What mechanisms would control this in a communist society?
Autonomous local organs of workers' power in the economy, such as workers' councils. These institutions are run directly by their workers in a system of direct democracy.

[Catma]

Pretty embarrassed.

It seems like there would still be the problem of unemployment, and workers being forced to go out and find work, correct? So if a new technology comes around that makes a large portion of a workforce redundant, they just have to change jobs? Or, I suppose the workers could choose to keep working without the technology, which would also be fine. Would all workers in an industry be grouped together democratically? I'm guessing there wouldn't be any kind of competition, right?

What would workers receive labor vouchers for? Any kind of work, including rewarding and creative work? Or just the kinds of things that society needs, but nobody wants to do. For example, I wouldn't mind picking fruits or vegetables a few days or weeks out of the year. But there's no way I'm going to work in a slaughterhouse or sewage treatment plant voluntarily. Do you agree, DaComm, that there would exist any work that wouldn't be rewarding and would have to be incentivized?

Personally, if labor vouchers are going to exist, I think they have to be used only for the unrewarding work, or people would choose other ways to get them. But it's possible to have far less unrewarding work than you have workers, in fact it's likely. I don't see a good way to share out the burdensome work across all of society.

[Revolution starts with U]

First you have to take the concept of wage labor completely out of your mind. There are no employees, per se. It would be more as if everyone were self-employed (1099) members of a/many local/regional/larger union/s.


It seems like there would still be the problem of unemployment, and workers being forced to go out and find work, correct?
A democratic and socialist community is likely to engage in a lot of public works projects. Also, surplus profits don't go into people's bank accounts, rather back into the business (meaning businesses don't have to lay-off employees if wages are high).

So if a new technology comes around that makes a large portion of a workforce redundant, they just have to change jobs?
Unfortunately, probably. Universal education tho, so... that should help alleviate said problem.

Or, I suppose the workers could choose to keep working without the technology, which would also be fine.
Sure, if they want. But it's pretty self-defeating. Would you continue keep driving your car if you had a flying one?

Would all workers in an industry be grouped together democratically?
Who says it has to be just one industry? Or more than just the factory they work in?

I'm guessing there wouldn't be any kind of competition, right?
Good luck :lol:. But no, competition won't be institutionalized. People are naturally competitive (as well as cooperative), and there's nothing wrong with that per se. If John works his tail off competing with Tim, whatever. The only problem with competition is when it gives one side an inherent advantage; i.e. capitalism (and WoW PvP).

As for the labor vouchers, I remain a little confused on that issue as well. I really see no reason why you don't just keep money until you can get rid of it altogether; it seems like the same thing. How is one piece of paper representing your access to the fruits of the production, different from another?

[DaComm]

Pretty embarrassed.

It seems like there would still be the problem of unemployment, and workers being forced to go out and find work, correct? So if a new technology comes around that makes a large portion of a workforce redundant, they just have to change jobs? Or, I suppose the workers could choose to keep working without the technology, which would also be fine. Would all workers in an industry be grouped together democratically? I'm guessing there wouldn't be any kind of competition, right?

What would workers receive labor vouchers for? Any kind of work, including rewarding and creative work? Or just the kinds of things that society needs, but nobody wants to do. For example, I wouldn't mind picking fruits or vegetables a few days or weeks out of the year. But there's no way I'm going to work in a slaughterhouse or sewage treatment plant voluntarily. Do you agree, DaComm, that there would exist any work that wouldn't be rewarding and would have to be incentivized?

Personally, if labor vouchers are going to exist, I think they have to be used only for the unrewarding work, or people would choose other ways to get them. But it's possible to have far less unrewarding work than you have workers, in fact it's likely. I don't see a good way to share out the burdensome work across all of society.

Revolution starts with u is correct. Just to skim over some things, firstly, you seem to have a pessimistic view in introducing technology, you're not a primitivist by any chance are you :lol::confused:. But yeah, I suppose if the workers democratically agree on utilizing a new technology that may make their position obsolete, they could be expected to do a few things. Leave, perhaps, if they wanted to. Continue their work but also have the technology to work with, this can only increase productivity. I wouldn't worry about wages/unemployment, firstly because wages exist due to the existence of Capitalists, that is, a wage is whatever portion of your work that you deserve (and usually it is a BIG piece, mind you) but the Capitalist took. So wage, not really in existence, and unemployment wouldn't be an issue because their wouldn't be that one work-place dictator who denies people a chance to work for his own sake. Back to distribution, the notion of the voucher is that after your work-day is complete, you get a certificate indicating the hours you worked/intensity you worker (intensity = risk, physically straining, requires much schooling, etc.). Granted, this isn't a gift economy, but it's as fair as you get in a scarcity-based one.

Good questions.

[Catma]

Haha no, most definitely not a primitivist! I've hated work for as long as I've been aware of it, and it's only in recent years that I've realized it was wage slavery that I hated. In a perfect world, according to my old thinking, ALL work should be automated. Even maintaining the robots and factories should be automated somehow, so nobody would ever have to work! :laugh: Of course, then you ask, what would you do with all your free time? Took me a while to realize that a lot of the things I might want to do qualify as work in today's society. You can only drink so much alcohol and play so many video games before you decide you want to DO something.

Another crucial point I was missing that you almost skimmed over was the fact that you CANNOT saturate a market in a post-scarcity society. Therefore an increase in productivity never means the workers have to leave. I suppose at some point we would reach a stage in an industry where we produce more than everyone could possibly consume (we'd probably hit that pretty fast with agriculture, if we haven't already) and it really wouldn't make sense to have more people working in that field. That would create some redundancy, but as long as society takes care of the workers (partially through education, as Revolution starts with U said) who would be displaced, it's fine.


Sure, if they want. But it's pretty self-defeating. Would you continue keep driving your car if you had a flying one?Well people may choose to continue with archaic methods of production as sort of an art form. It makes as much sense as working at your own pace. Also, there will definitely still be a demand for land cars when there are flying ones (whether there will be is another topic.) It would be a hobby-like activity. There are still horse-drawn carriages in central park, and Amish country, aren't there?


Who says it has to be just one industry? Or more than just the factory they work in?I don't think people outside of an industry should have much say in how work is carried out. Everyone should work at their own pace using methods they find acceptable and pleasurable. On the other hand, we come back to the issue of encouraging unpleasant jobs that society needs done....

Lastly, as to the labor vouchers, I agree. They are just money by another name. Maybe you're arguing it would help fix people's capitalist mindset to call them something different.... I don't know if I agree with that. One system or the other would clearly be necessary for a while, though.

[DaComm]

Pretty embarrassed.

It seems like there would still be the problem of unemployment, and workers being forced to go out and find work, correct? So if a new technology comes around that makes a large portion of a workforce redundant, they just have to change jobs? Or, I suppose the workers could choose to keep working without the technology, which would also be fine. Would all workers in an industry be grouped together democratically? I'm guessing there wouldn't be any kind of competition, right?

What would workers receive labor vouchers for? Any kind of work, including rewarding and creative work? Or just the kinds of things that society needs, but nobody wants to do. For example, I wouldn't mind picking fruits or vegetables a few days or weeks out of the year. But there's no way I'm going to work in a slaughterhouse or sewage treatment plant voluntarily. Do you agree, DaComm, that there would exist any work that wouldn't be rewarding and would have to be incentivized?

Personally, if labor vouchers are going to exist, I think they have to be used only for the unrewarding work, or people would choose other ways to get them. But it's possible to have far less unrewarding work than you have workers, in fact it's likely. I don't see a good way to share out the burdensome work across all of society.


Haha no, most definitely not a primitivist! I've hated work for as long as I've been aware of it, and it's only in recent years that I've realized it was wage slavery that I hated. In a perfect world, according to my old thinking, ALL work should be automated. Even maintaining the robots and factories should be automated somehow, so nobody would ever have to work! :laugh: Of course, then you ask, what would you do with all your free time? Took me a while to realize that a lot of the things I might want to do qualify as work in today's society. You can only drink so much alcohol and play so many video games before you decide you want to DO something.

Another crucial point I was missing that you almost skimmed over was the fact that you CANNOT saturate a market in a post-scarcity society. Therefore an increase in productivity never means the workers have to leave. I suppose at some point we would reach a stage in an industry where we produce more than everyone could possibly consume (we'd probably hit that pretty fast with agriculture, if we haven't already) and it really wouldn't make sense to have more people working in that field. That would create some redundancy, but as long as society takes care of the workers (partially through education, as Revolution starts with U said) who would be displaced, it's fine.

Well people may choose to continue with archaic methods of production as sort of an art form. It makes as much sense as working at your own pace. Also, there will definitely still be a demand for land cars when there are flying ones (whether there will be is another topic.) It would be a hobby-like activity. There are still horse-drawn carriages in central park, and Amish country, aren't there?

I don't think people outside of an industry should have much say in how work is carried out. Everyone should work at their own pace using methods they find acceptable and pleasurable. On the other hand, we come back to the issue of encouraging unpleasant jobs that society needs done....

Lastly, as to the labor vouchers, I agree. They are just money by another name. Maybe you're arguing it would help fix people's capitalist mindset to call them something different.... I don't know if I agree with that. One system or the other would clearly be necessary for a while, though.

Yup, the going-ons of the place of work are the business of those in that place. It only makes sesnse for school teachers to have little or no involvement in the iron-industry. And yes, there does exist people's, like the Amish, who prefer primitive methods, and there exists other groups like this, but they are religious-based and religion must be abolished for revolution to occur. And yes, that one system that we use until free access must inherently be teh vouchers. and, you'd be suprised how many people would voluntarily sign up for sewage control, I would figure the pay would be high, and I suppose some people just have a fetish for cleanliness.

And, don't be embarrassed to ask questions, elsewise we don't learn.

[coda]

<<And just keep in mind that labor in a Socialist society will become more of a means of pleasure, that is, labor will not be boring and un-enjoyable. Being able to freely express your creative, mental, critical, etc. abilities means that work can be a means of manifesting creative spirit which creates an individualistic and empowered personality>>

Isn't that a bit of sliding into utopiananism?


Back to the original question...yes, that is what marx envisioned. bascially only socially neccessary labor would be required of society. and that will be a lot right there in providing for everyone's needs to ensure that everyone is participating and contributing in society.

[DaComm]

that is what marx envisioned. bascially only socially neccessary labor would be required of society

lolwut?

[coda]

surplus or superfluous will not be produced or atleast try to be avoided as much as possible.

[Psy]

I don't think de-centralized planning is a good idea. I think layers planning would be more logical. So there would be a Earth plan that would mostly be dealing with collective action issues relating to all of Earth like in large projects in advances of science ie a space program or exploring the depth of the oceans (no need for each soviet to have a space program or deep sea program), also dealing with global warming and disarming the nuclear weapons inherited from capitalist forces.

Next level down would be a regional plan looking looking after a region, thus allowing for regional train systems, regional power systems and regional plans for national resources, also regional plans for the enviorment. We'd also have regional production plans so instead of a factory workers planning production or a community we have a regional plan (the size and area of regions would have to democratica decided). The region would basically be where most of the imporant decisions happen as this is where we would debate priorities of production and even cost and benifits of production.

Farther down is the local plan this is where we have the local focus so plans made above or looked at by how it impacts the local community i.e a national rail line while being a good idea for the region the local body debating how it impacts them and what can be done to make it better for them (without making it worse for others).

At the bottom would be workplace plan that would be the labor behind creating everything wanted above and of course have their own wants.

What this setup does is create a chain of plans, what is decided for Earth doesn't make it more important then what is decide on the factory floor they are just focusing on a different scale. And of course we make it so as we scale up the plan we don't alienate the people that the plan is suppose to be serving.

[Revolution starts with U]

The thing about unions is that what you think of now would only exist in skilled-trades. General, non-skilled workers would be members of larger, general worker's unions. Plus many of these people would be members of intermingling consumer/community unions, and other such things.

[DaComm]

I don't think de-centralized planning is a good idea. I think layers planning would be more logical. So there would be a Earth plan that would mostly be dealing with collective action issues relating to all of Earth like in large projects in advances of science ie a space program or exploring the depth of the oceans (no need for each soviet to have a space program or deep sea program), also dealing with global warming and disarming the nuclear weapons inherited from capitalist forces.

Next level down would be a regional plan looking looking after a region, thus allowing for regional train systems, regional power systems and regional plans for national resources, also regional plans for the enviorment. We'd also have regional production plans so instead of a factory workers planning production or a community we have a regional plan (the size and area of regions would have to democratica decided). The region would basically be where most of the imporant decisions happen as this is where we would debate priorities of production and even cost and benifits of production.

Farther down is the local plan this is where we have the local focus so plans made above or looked at by how it impacts the local community i.e a national rail line while being a good idea for the region the local body debating how it impacts them and what can be done to make it better for them (without making it worse for others).

At the bottom would be workplace plan that would be the labor behind creating everything wanted above and of course have their own wants.

What this setup does is create a chain of plans, what is decided for Earth doesn't make it more important then what is decide on the factory floor they are just focusing on a different scale. And of course we make it so as we scale up the plan we don't alienate the people that the plan is suppose to be serving.

Quick question, to what degree are the workers not alienated from their labor if they are not actively engaged in decisions and debates regarding their own work? I don't see why a regional assembly is needed to decide for the workers what they are to do, how they are to do it, etc.

Transportation lines and utility services that spread over many communities could still function properly in a de-centralized way. Delegates expressing the views of those working at whatever utility service meet with delegates from whatever community to make a plan that suits the interests of all those involved and still works effectively.

An "Earth layer" can also still be effectively managed on a de-centralized scale; an example being, suppose whatever science/research group proposed a deep-sea exploration plan, that required a certain amount of resources, well, an assembly of worker councils could meet up and decide the proper allocation of tools and resources to ensure the success of the project.

Politically independent communities (like you said, a region's particular size would have to democratically devised) could function cooperatively using worker councils that reside over a large area to discuss the necessary allocation of resources/products, discuss new potential building plans, and even fund for important scientific projects as well, all while maintaining a collectivized place of work, so as to maximize creative spirit/enjoyment of work, and to allow for different views to collide and produce more efficient ideas. Anarchist Federations could effectively manage (democratically) major issues without necessarily developing a bureaucracy. Personally, I find your model a bit too centralized.

[Psy]

Quick question, to what degree are the workers not alienated from their labor if they are not actively engaged in decisions and debates regarding their own work? I don't see why a regional assembly is needed to decide for the workers what they are to do, how they are to do it, etc.

They would be at various levels. For example they would debated a space program from their workplace in regard of fulfilling the labor required to fund the space program, from at the local level from moving resources from their factories to the launch pad, at the regional level for moving resources through other communities along the way and the labor of other workplaces and finally at the Earth level for the goals of the the space program and to elect a head engineer for the project to organize all other engineers around a unified goal, ie it would be up to the head engineer to prevent new features to be introduced to designs to prevent feature creep and focus on getting what they have on the board so far to work.



Transportation lines and utility services that spread over many communities could still function properly in a de-centralized way. Delegates expressing the views of those working at whatever utility service meet with delegates from whatever community to make a plan that suits the interests of all those involved and still works effectively.

How would that work with a railway where a train has to clear a block within a narrow window before it causes delays on the system? How would a railway plan locally, their equipment and workers are spread across a region? With railways you have the issue of their workplaces being collectively much larger then communities ie RZhD (Russia's railway) has a network longer then mainland USA with workers from Valadivostok to Novorossiysk and train crews regularly traveling from Moscow to Valadivostok and back. Meaning the workers of RZhD planning anything collectively would be at a regional level due to the size of their collective workplaces.



An "Earth layer" can also still be effectively managed on a de-centralized scale; an example being, suppose whatever science/research group proposed a deep-sea exploration plan, that required a certain amount of resources, well, an assembly of worker councils could meet up and decide the proper allocation of tools and resources to ensure the success of the project.

Politically independent communities (like you said, a region's particular size would have to democratically devised) could function cooperatively using worker councils that reside over a large area to discuss the necessary allocation of resources/products, discuss new potential building plans, and even fund for important scientific projects as well, all while maintaining a collectivized place of work, so as to maximize creative spirit/enjoyment of work, and to allow for different views to collide and produce more efficient ideas. Anarchist Federations could effectively manage (democratically) major issues without necessarily developing a bureaucracy. Personally, I find your model a bit too centralized.
The idea is to coordinate labor, so instead of communities just doing their own things they come together to hammer out some common vision for production.

[Kamerat]

Lastly, as to the labor vouchers, I agree. They are just money by another name. Maybe you're arguing it would help fix people's capitalist mindset to call them something different.... I don't know if I agree with that. One system or the other would clearly be necessary for a while, though.Labor vouchers is distinct from money in the way that they are personal (your name on them). Labor vouchers cant be exchanged, they are for you personally to use to trade in for goods. This is to keep people from a amassing capital which can be used to buy means of production, thus reintroducing capitalism.

[Catma]

Labor vouchers is distinct from money in the way that they are personal (your name on them). Labor vouchers cant be exchanged, they are for you personally to use to trade in for goods. This is to keep people from a amassing capital which can be used to buy means of production, thus reintroducing capitalism.

Wouldn't this require a lot of centralized authority? And wouldn't deciding how many vouchers workers in different fields get also require lots of centralized authority? I'm guessing this is for the early transition period only, right?

[DaComm]

Wouldn't this require a lot of centralized authority? And wouldn't deciding how many vouchers workers in different fields get also require lots of centralized authority? I'm guessing this is for the early transition period only, right?

Not necessarily. If it is a consensus decision to uphold labor vouchers, which by the way, revolution must be a consensus revolt., I don't see why. And no, I believe if revolution were to occur tomorrow, for the US alone, it would take 100 years to build up on abundance. (my opinion).

[ckaihatsu]

So if a new technology comes around that makes a large portion of a workforce redundant, they just have to change jobs? Or, I suppose the workers could choose to keep working without the technology, which would also be fine.




Of course, then you ask, what would you do with all your free time? Took me a while to realize that a lot of the things I might want to do qualify as work in today's society. You can only drink so much alcohol and play so many video games before you decide you want to DO something.


I've come to the sociological conclusion that there are only a handful of things that a person *can* do, in general categories:

If you *have* to work for the money, then you *have* to work for the money. No one can blame someone who has no other options but to sell their labor for a wage so that they can eat and live. But if someone doesn't *have* to work, and they're not that crazy about what they're doing for a wage, then they happen to have the option (for the sake of argument) of *not* working for a wage and *instead* maybe doing things they like, which may include some kind of work-type activity, commonly called a 'hobby', or the leisure / pleasure of their choosing. If they decide that they like tending to aspects of the material world then that's 'business'. If they decide that the world needs to change for the better in large-scale ways, then that's 'politics'. Still others are able to devote themselves to family, or to culture, or sports, or whatever else I'm not listing here.

The point of all of this, though, is to say that if people are "freed" -- either now, but especially in a post-capitalist society -- they should take their own lives and life-time seriously and decide what is *worthwhile* to do, from their own perspective on their own life. People shouldn't work for the *sake* of working, as if that's what we're *meant* to do, because that assumption is unsupportable by argument and I would say that we're meant for better things anyway, given the opportunity.





Personally, if labor vouchers are going to exist, I think they have to be used only for the unrewarding work, or people would choose other ways to get them. But it's possible to have far less unrewarding work than you have workers, in fact it's likely. I don't see a good way to share out the burdensome work across all of society.


I think you answered your own question here -- why not use the labor vouchers as a way of *formally* rewarding those who do distasteful, burdensome work? In my own conception of labor vouchers -- at my blog entry -- I would say that their receipt would enable future organizing power over *other* liberated laborers and like compensation, going forward (while all produced goods and services would be pre-planned and freely available).

As far as not enough work being available I refer you back to what I just wrote in the previous section there. (Consider that everyone's basic human needs would be provided for so no one would suffer any kind of anxiety, fear, or duress by not having work to do.)





ALL work should be automated. Even maintaining the robots and factories should be automated somehow, so nobody would ever have to work!


Better yet -- in my opinion -- is if the basic machine-tool-type factory equipment was modular, durable, and yet disposable. This would mean that one machine could basically create a duplicate of itself in pieces, or of any subset of those component parts (all modular), as replacements -- or for re-assembling into some *other* kind of overall machine, as on an assembly line. And while the modular parts could be durable they could also just be automatically removed and plunked into some vat of molten metal to be melted down and reused once they showed signs of too much wear and tear. (A circular configuration would enable all sets of machines to both do their regular work *and* access the next section of machines over to tend to their component parts for removal and replacement.)

This would free up people to work at *designing* and *engineering* the modular parts and machines, without having to get bogged down with maintenance or operations of the machines.




















Regarding the top-down and bottom-up stuff, my position -- spelled out within the model at my blog entry -- is that the *general political culture* (of a post-capitalist society) will be able to handle most of the determining, or top-down, part of what should get done. Consider that we'd still be using the net, and would have local, regional, continental, and global media channels of journalism (TV, radio, newspapers, net, whatever) -- so that the politics of the day would be covered by journalists and could reflect back to us what the most prominent discussions happened to be. More-popular initiatives would enjoy widespread grassroots organizing drives, publicity campaigns, celebrity endorsements, debate sessions, news programs, documentaries, etc.

On the flipside -- bottom-up -- liberated laborers, by definition, could pick-and-choose what they would be most interested in using their fully discretionary time for, if anything. In this way the top-down and bottom-up aspects would be dialectical to each other, with an area of complexity in the middle. Not all proposed policy initiatives would enjoy planet-wide support, even if the appropriate liberated labor was available to do it. Or, conversely, some ideas might be wildly popular but would be untenable from the *labor* side of things.

Those plans that were both urgently needed by masses of people -- as for basic human living requirements -- and could be accomplished fairly easily -- providing local farming, building new housing, generating energy for electricity, etc. -- would have no problems finding both popular support *and* the liberated labor that would be sufficient to make it happen.