Doubts on anarchy.

[Triple A]

I have some doubts on how the socialist society would work. Plese help me.


If money is abolished how the people will get food?

How would the comunities work?
Direct democracy or another system?

[The Ben G]

People could barter for what they need/want.

[red cat]

Or may be they'll take whatever they want from a store. Btw, at the stage where money can be done away with, it's communism; not socialism any more.

[Widerstand]

If money is abolished how the people will get food?

Just like now ... except without paying.



How would the comunities work?

Define what you mean by "work."



Direct democracy or another system?

Well direct democracy is a pretty vague term, but, yes. It'd most likely be some form of direct democracy, or at least a highly non-hierarchical one.

[Tablo]

Yeah, people would just take what they need since it would be a society of post-scarcity. Also, the economy would be a socialist gift economy while the society itself would communist. Socialism has multiple meanings... we could also have a collectivist society with currency, but leftovers from market economies are pretty useless in the long run.

[WeAreReborn]

I have some doubts on how the socialist society would work. Plese help me.


If money is abolished how the people will get food?

How would the comunities work?
Direct democracy or another system?
There are two main types of Anarchist economy. One is a labor measuring system. So instead of a wage it would be purely based on how many hours you work. These could be trade able for any product you need or want. It is similar to money but it definitely is more fair. To note, some people feel the labor measuring currency should be weighted. Some in favor of the more educated positions, like doctors, and some more in favor of the less desirable jobs. Also there is an equal labor system where hours are just hours. The other type, the one I am in favor of, is a gift economy. This pretty much states as long as you work 4-5 hours you can take as much as you want. Everything is open as long as you contribute to society. This to me seems the most fair and equal way to distribute goods because it is ensured everyone can get as much as they need as long as they help their community in turn.

Well the second question is broad and hard to answer since it is so vague so if you could ask more specific questions, this thread would be much more focused and informative.

So onto the third one. I envision it as direct democracy. The community would get together as a whole to make decisions. If they need to make decisions like receiving goods they cannot produce or giving goods another community cannot produce they would send a sort of diplomat. The person in this position would not make any decisions by himself/herself but would be able to receive the demand from a fellow community or state his/her community demands. If the community who they are communicating with offers a proposal the diplomat must give it to the community so they can make an according decision. To make it more fair and less chance of corruption the diplomat would be voluntary and on a rotational basis.

[Triple A]

But the products we eat have a cost (i think) , that would only be achieved with robots doing the work.

So communities would have councils?

[Widerstand]

But the products we eat have a cost

No. They don't. Why would they have a cost? They only have a cost because workers need to be paid (and that's because they need to buy food) and because capital is accumulated (that would vanish in a communist society). So basically the only cost you have on food (or anything for that matter) is what the worker needs to live. If the worker get's everything for free, there is no cost on anything. It's fairly simple.

[Triple A]

There are two main types of Anarchist economy. One is a labor measuring system. So instead of a wage it would be purely based on how many hours you work. These could be trade able for any product you need or want. It is similar to money but it definitely is more fair. To note, some people feel the labor measuring currency should be weighted. Some in favor of the more educated positions, like doctors, and some more in favor of the less desirable jobs. Also there is an equal labor system where hours are just hours. The other type, the one I am in favor of, is a gift economy. This pretty much states as long as you work 4-5 hours you can take as much as you want. Everything is open as long as you contribute to society. This to me seems the most fair and equal way to distribute goods because it is ensured everyone can get as much as they need as long as they help their community in turn.

Well the second question is broad and hard to answer since it is so vague so if you could ask more specific questions, this thread would be much more focused and informative.

So onto the third one. I envision it as direct democracy. The community would get together as a whole to make decisions. If they need to make decisions like receiving goods they cannot produce or giving goods another community cannot produce they would send a sort of diplomat. The person in this position would not make any decisions by himself by would be able to receive the demand from a fellow community or state his/her community demands. If the community who they are communicating with offers a proposal the diplomat must give it to the community so they can make an according decision. To make it more fair and less chance of corruption the diplomat would be voluntary and on a rotational basis.


I've been reading Kropotkine and he said something like that.
I think the people in the community councils should be randomly selected like in ancient Grece.


I have fewer doubts now ,thanks you all. (:

[WeAreReborn]

But the products we eat have a cost (i think) , that would only be achieved with robots doing the work.-
What do you mean by a cost? Products take materials and energy to work but it would be free like everything else, to ensure no one goes without.


So communities would have councils?
It depends on your vision of how a council would play out. The whole community would get together and discuss whatever problems concern their community. They would make decisions purely democratically and try to help any minority opposition by addressing the problem in the most equal and fair way possible. But there would be no hierarchy in the community meeting.

[Triple A]

What do you mean by a cost? Products take materials and energy to work but it would be free like everything else, to ensure no one goes without.


It depends on your vision of how a council would play out. The whole community would get together and discuss whatever problems concern their community. They would make decisions purely democratically and try to help any minority opposition by addressing the problem in the most equal and fair way possible. But there would be no hierarchy in the community meeting.

I understand the first part.

How about big cities with milions and thousands of people? It would be impossible to have them all in a hall discussing the community problems.

[red cat]

I understand the first part.

How about big cities with milions and thousands of people? It would be impossible to have them all in a hall discussing the community problems.

They would organize themselves into local Soviets, as many as necessary. Why are you thinking of halls ? We already have technology better than that. By the time communism comes we will develop still better technological methods to support these social processes.

[Triple A]

They would organize themselves into local Soviets, as many as necessary. Why are you thinking of halls ? We already have technology better than that. By the time communism comes we will develop still better technological methods to support these social processes.


A soviet for each neigborhood?
Would they meet every day or once week or once a month?

Sorry for my bad english.

[syndicat]

Post-scarcity is a fiction. Won't happen. That's because our resources are finite. Most important resource is our own time. Do we want to slave away 14 hours a day providing people with any conceivable thing they might want? Well, no. And if a group of construction workers spend their day building a health clinic, the laws of physics preclude them from being across town building houses. So, to get anything you want you have to give up something else that someone might want. This is what economists call a "social opportunity cost." We can make work more meaningful and self-managed but there is still going to be an element of drudgery and boredom. Work itself is a cost in the sense that it's often something we'd rather not do. To a great extent we do it because we want to have the products.

Because of scarcity of time and resources, we need to make sure that our time spent making things creates the things people most prefer, otherwise we won't have an economy that is effective for people.

This means we need some way of people to indicate their relative preferences for outcomes of productive activity. This can only happen if people have finite budgets of consumption entitlement and have to choose how they are going to spend it.

We need a way to evaluate the potential benefits and costs of producing different things or different techniques for production. We can't do that unless we can put them on a common numeric scale of costs. And then you have prices as a form of measurement of cost.

Money is not itself a cause of oppression or exploitation. Within the capitalist social framework, money works as capital, that is, its possessor can go out into markets and hire workers and managers and buy equipment and then scarf up the sales revenue to make a profit. But once the capitalist framework is eliminated, prices -- money -- no longer exists as capital. In the context of a post-capitalist worker-managed economy money can function as simply a social accounting unit.

Leftists often confuse scarcity with deprivation. We can't eliminate scarcity but we can eliminate deprivation...people not having what they need.

"Abolition of money" is a silly idea and not needed for a libertarian socialist economy.

[Widerstand]

This can only happen if people have finite budgets of consumption entitlement and have to choose how they are going to spend it.

That's a very slippery road. Who decides how much consumption each person is entitled to and on on what basis?

[red cat]

A soviet for each neigborhood?
Would they meet every day or once week or once a month?

Sorry for my bad english.

These technical details will be decided by the masses themselves according to whatever situation they face, or what they choose to have.

[syndicat]

Who decides how much consumption each person is entitled to and on on what basis?

That's up to the masses to decide once the workers have taken over management of the various enterprises.

For one thing, the population need to decide, via their assemblies and delegate congresses etc, the extent of free provision, such as health care, education, child care, etc. Different communities or regions might decide to provide different things as socially provided free goods or services. The community will still need to have prices because these services have costs and they must decide how much of the total social production they are prepared to distribute via free social provision. The larger this is, the less is available for private consumption entitlement for private consumption goods.

What I favor is requirement of work for all able bodied adults, social plan to ensure employment for all such persons, and remuneration at an equal rate per hour of work. The extent of such pay depends on how much of the social product the community has decided to provide via free social provision. Also, equality presupposes that chldren are not dependent on the earnings of their parents. if that were so, children in larger families would have fewer benefits available to them growing up. so there would need to be equal child allotments of consumption entitlement. also, it's necessary to provide people out of work with a socially average level of consumpton entitlement, and the same for those who are sick or disabled, and those who we no longer require to work due to age. i say "socially average" because there is no point in penalizing people for such a situation. again, this is part of eliminating deprivation, poverty.

[Widerstand]

That's up to the masses to decide once the workers have taken over management of the various enterprises.

For one thing, the population need to decide, via their assemblies and delegate congresses etc, the extent of free provision, such as health care, education, child care, etc. Different communities or regions might decide to provide different things as socially provided free goods or services. The community will still need to have prices because these services have costs and they must decide how much of the total social production they are prepared to distribute via free social provision. The larger this is, the less is available for private consumption entitlement for private consumption goods.

What I favor is requirement of work for all able bodied adults, social plan to ensure employment for all such persons, and remuneration at an equal rate per hour of work. The extent of such pay depends on how much of the social product the community has decided to provide via free social provision. Also, equality presupposes that chldren are not dependent on the earnings of their parents. if that were so, children in larger families would have fewer benefits available to them growing up. so there would need to be equal child allotments of consumption entitlement. also, it's necessary to provide people out of work with a socially average level of consumpton entitlement, and the same for those who are sick or disabled, and those who we no longer require to work due to age. i say "socially average" because there is no point in penalizing people for such a situation. again, this is part of eliminating deprivation, poverty.

But that creates a pretty definite wealth hierarchy, where those able to work a lot, and willing to do so, consume, and thereby own, significantly more than those unable or unwilling.

[PoliticalNightmare]

People could barter for what they need/want.

We won't revert to a barter economy as they are incredibly inefficient (they require a double coincedence of wants for exchange to actually take place) and inevitably lead back to a monetary system. Instead, worker-owned communes would organise the distribution of labour in a way that is fair, democratic and covers everyones needs (this would also eliminate the problems of indirect exchange that are present in a barter economy and the problems of wealth by accumulation of capital that is present under capitalism). Since technology is socialised (rather than generated into the hands of relatively few), there is less need for labour in any case. Jobs are shared in a rota around all physically able in a commune with more free time left to study the arts, literature and philosophy and free education, healthcare and social services for all provided they provide their fair share of labour to the commune. Certain wealth and land will be distributed by communes according to profession (e.g. a builder needs tools, etc.) otherwise all who labour reasonably receive their fair share of the goods and services of society.

Also - OP, not all anarchists advocate abolishment of money, mutualists, for instance advocate a community bank that is low risk free from interest (or interest only to cover risks and expenses) and a society where the means of production are owned by the labourers and there are no shareholds or private property (personal property, however is not, by any stretch of the imagination, forbidden).

[Amphictyonis]

I have some doubts on how the socialist society would work. Plese help me.


If money is abolished how the people will get food?

How would the comunities work?
Direct democracy or another system?

Read "The Economic Organization of the Revolution" by Diego Abad de Santillan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Abad_de_Santillan)

http://membres.multimania.fr/anarchives/site/syndic/aftertherevolution.htm

[Amphictyonis]

That's a very slippery road. Who decides how much consumption each person is entitled to and on on what basis?

Whoever controls the surplus controls society itself so the workers would have to decide :) Hierchical society began (according to Marx) with agriculture. The men who controlled the surplus agriculture created ended up controlling the society. Primitive accumulation started at that point.

[Rafiq]

Post-scarcity is a fiction. Won't happen. That's because our resources are finite. Most important resource is our own time. Do we want to slave away 14 hours a day providing people with any conceivable thing they might want? Well, no. And if a group of construction workers spend their day building a health clinic, the laws of physics preclude them from being across town building houses. So, to get anything you want you have to give up something else that someone might want. This is what economists call a "social opportunity cost." We can make work more meaningful and self-managed but there is still going to be an element of drudgery and boredom. Work itself is a cost in the sense that it's often something we'd rather not do. To a great extent we do it because we want to have the products.



It seems like no one takes me seriously when I say this, but the answer to making work something people would be happy doing, is through the educational system. Right now kids are taught to be Competitive and Capitalistic, and to only do things that get you something. Why not teach them to be cooperative? Why not teach them that everyone must work together for the good of all?

[Amphictyonis]

It seems like no one takes me seriously when I say this, but the answer to making work something people would be happy doing, is through the educational system. Right now kids are taught to be Competitive and Capitalistic, and to only do things that get you something. Why not teach them to be cooperative? Why not teach them that everyone must work together for the good of all?

With the proper technology/education we can also end the division of labor and remain productive.

[Rafiq]

Education is the key to everything, comrades.

Between the ages of thirteen and eighteen, is when one's mind develops, and no other chances are given afterwards to change you. We should exploit the mind of them (Not exploit in a bad way, I mean, put into use fully) so everyone will have their own opinions, everyone will value education, it will be a society of thought.

[syndicat]

But that creates a pretty definite wealth hierarchy, where those able to work a lot, and willing to do so, consume, and thereby own, significantly more than those unable or unwilling.


No it does not. "Wealth" are in the means of production, which people use to produce the things we want. Those are socially owned. The only difference is in the level of personal consumption entitlement between people who choose to work more and those who choose to work fewer hours. people should be allowed to make a real choice between having having more leisure and having more goods. these differences in consumption entitlement would be very small in comparison to the vast differences that exist under any class system.

differences in income due to differences in hours worked, when people are paid at the same rate, does not amount to a class difference. that's because there is no subordination of those who work to a boss class.

the self-emancipation of the working class requires that we get rid of subordination to boss classes. it does not require that we require everyone to work exactly the same amount of hours. if some choose to work fewer hours than others with the understanding their personal consumption entitlement is less, what's wrong with that?

[Widerstand]

No it does not. "Wealth" are in the means of production, which people use to produce the things we want. Those are socially owned. The only difference is in the level of personal consumption entitlement between people who choose to work more and those who choose to work fewer hours. people should be allowed to make a real choice between having having more leisure and having more goods. these differences in consumption entitlement would be very small in comparison to the vast differences that exist under any class system.

differences in income due to differences in hours worked, when people are paid at the same rate, does not amount to a class difference. that's because there is no subordination of those who work to a boss class.

the self-emancipation of the working class requires that we get rid of subordination to boss classes. it does not require that we require everyone to work exactly the same amount of hours. if some choose to work fewer hours than others with the understanding their personal consumption entitlement is less, what's wrong with that?

Well, again, what about those who can't work at all or who can't work for as long time but have higher needs of consumption (for example medication) than "healthy" persons?

[syndicat]

Well, again, what about those who can't work at all or who can't work for as long time but have higher needs of consumption (for example medication) than "healthy" persons?


I suggest you go back and re-read what I said about collective provision of various social or public goods like health care, education, child care etc. Free medical care is needed out of solidarity. Every one is susceptible to injuries or diseases or health problems. Also, for reasons of positive liberty. Positive liberty means that everyone has equal access to the means to develop their potential. This includes sustaining their physical abilities and health.

As I suggested, we can provide the average level of consumption entitlement to people not working, unable to work, or beyond the age where we require people to work.

if a person works, say, 10 percent more hours than the average, this only enables them to have 10 percent more consumption entitlement than the average. that is an extremely small level of inequality compared not only to present capitalist society but also far less than in the various "Communist" countries. in the old USSR the bureaucratic class earned an average of 3 to 5 times what the typical worker earned. at present in the USA CEOs "earn" more than 100 times what the typical worker makes.

also, when I say that people could work more hours and earn more, this is if the workers in that workplace allow them to do this. but I don't see any reason not to allow this.

[Ovi]

I have some doubts on how the socialist society would work. Plese help me.


If money is abolished how the people will get food?

How would the comunities work?
Direct democracy or another system?
Not all anarchists are communists, and even anarchist communists believe that it will take some time until communism is achieved. We don't have a utopian view that communism will be achieved overnight, but that it is necessary to base our post revolutionary society on principles as close as possible to communism while at the same time not ignoring the objective reality. Once society is shaped to uphold creativity and cooperation, rather than alienation and competition and the capitalist ideas that have a stronghold on society today, such as consumerism give away, communism might be possible and people might see it as the best form of distribution