Heating+Electricity

[Comrade1]

In the socialist "transitional" phase how would these things be run or payed for. Using labour vouchers? Or free?

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

In the socialist "transitional" phase how would these things be run or payed for. Using labour vouchers? Or free?

Since they're necessities of modern life they would be run by the community for free. It would be kind of cold (pun intended) to force people to go without heating and electricity.

[Comrade1]

Since they're necessities of modern life they would be run by the community for free. It would be kind of cold (pun intended) to force people to go without heating and electricity.
ok thanks

[mikelepore]

Since they're necessities of modern life they would be run by the community for free. It would be kind of cold (pun intended) to force people to go without heating and electricity.

Your answer makes no sense to me. The question of "labor vouchers or free" means a product being easily acquired by method 1 versus a product being easily acquired by method 2. How did you arrive at "force people to go without"?

[PoliticalNightmare]

The commune does not organise these arrangements "for free". The commune is a free association of workers performing voluntary co-operative labour that has assemblies in a local town hall and is based on a fixed geographical location (such as a town). The association will come together, collectively to organise the provision of services such as electricity and fire to their members but they expect their members to put in a socially necessary amount of labour time, usually a mixture of labour at their choice so that "things get done" (and consequently, it is not the same people doing the same old dirty jobs day after day). If they gave out services for free to anyone and everyone we would risk people not working (and thereby getting goods and services for free) which would prevent people from distributing their goods to the commune in the first place, if people were just taking and not giving! This is described as a gift economy (where an association of workers organise the distribution of goods and services), rather than a barter economy where goods and services are traded directly for goods and services and inevitably leads back to a monetary system - however I won't go into more detail there. The only exception, of course would be for those genuinely unable to work, for whom the local community would naturally have sympathy for. But they won't be providing for no slackers - we do enough of that under capitalism.

The difference of course, with capitalism is the power that private entities in the market place and/or the government have to distribute goods and services rather than democratic communities. The means of production are collectivised, hence that local coal mine will be democratically run by members of the local community rather than by a cigar smoking Charlie who claims ownership by investment. This doesn't need to be enforced; if private property rights are no longer enforced by legal contracts, this will be the natural way for society to run, and the way it ran thousands of years before the uprising of capitalism, and the way many independent villages and communities in this day work.

[Taikand]

I'd say that these "products" can be free if easily acquired (which now they aren't), but even then a limit should be imposed as to avoid waste.And this is my opinion, you'll find plenty of them here,

[Squat For Shelter]

It would not need to be centralised, with the opportunities to install solar and wind system on houses and generate clean safe energy.

This would keep government out of peoples lives, and reduce the chance for a shoddy government controlled system.

[timbaly]

It would not need to be centralised, with the opportunities to install solar and wind system on houses and generate clean safe energy.

This would keep government out of peoples lives, and reduce the chance for a shoddy government controlled system.


This can't be done everywhere. Those systems only work well enough to power homes in areas with the necessary climate. Larger turbines and large panels could be placed in ideal areas far from homes, like in the desert or offshore, but they still might need some sort of professional oversight for maintenance. However I agree with you that the reducing the need for such an organization is ideal.

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

Your answer makes no sense to me. The question of "labor vouchers or free" means a product being easily acquired by method 1 versus a product being easily acquired by method 2. How did you arrive at "force people to go without"?

I was assuming it was saying, "You need to work X many hours (have X many labor vouchers) to have heating." Which leads one to believe if they didn't have X many hours of labor vouchers they would be forced to go without.

[kitsune]

It would not need to be centralised, with the opportunities to install solar and wind system on houses and generate clean safe energy.

This would keep government out of peoples lives, and reduce the chance for a shoddy government controlled system.

That's what I was thinking. I know several people who generate most if not all of their own electricity. Many regularly produce a surplus and sell it back to the grid. Decentralizing power generation as much as possible, moving it closer to the point of use, is definitely a valuable approach.

Heating and cooling is really a problem of efficiency in construction. A building with high thermal mass and insulation utilizing passive solar construction is a cinch to keep warm or cool.

[mikelepore]

I was assuming it was saying, "You need to work X many hours (have X many labor vouchers) to have heating." Which leads one to believe if they didn't have X many hours of labor vouchers they would be forced to go without.

There are so many extenuating factors:

* After the waste of capitalism is discontinued, very few hours of work will correspond to an affluent standard of living.

* There is nothing in the definition of labor vouchers that prohibits a policy of exceptions for people with serious disabilities.

* It's reasonable for a classless society to permit old people to retire at earlier ages, and with no reduction in income.

(etc.)

Then why would someone not have the quantity of vouchers needed to have heating? Because they are just being stubborn, and they refuse to contribute a little bit of work time to society? If so, maybe what they need is some education in the form of living in a freezing cold house for a while. Their fate is under their own control, which is the meaning of freedom.

[Aurora]

I think nessesities like heating, electricity, food, water etc can be provided free pretty easily but when i say free i really mean paying for them in taxes:

Marx shows that from the whole of the social labor of society there must be deducted a reserve fund, a fund for the expansion of production, a fund for the replacement of the "wear and tear" of machinery, and so on. Then, from the means of consumption must be deducted a fund for administrative expenses, for schools, hospitals, old people's homes, and so on.

In fact some capitalist countries already do this so that shows that it certainly won't be a problem with the new Socialist society based as it will be on a higher level of production than the highest capitalism

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

There are so many extenuating factors:

* After the waste of capitalism is discontinued, very few hours of work will correspond to an affluent standard of living.

* There is nothing in the definition of labor vouchers that prohibits a policy of exceptions for people with serious disabilities.

* It's reasonable for a classless society to permit old people to retire at earlier ages, and with no reduction in income.

(etc.)

Then why would someone not have the quantity of vouchers needed to have heating? Because they are just being stubborn, and they refuse to contribute a little bit of work time to society? If so, maybe what they need is some education in the form of living in a freezing cold house for a while. Their fate is under their own control, which is the meaning of freedom.

I live in a place where if people didn't have heating they would die. They wouldn't be living in a freezing cold house, they'd be dying. Also, not everyone can work.

[Comrade1]

I think nessesities like heating, electricity, food, water etc can be provided free pretty easily but when i say free i really mean paying for them in taxes:

In fact some capitalist countries already do this so that shows that it certainly won't be a problem with the new Socialist society based as it will be on a higher level of production than the highest capitalism
Ok but even in the transitional phase (post revolution) there wouldent be taxes because there is no currency, only vouchers.

[Comrade1]

There are so many extenuating factors:

* After the waste of capitalism is discontinued, very few hours of work will correspond to an affluent standard of living.

* There is nothing in the definition of labor vouchers that prohibits a policy of exceptions for people with serious disabilities.

* It's reasonable for a classless society to permit old people to retire at earlier ages, and with no reduction in income.

(etc.)

Then why would someone not have the quantity of vouchers needed to have heating? Because they are just being stubborn, and they refuse to contribute a little bit of work time to society? If so, maybe what they need is some education in the form of living in a freezing cold house for a while. Their fate is under their own control, which is the meaning of freedom.
Yeah so thats kinda what I thought, you wouldent just be able to live off other peoples work and stuff. you would need to contribute too.

[Acostak3]

I remember reading somthing that stated in an anarchist-collectivist society things like housing, electricity/heating, education, healthcare etc. would be supplied for free by the commune a person associated themselves with. Implicit in this is that the person would have to remain in good standing with the commune to continue to recieve these services, which would probably entail to working for a "socially necessary" amount of labour time. So whether or not heating and electricity are provided for free or you had to exchange labour notes for them you would still end up having to labour for some time.