But, who is going to determine?

[The Man]

I was asked a question about Anarcho-Communism that I couldn't answer. It was, "Who determines what you need without a state?"

Also, another question was, "If it is according to need, everyone needs a home, so why can't they have an 1000-room house, if they need a home?"

[gorillafuck]

I was asked a question about Anarcho-Communism that I couldn't answer. It was, "Who determines what you need without a state?"
I'm going to guess you determine what you want/need. The idea of a state determining what things you want is actually pretty sinister.


Also, another question was, "If it is according to need, everyone needs a home, so why can't they have an 1000-room house, if they need a home?"
1) That would be a fucking outrageous thing to want and nobody wants that.
2) That question doesn't really make much sense.

[revolution inaction]

I was asked a question about Anarcho-Communism that I couldn't answer. It was, "Who determines what you need without a state?"

you would, as far as possible




Also, another question was, "If it is according to need, everyone needs a home, so why can't they have an 1000-room house, if they need a home?"
you can claim you need a 1000 room house all you want, but getting the workers councils to build you one is another matter

[The Man]

Okay, lets say that I NEED a beach house, and the workers councils dont want to make me one. Doesn't that make the Workers Councils decide your life for you? Isn't that more coercive than the state?


Im trying to build up my arguments against capitalists.

[FreeFocus]

You know, people ask you the dumbest questions (http://www.revleft.com/vb/big-houses-t147340/index.html?t=147340&highlight=mansions), Lycanthrope. smh.

But anyway, how does the state determine what people need in a capitalist society? Capitalists determine what people "need," through advertising mostly. Capitalist society focuses on creating artificial demand. There will always be demand for things that you need to live - food, water, etc. But the biggest items aren't apples, they are fancy cars, iPods, or whatever else is in vogue. The only time a state determines these things is a capitalist state during wartime (the forced rations during WWII, for example) or a "worker's state" where goods are produced and then allotted to people.

In an anarchist society, worker's councils (which is basically the community, not some elite group of sinister workers plotting to rule the community) will look at what needs to be produced and direct resources to get it done, based on need and want.

Whenever anyone asks you about 1,000 room mansions from now on, you should slap them. If they want a house like that they need to build it themselves. Unfuckingbelievable, honestly. It's just an infantile or trolling question. Why would you ever need a beach house? That's just ridiculous. There might be an argument that people whose lifestyle revolves around fishing, for example, might need access to streams and other bodies of water. I think that's something else entirely though.

[psgchisolm]

You know, people ask you the dumbest questions (http://www.revleft.com/vb/big-houses-t147340/index.html?t=147340&highlight=mansions), Lycanthrope. smh.

In an anarchist society, worker's councils (which is basically the community, not some elite group of sinister workers plotting to rule the community) will look at what needs to be produced and direct resources to get it done, based on need and want.

Whenever anyone asks you about 1,000 room mansions from now on, you should slap them. If they want a house like that they need to build it themselves. Unfuckingbelievable, honestly. It's just an infantile or trolling question. Why would you ever need a beach house? That's just ridiculous. There might be an argument that people whose lifestyle revolves around fishing, for example, might need access to streams and other bodies of water. I think that's something else entirely though.
1. Who's going to appoint the council.
2. How will you be sure they won't abuse their the council abilities? Wouldn't it be possible for them to all decide they want mansions and that they need resources to build them? If they can get the resources to make them and there's no other need for the resources elsewhere would they still get distributed?
3. Is there any failsafe to prevent the above from happening or making sure supplies are distrubuted fairly?

[The Man]

You know, people ask you the dumbest questions (http://www.revleft.com/vb/big-houses-t147340/index.html?t=147340&highlight=mansions), Lycanthrope. smh.

But anyway, how does the state determine what people need in a capitalist society? Capitalists determine what people "need," through advertising mostly. Capitalist society focuses on creating artificial demand. There will always be demand for things that you need to live - food, water, etc. But the biggest items aren't apples, they are fancy cars, iPods, or whatever else is in vogue. The only time a state determines these things is a capitalist state during wartime (the forced rations during WWII, for example) or a "worker's state" where goods are produced and then allotted to people.

In an anarchist society, worker's councils (which is basically the community, not some elite group of sinister workers plotting to rule the community) will look at what needs to be produced and direct resources to get it done, based on need and want.

Whenever anyone asks you about 1,000 room mansions from now on, you should slap them. If they want a house like that they need to build it themselves. Unfuckingbelievable, honestly. It's just an infantile or trolling question. Why would you ever need a beach house? That's just ridiculous. There might be an argument that people whose lifestyle revolves around fishing, for example, might need access to streams and other bodies of water. I think that's something else entirely though.

I agree, it's just that they go "Well, if they say I can't build a beach house, isn't that intrusion on my freedom to do what I want?"

I usually just tell them that Workers would make what the community needs, and anything you don't need you, you can make yourself. But they still ask the same damned question!

[FreeFocus]

I agree, it's just that they go "Well, if they say I can't build a beach house, isn't that intrusion on my freedom to do what I want?"

I usually just tell them that Workers would make what the community needs, and anything you don't need you, you can make yourself. But they still ask the same damned question!

No one said that they can't build it themselves. Tell them that they can chop the wood themselves and build it up. Workers aren't anyone's slaves. If they wanted a beach house now that wasn't built, what would they do? Cry because no one will build a house for spoiled brats/people blinded by bourgeois "glamor?"

Stupid questions like these you should just brush aside. These types of silly question and answer sessions won't make or break someone's commitment to socialism; if they do, it's likely that the person is doing some real-life trolling, or it's something that they'll drop later and just thought it was "cool" for a period of time.

Look, if people aren't willing to read materials that you send them (you could start with libcom.org, the Anarchist FAQ, basic stuff like that, basic explanations of socialism, worker's control, etc) or buy books on their own to invest in their understanding, they likely aren't sincere. You could be spending your time doing better things, like reading and improving your own theoretical base, than debating people who are insincere or just buffoons. Trust me. I used to waste hours a day on some days debating with tools online. Now that I don't, I channel my energies into making myself a better person, a smarter person.

[Sensible Socialist]

I was asked a question about Anarcho-Communism that I couldn't answer. It was, "Who determines what you need without a state?"

Also, another question was, "If it is according to need, everyone needs a home, so why can't they have an 1000-room house, if they need a home?"
No one truly determines what you need, but instead what can be provided to you by the community, from community resources. So, to use the house example:

In the example community, there would be a worker's council for construction (loggers, carpenters, etc.). You would go to them and propose your plan for a home. Now remember, the workers council has limited resources. If you ask for a 100-room home, they would not be able to provide them for everyone (and I doubt the space of the community could accomodate such extravagant needs). Therefore, they would not grant you the required materials.

This does not infringe on any sort of freedom, as you are free to go and build the house yourself. All the workers council can do is tell you that they cannot build the house for you. If you choose to construct it yourself, feel free to do so.

You will be provided what can be provided. Anything else, you'll probably have to get on your own, or just live without (such as a mansion).

[Tablo]

Everything is democratically decided. If the majority of the community thinks you need to have a beach house then it will happen. If they don't think you need one then you're going to have to make it yourself. I don't see how this is so complicated. Anything that requires community involvement or has an effect on the community will be decided through democracy.

[ComradeOm]

I agree, it's just that they go "Well, if they say I can't build a beach house, isn't that intrusion on my freedom to do what I want?"Tell them boo hoo. If there's one thing that we can say with a degree of certainty about communism, its that it will be a collective society. It will not provide untrammelled individual freedom for people to do whatever they want without regard to the rest of the community

[Jimmie Higgins]

Everything is democratically decided. If the majority of the community thinks you need to have a beach house then it will happen. If they don't think you need one then you're going to have to make it yourself. I don't see how this is so complicated. Anything that requires community involvement or has an effect on the community will be decided through democracy.Well said. I understand people wanting to slap someone who asks this question because a 1000 room house is silly, but yeah, there is a kernel of a real issue underneath that shouldn't be dismissed.

I'd first ask the person how they would get a 1000 room house or a big beach house in capitalist society and then ask them how likely it would be to get that in all seriousness.

That leads to what Tsukae said: if everyone in a community wants a beach house but there is only enough available materials or labor for a few, then democratically they might decide to create a beach community center or something that would give people the most bang for the effort to build such a thing. People would have to take stock of what resources and time they have and weigh that against needs and wants - the difference between that process and what we have now is that these decisions currently are made by a handful of people with the sole aim of returning a profit for their investments. For people in a socialist society the collective aim of production would be meeting the needs of themselves collectively and the best way to do that is through some kind of democratic or collective decision making process.

So yeah, maybe an individual who wants to develop a personal jet-pack for himself would loose the vote to people who wanted to put research and development energy into more luxurious public transportation or automated sandwich-makers or something, but at least you get to debate it and bring it up and argue your point the same as anyone else - which you currently can't do with Microsoft or EXXON.

Edit: one more point. Also I think there would be an interest among people in a classless society to create and maintain surplus with as little effort as possible. That means for needs and many common wants, there would be no hashing-out to do or voting. For example, all books, music, film, and so on could be digitized and made available to everyone very easily if that was a priority of society.