Begninner Questions

[ChampionDishWasher]

So I'm relatively new to the ideas on the left and, after doing some research, find it pretty interesting. However, I have some questions about some subjects that I could not find answers to and/or found a bit shaky. If you know any good articles, books, or videos on anything I ask please post!

For Anarchists
1. I've read from a few sources that there is a general consensus among anarchists that without a prior social revolution, an anarchist revolution is pointless. I can defiantly see the reasons for this living in a Wall-Mart and McDonalds obsessed world. However I am curious as to how this social revolution would be brought about, as if you were to believe in a transition state, you would be a Marxist, and I don't know how else this could happen. Would it purely be by education? If yes, it doesn't seem that that is working very well, and the corporate media seems to seduce people from your ideas anyway.

For communists of any kind:

2. If there would be no money in communism, how would people know how to efficiently manage scarce resources (such as if one kind of steel to be used in building a bridge is more reliable than another kind, but is much harder to find)?

3. Similarly to the question above, how would quality goods be managed. For example, how would it be decided who gets to live in previously built mansions and who has to live in apartments.

4. If everything would be free, how would people who could work but choose not to be denied goods? Similarly, would people who produce more receive any more compensation than those who produce less? If not, what is to stop people for doing as little work as possible? ( I know this gets asked all the time, but I just have not found a suitable answer.)

For Marxists and or Leninists

1 My history teacher used to argue that the problem with state communism is that it gives the Vanguard too much power, and power tends to corrupt. What is the problem with this argument? Did this not happen to Stalin or Castro?

2. I've heard some Communists argue that the USSR was state capitalist and that the only true communism has been in the Paris Commune, but I've heard others praise the USSR. Which do most ( and you) believe? If the latter, do you approve the use of the secret police, concentration camps, censored press etc...?
Also, I see that Lenin tends to be a popular figure amongst you, but wasn't he known for slaughtering those who opposed his ideas, or where my history classes dreadfully wrong?

Thanks in advance for any help.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

1 My history teacher used to argue that the problem with state communism is that it gives the Vanguard too much power, and power tends to corrupt. What is the problem with this argument? Did this not happen to Stalin or Castro?

Yes, some think it happened to Stalin or Castro (let's not get into that debate here). However, does this mean we have to make the same mistake in the future? I think not. Vanguardism is necessary for highjacking the apparatus of government... how it will be implemented is still debated today, but we surely will not repeat our mistakes.



2. I've heard some Communists argue that the USSR was state capitalist and that the only true communism has been in the Paris Commune, but I've heard others praise the USSR. Which do most ( and you) believe? If the latter, do you approve the use of the secret police, concentration camps, censored press etc...?
Also, I see that Lenin tends to be a popular figure amongst you, but wasn't he known for slaughtering those who opposed his ideas, or where my history classes dreadfully wrong?

You'll encounter people with various views on Stalin, Lenin and the USSR as a whole on this forum. Given time, you'll probably form your own opinion on it. Just keep yourself open to new ideas. As far as I go, I support Lenin and SOME of the things that Stalin did (although other things I condemn). Lenin was in the midst of a war in which the nationalist whites would stop at nothing to destroy him. Casualties were unavoidable (especially considering that they attacked him in the majority of instances...). Of course he would have avoided it if possible, but it became necessary. As revolutionary leftists everyone here supports the idea that violence might be necessary in the case of a revolution (if merely because the ruling class will NEVER go quietly). If you have any specific questions about the ideologies and specific actions of Lenin, feel free to ask.

[The Man]

So I'm relatively new to the ideas on the left and, after doing some research, find it pretty interesting. However, I have some questions about some subjects that I could not find answers to and/or found a bit shaky. If you know any good articles, books, or videos on anything I ask please post!

For Anarchists
1. I've read from a few sources that there is a general consensus among anarchists that without a prior social revolution, an anarchist revolution is pointless. I can defiantly see the reasons for this living in a Wall-Mart and McDonalds obsessed world. However I am curious as to how this social revolution would be brought about, as if you were to believe in a transition state, you would be a Marxist, and I don't know how else this could happen. Would it purely be by education? If yes, it doesn't seem that that is working very well, and the corporate media seems to seduce people from your ideas anyway.

For communists of any kind:

2. If there would be no money in communism, how would people know how to efficiently manage scarce resources (such as if one kind of steel to be used in building a bridge is more reliable than another kind, but is much harder to find)?

3. Similarly to the question above, how would quality goods be managed. For example, how would it be decided who gets to live in previously built mansions and who has to live in apartments.

4. If everything would be free, how would people who could work but choose not to be denied goods? Similarly, would people who produce more receive any more compensation than those who produce less? If not, what is to stop people for doing as little work as possible? ( I know this gets asked all the time, but I just have not found a suitable answer.)

Thanks in advance for any help.

1. (For Anarchists) Many successful societies/communes have arisen like Catalonia during '36 in great ways, and worked quite well for sometime. A quite possible way to bring about such a revolution would most likely be through unions and strikes. As Durruti said 'The workers are not afraid of ruins." The workers aren't afraid of the ruins that such massive strikes go bring about because, we, the workers, have built these great cities like New York, and we can do it again. But yes, education is key to a new world.

Communists:

Since I'm an Anarcho-Communist I suppose I'll attempt to answer these questions.

2. There are many different ways such a system of Communism in this sense would work. Many believe in Labour Vouchers, others believe in Gift Economies, that in my opinion, should be regulated depending on how high production is. (It shouldn't be low in such a society.)

3. I guess it would depend on how large the family is, or what their needs are. But every system differs. In Anarchist Catalonia, large mansions were turned into homes for many people living together, like an apartment.

4. You have to remember that in such a society, you could get the job that you always wanted to have. For example, lets say, I always wanted to be a toy maker, I would get to be a toy maker. I would have the opportunity to do my hobby as a job. So it's pretty unlikely that such a society would have those types of people. You also have to remember that if these people don't work, they won't be part of Worker's Councils, and therefore, won't have any decision in making choices for the community amongst other people.

[Broletariat]

For Anarchists
1. I've read from a few sources that there is a general consensus among anarchists that without a prior social revolution, an anarchist revolution is pointless. I can defiantly see the reasons for this living in a Wall-Mart and McDonalds obsessed world. However I am curious as to how this social revolution would be brought about, as if you were to believe in a transition state, you would be a Marxist, and I don't know how else this could happen. Would it purely be by education? If yes, it doesn't seem that that is working very well, and the corporate media seems to seduce people from your ideas anyway.

Marxists no more believe in a transition state than do Anarchists


For communists of any kind:

2. If there would be no money in communism, how would people know how to efficiently manage scarce resources (such as if one kind of steel to be used in building a bridge is more reliable than another kind, but is much harder to find)?

Simple, pull up the database of uses, demands, and supply of that steel and from there scientifically determine where it would best be used. Regions would be polled on their demand, and supply of whatever resources.


3. Similarly to the question above, how would quality goods be managed. For example, how would it be decided who gets to live in previously built mansions and who has to live in apartments.

Mansions would probably be turned into like museums or social gathering places, no one wants to clean an entire mansion, I barely want to clean my room. Provide a better example so I can try to see more what you were talking about


4. If everything would be free, how would people who could work but choose not to be denied goods? Similarly, would people who produce more receive any more compensation than those who produce less? If not, what is to stop people for doing as little work as possible? ( I know this gets asked all the time, but I just have not found a suitable answer.)

Labour has taken many forms across human history, early on it was necessary for survival, under capitalism it takes the form of exchange-value, under communism labour will become more recreational than anything. People have hobbies that are productive, some people have green thumbs, other people are interested in sciences, etc.

From this we can see how unlikely it would be if someone could "work" but refused to.


1 My history teacher used to argue that the problem with state communism is that it gives the Vanguard too much power, and power tends to corrupt. What is the problem with this argument? Did this not happen to Stalin or Castro?

State Communism is basically like saying disorganised organisation, it's a contradiction.


2. I've heard some Communists argue that the USSR was state capitalist and that the only true communism has been in the Paris Commune, but I've heard others praise the USSR. Which do most ( and you) believe? If the latter, do you approve the use of the secret police, concentration camps, censored press etc...?
Also, I see that Lenin tends to be a popular figure amongst you, but wasn't he known for slaughtering those who opposed his ideas, or where my history classes dreadfully wrong?

No one here will uphold EITHER the USSR or the Paris Commune as "true communism," some of us will say they were genuine attempts at communism, others won't. Personally I'd say that the Paris Commune and the USSR were genuine attempts to begin with but failed for some reason or another. The USSR primarily failed because the revolution did not spread, socialism cannot exist in one country. I don't really have an analysis on the Paris Commune, something about rearranging the political characteristic, but not the economic or something? I don't know.

As for Lenin, your history classes were probably wrong, but it's not like we defend EVERYTHING Lenin did anyway.


Thanks in advance for any help.

Totes mcgoats

[ChampionDishWasher]

Thanks for all of the answers so far, they've been really helpful. I have a few questions about your answers though. :)
"You'll encounter people with various views on Stalin, Lenin and the USSR as a whole on this forum. Given time, you'll probably form your own opinion on it. Just keep yourself open to new ideas. As far as I go, I support Lenin and SOME of the things that Stalin did (although other things I condemn). Lenin was in the midst of a war in which the nationalist whites would stop at nothing to destroy him. Casualties were unavoidable (especially considering that they attacked him in the majority of instances...). Of course he would have avoided it if possible, but it became necessary. As revolutionary leftists everyone here supports the idea that violence might be necessary in the case of a revolution (if merely because the ruling class will NEVER go quietly). If you have any specific questions about the ideologies and specific actions of Lenin, feel free to ask."

Honestly, I don't feel as if I know enough about Lenin to ask any intelligent questions about him, as my only sources of information about him have been my history classes and Animal Farm ( Have you read this? Do you find any truth in it?). If you have any recommendations for a good bio for him and his ideas though I'll definitely check them out.

"4. You have to remember that in such a society, you could get the job that you always wanted to have. For example, lets say, I always wanted to be a toy maker, I would get to be a toy maker. I would have the opportunity to do my hobby as a job. So it's pretty unlikely that such a society would have those types of people. You also have to remember that if these people don't work, they won't be part of Worker's Councils, and therefore, won't have any decision in making choices for the community amongst other people."

That's part of my point though. No one wants to be a janitor or a garbageman, but we need them. How is their work going to get done without them?
Also, what about people who want to be doctors, but don't have the qualifications? Surely there must be some way of regulating the job market.


"Marxists no more believe in a transition state than do Anarchists"

Ok, now I'm confused. I thought the socialist transition state was what defined Marxism, and separated it from anarchism. What am I missing?

"Mansions would probably be turned into like museums or social gathering places, no one wants to clean an entire mansion, I barely want to clean my room. Provide a better example so I can try to see more what you were talking about"

Idk try to think of the question in a more general sense. I guess more examples would be who would get to drive the nicer cars that already exist, who gets to have the faster computers, who gets the better food, nicer clothes etc..

"Labour has taken many forms across human history, early on it was necessary for survival, under capitalism it takes the form of exchange-value, under communism labour will become more recreational than anything. People have hobbies that are productive, some people have green thumbs, other people are interested in sciences, etc.

From this we can see how unlikely it would be if someone could "work" but refused to."

The problem I have with this argument is that I have a hard time believing that all jobs necessary for society to function will happen because people will take them up as hobbies. For example, who will clean sewers or collect garbage as a hobby?

[Victus Mortuum]

Your questions have been answered already, it looks like. I just wanted to direct you to some great resources:

Anarchist FAQ: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

Marxist FAQ: http://www.newyouth.com/content/view/129/64/

[Broletariat]

"Marxists no more believe in a transition state than do Anarchists"

Ok, now I'm confused. I thought the socialist transition state was what defined Marxism, and separated it from anarchism. What am I missing?

Marx never distinguished between Socialism and Communism. What separates Marxism from Anarchism is very little, and is usually more along the lines of tactics and organisation. Anarchists are more decentralised and regional and Marxists are more internationalists and centralised.


"Mansions would probably be turned into like museums or social gathering places, no one wants to clean an entire mansion, I barely want to clean my room. Provide a better example so I can try to see more what you were talking about"

Idk try to think of the question in a more general sense. I guess more examples would be who would get to drive the nicer cars that already exist, who gets to have the faster computers, who gets the better food, nicer clothes etc..

Guess we could simply roll with some sort of how badly each person wants each thing and reward to people based on that versus their productivity or something. This is like post-revolution planning though which is kind of hard to do from here.


"Labour has taken many forms across human history, early on it was necessary for survival, under capitalism it takes the form of exchange-value, under communism labour will become more recreational than anything. People have hobbies that are productive, some people have green thumbs, other people are interested in sciences, etc.

From this we can see how unlikely it would be if someone could "work" but refused to."

The problem I have with this argument is that I have a hard time believing that all jobs necessary for society to function will happen because people will take them up as hobbies. For example, who will clean sewers or collect garbage as a hobby?

I'm going to reference a thread and quote from there

http://www.revleft.com/vb/three-questions-t150494/index.html?t=150494


First of all, the majority of these jobs would be made much better in terms of working conditions. Secondly, some of these jobs could be done away with entirely, janitors? Pick up your own mess, far more efficient to have everyone spend 5 minutes cleaning up a spill that just happened rather than have 1 person dedicate a career to cleaning up spills that have long gone sticky. Thirdly, we could easily imagine a system where access to certain luxury goods would be restricted unless a certain amount of "undesirable" labour had been preformed, though this might wholly be unnecessary.


Just for a second, let us imagine we have an ideal social situation where all the jobs are somehow spread out equally.

Now, I have 1 hour in which to engage in socially useful labor during my day. The remaining 23 I spend as I see fit.

Now, I could spend that 1 hour as a psychiatrist listening to people talk about their problems....
I could spend that 1 hour going to tables and asking people whether they want Italian or ranch....
I could spend that 1 hour filling out paper work to make sure that a patient receives their proper medication....
I could spend that 1 hour standing outside a hip bar kicking out the undermensch....
OR
I could put on my headphones, go from building complex to building complex and smash their garbage into a big truck. Frankly, I'd choose the last one any day.

[The Man]

"4. You have to remember that in such a society, you could get the job that you always wanted to have. For example, lets say, I always wanted to be a toy maker, I would get to be a toy maker. I would have the opportunity to do my hobby as a job. So it's pretty unlikely that such a society would have those types of people. You also have to remember that if these people don't work, they won't be part of Worker's Councils, and therefore, won't have any decision in making choices for the community amongst other people."

That's part of my point though. No one wants to be a janitor or a garbageman, but we need them. How is their work going to get done without them?
Also, what about people who want to be doctors, but don't have the qualifications? Surely there must be some way of regulating the job market.



I would propose a system in which the community gives certain 'chores' with lack of a better word, to the workers to do the jobs that most people would not like to do such as being a Garbage man or a sewage cleaner. So if you wanna be part of the community there are some disadvantages that you have to take, in order to be a freer person.

This type of system is also proposed in the Anarchist FAQ on the 'What would anarchist society look like?'

[ChampionDishWasher]

ust for a second, let us imagine we have an ideal social situation where all the jobs are somehow spread out equally.

"Now, I have 1 hour in which to engage in socially useful labor during my day. The remaining 23 I spend as I see fit.

Now, I could spend that 1 hour as a psychiatrist listening to people talk about their problems....
I could spend that 1 hour going to tables and asking people whether they want Italian or ranch....
I could spend that 1 hour filling out paper work to make sure that a patient receives their proper medication....
I could spend that 1 hour standing outside a hip bar kicking out the undermensch....
OR
I could put on my headphones, go from building complex to building complex and smash their garbage into a big truck. Frankly, I'd choose the last one any day"

Ok this is all fine, but what if everyone decides they want to smash garbage into a big truck? What ensures that all necessary jobs get done?
Also, where is the room for specialization here? It takes a certain knowledge base to be able to be an effective psychiatrist. Can anyone just decide they want to do a job that takes years of training?

I'm good with everything else though.

[Niccolò Rossi]

That's part of my point though. No one wants to be a janitor or a garbageman, but we need them. How is their work going to get done without them?

Well, to be honest with you, I'm an engineering student, but if I had my way I'd rather not be an engineer. I work as a painter/labourer part-time when I'm at uni and full-time when I'm on holidays. The hours we work are long and the working conditions aren't fantastic, but in a communist society, where the working day is drastically reduced and the concerns of those working hold primacy (choosing when it's too hot to work, or when your back is too sore, or when you want to have a smoke) it really would be pretty good.

Personally, if I had the security - a place to live, good food to eat, ability to express my creative desires and passions - then I'd probably rather be a garbage man. Alot of people would probably rather persue technical fields, and good for them!

Maybe as a more helpful answer though, there are some jobs that are inherantly unpleasant or difficult and that be made less-so but will always exist. The answer is a communal sharing of tasks. Work rotation would be one such example, where for example, one day in a year it would be tasked upon you to help clean a sewer or serve food at school or hospital or whatever.


Also, what about people who want to be doctors, but don't have the qualifications? Surely there must be some way of regulating the job market.Obviously they wouldn't be practicing doctors. Society will always erect regulations or laws (of course nothing in common with the prison-industrial complex and the set of laws ensuring the reproduction of capitalist relations of exploitation) to govern certain activities.

Also on this point, in communist society there would be no job market. Not only would there be no job market but the nature of what we call 'jobs' would be fundamentally changed.

Nic.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Ok this is all fine, but what if everyone decides they want to smash garbage into a big truck? What ensures that all necessary jobs get done?

Well again, in the case of unskilled labour, rotation and the communal sharing of tasks is an easy solution. In the case of skilled labour this is obviously not so easy. I happen to be of the opinion though that people are smart enough not to let themselves starve to death. In a society consciously governed in the interests of humanity and not according the law of value or the whims of the market, if a skills shortage ever arose I imagine it would be tackled much more efficiently than under capitalist society which at all moments suffers from over-abundance and under-supply in the labour market.


Also, where is the room for specialization here? It takes a certain knowledge base to be able to be an effective psychiatrist. Can anyone just decide they want to do a job that takes years of training?


This is very true. Obviously there must exist a limited technical division of labour. This is a necessity of civilisation. However, any skilled person can perform unskilled tasks. Specialisation doesn't mean you have to be confined to some cubicle for your entire life. "In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."

Nic.

[ChampionDishWasher]

Well again, in the case of unskilled labour, rotation and the communal sharing of tasks is an easy solution. In the case of skilled labour this is obviously not so easy. I happen to be of the opinion though that people are smart enough not to let themselves starve to death. In a society consciously governed in the interests of humanity and not according the law of value or the whims of the market, if a skills shortage ever arose I imagine it would be tackled much more efficiently than under capitalist society which at all moments suffers from over-abundance and under-supply in the labour market.



This is very true. Obviously there must exist a limited technical division of labour. This is a necessity of civilisation. However, any skilled person can perform unskilled tasks. Specialisation doesn't mean you have to be confined to some cubicle for your entire life. "In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."

Nic.


Thank you, this post was really helpful to me.

Just one more thing (I think).
What if someone decides to do activities that are not necessarily helpful to society? For example, what if a person decides they want to write a novel as an activity, but no one reads it? By doing this they are technically working, but they are not really contributing to society. Is there a way to regulate this?

[PhoenixAsh]

3. Similarly to the question above, how would quality goods be managed. For example, how would it be decided who gets to live in previously built mansions and who has to live in apartments.


To answer the question you asked we need to know what you consider scarce products. Because the way I see it scarce products are mainly luxury goods....or food that is scarce and exclusive.





1 My history teacher used to argue that the problem with state communism is that it gives the Vanguard too much power, and power tends to corrupt. What is the problem with this argument? Did this not happen to Stalin or Castro?


Anarchists tend to agree with your teacher there.



2. I've heard some Communists argue that the USSR was state capitalist and that the only true communism has been in the Paris Commune, but I've heard others praise the USSR.

Neither the USSR or the Paris commune were communist

In the case of the Paris commune this is best explained by the stance Lenin took. Lenin criticised the commune because it left many of the old capitalist structures in tact. Banks and deposits for example were not touched. A failure which meant that the royalists could acces their funds and pay for the military expedition against the commune. He also stated that the commune failed to root out reactionary forces within the commune.

What did happen in Paris was that the workers took control. THat was the first time in modern history. It instituted many social and political reforms but it was too short lived to actually go towards a socialist situation.

The analysis and conclusions of the Paris commune was the mayor cause of the split between Marxists and Anarchists. Marxists tended to go to centralisation and vanguardism while the Anarchists tended to go immediately to abolish the state altogether.




Which do most ( and you) believe? If the latter, do you approve the use of the secret police, concentration camps, censored press etc...?
Also, I see that Lenin tends to be a popular figure amongst you, but wasn't he known for slaughtering those who opposed his ideas, or where my history classes dreadfully wrong?

Your history classes were dreadfully wrong....feel free to ask your history teacher for examples and post them.

[PhoenixAsh]

What if someone decides to do activities that are not necessarily helpful to society? For example, what if a person decides they want to write a novel as an activity, but no one reads it? By doing this they are technically working, but they are not really contributing to society. Is there a way to regulate this?

I think your example is flawed because it is not known if a novel is being read before you write it.

Who is to decide what is contributing to society and what is not? Van Gogh was bankrupt and only sold one painting during his life....and that was by a friend who saw Van Gogh needed money.

Today he is one of the most valued painters of the 19th century.

[ChampionDishWasher]

I think your example is flawed because it is not known if a novel is being read before you write it.

Who is to decide what is contributing to society and what is not? Van Gogh was bankrupt and only sold one painting during his life....and that was by a friend who saw Van Gogh needed money.

Today he is one of the most valued painters of the 19th century.

I think you know what I mean though. Sure, it happened to Van Gogh, but there are thousands of artists who this has not happened to and whose work would have been essentially wasted in this type of society.
My point was meant in a more general sense however. I'm just trying to figure out how society will judge what activities are useful to the community, and what it will do about those who spend an unfair amount of their time doing something that is deemed not so.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think you know what I mean though. Sure, it happened to Van Gogh, but there are thousands of artists who this has not happened to and whose work would have been essentially wasted in this type of society.
My point was meant in a more general sense however. I'm just trying to figure out how society will judge what activities are useful to the community, and what it will do about those who spend an unfair amount of their time doing something that is deemed not so.

What I tried to illustrate is that society is perfectly capable to have thousands upon thousands of different opinions on what is and what is not useful.

The fact of the matter remains that when you want to do something you should. As some jobs are best performed on rotation if possible its perfectly viable for someone to waste his time on writing books if he or she so desires in the time that is left.

The problem most people have is that they view work within the context of what is known about work...which is to say the current model and approach to work. We have to work for 40 hours a week or more because we need to optimise earning and profit margins instead of optimising the work.

As an example...my last job could easilly be done in half the time frame if it was done efficiently. I suggested as much to my CEO in a report about workplace efficiency and infrastructure analysis within the confines of profit margins. It would directly increase profit by 10% even when we would still work 40 hours and get paid the same. These profit margins would further increase if he and she (we had two CEO's) considered the fact tha the freed time could now be spend in other ways benefitting the company such as thinking up new services, expanding existing services and acquiring new clients. However there was an initial investment which would reduce the profit margin for that fiscal year by 5%. This was rejected and the necessary innovations were not made, not even the ones which cost less, and that resulted in a bankrupcy two years later. Offcourse we were laid off and the CEO's still managed to sell the company for a personal profit.

Now...take out the profit equation. If the normal work could be done in half the time...this would leave half the time for other activities. In a non profit oriented society you could spend these hours working on other things....like self development....or...if you so want...walk in a forest.

[ChampionDishWasher]

What I tried to illustrate is that society is perfectly capable to have thousands upon thousands of different opinions on what is and what is not useful.

The fact of the matter remains that when you want to do something you should. As some jobs are best performed on rotation if possible its perfectly viable for someone to waste his time on writing books if he or she so desires in the time that is left.

The problem most people have is that they view work within the context of what is known about work...which is to say the current model and approach to work. We have to work for 40 hours a week or more because we need to optimise earning and profit margins instead of optimising the work.

As an example...my last job could easilly be done in half the time frame if it was done efficiently. I suggested as much to my CEO in a report about workplace efficiency and infrastructure analysis within the confines of profit margins. It would directly increase profit by 10% even when we would still work 40 hours and get paid the same. These profit margins would further increase if he and she (we had two CEO's) considered the fact tha the freed time could now be spend in other ways benefitting the company such as thinking up new services, expanding existing services and acquiring new clients. However there was an initial investment which would reduce the profit margin for that fiscal year by 5%. This was rejected and the necessary innovations were not made, not even the ones which cost less, and that resulted in a bankrupcy two years later. Offcourse we were laid off and the CEO's still managed to sell the company for a personal profit.

Now...take out the profit equation. If the normal work could be done in half the time...this would leave half the time for other activities. In a non profit oriented society you could spend these hours working on other things....like self development....or...if you so want...walk in a forest.

Great post, thank you. I noticed when reviewing some of the responses I had gotten that I misinterpreted what was said in some of them. :blushing:

[yuhoosmith2011]

Ok, now I'm confused. I thought the socialist transition state was what defined Marxism, and separated it from anarchism. What am I missing?

"Mansions would probably be turned into like museums or social gathering places, no one wants to clean an entire mansion, I barely want to clean my room. Provide a better example so I can try to see more what you were talking about"

[yuhoosmith2011]

i think it is an edit to problem

[Niccolò Rossi]

By doing this they are technically working, but they are not really contributing to society. Is there a way to regulate this?

I'll answer with a question - why should their be?

Nic.

[ChampionDishWasher]

I'll answer with a question - why should their be?

Nic.

Well because what if everyone, or at least a substantial amount of the population, decided to do things like that with their spare time? There would be very little production, right?

[Rafiq]

1 My history teacher used to argue that the problem with state communism is that it gives the Vanguard too much power, and power tends to corrupt. What is the problem with this argument? Did this not happen to Stalin or Castro?
.


First off there is no such thing As State Communism as Communism is stateless by definition.

Secondly, she is right. Vangaurds do give too much power, and power certainly does corrupt. That's why Many Marxists such as Left Communists, Council Communists, and Anarchists too do not promote the use of vangaurds.

Instead, prior to revolution, worker's councils (Or Unions for Anarcho Syndicalists) would be put in place and slowly overthrow the capitalist system through revolution.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Well because what if everyone, or at least a substantial amount of the population, decided to do things like that with their spare time? There would be very little production, right?

To be honest, I have a funny feeling in a society consciously governed by society as a whole in the interests of humanity as a whole, we'll be able to find a way round. Either way, I think it's not enough of an issue to worry all that much about at this stage. Even though a vision of communism is a neccessity, all this kind of the hypothetical discussion about how communist society will work in the abstract has a pretty limited use, don't you agree?

Nic.

[Blake's Baby]

Ok, now I'm confused. I thought the socialist transition state was what defined Marxism, and separated it from anarchism. What am I missing?


I agree (to an extent). The dictatorship of the proletariat is the main theoretical distinction between marxists and anarchists - though some anarchists in practice accept that there will be a dictatorship of the proletariat, and argue that in fact marxism (or the marxist parties) use the phrase 'dictatorship of the proletariat' as a cover for 'dictatorship of the party over the proletariat'.

So, what is the dictatorship of the proletariat? Well, it's not a state, and it's not socialism, but it is a transitional society between capitalism and socialism. I don't think it will last long (because I'm essentially optimistic about humanity's ability to recover from the global civil war), but it will be a state-of-sorts; there will have to be some repressive functions to keep down pro-capitalists, but after the civil war has ended there will be no need of a 'state' as such.

Once there are no more capitalists, then there will be no more working class either, and therefore (because a state is the organ for one class to oppress another) there will be no basis for a state any more. This is Engels' 'withering away of the state'.

But the transitional society, in my understanding at least, is what fundamentally seperates the marxist conception of revolution leading to dictatorship of the proletariat providing the basis for building socilaism, from the anarchist conception of immediate communisation.

[Blake's Baby]

Well because what if everyone, or at least a substantial amount of the population, decided to do things like that with their spare time? There would be very little production, right?

This seems quite odd to me, and I know Nic's already answered it (and he's a very sensible chap), but...

There we all are, you me Nic and all our colleague-comrades living in post-revolutionary society and we all need things. I need lightbulbs, and some sandwiches, and Nic needs his plumbing fixed, and some shoes, and you need a bike that works properly, and a new pan to cook some beans (you have beans).

So what we do is, sit around all day going 'fuck me, I wish I had a pan and some new shoes and my bike worked, I know what, let's all write a novel'. Then, on Thursday evening when we go to a meeting at our local workplace committe/whatever, we all say, 'this socialism is shit, we haven't got a pan or shoes or any lightbulbs'. And when other people at the meeting ask what we've done to contribute to society or production generally, we say, 'well, we started writing a novel'.

About here is where I would suspect that our colleague-comrades might get a bit peeved, and quote 'from each according to their ability' at us and say that if we want sandwiches and shoes, perhaps we better get on with making them, while someone else is happy to fix the bike, if you will ride to the Morgan Freeman Light Engineering Works in neighbouring Goldfrappograd and pick up a dozen lightbulbs, it'll be handy to have some in the community warehouse.

In short; if people don't so stuff, stuff doesn't get done (just like any other social system). The incentive is that working will directly benefit yourself and your community, instead of some banking conglomerate that exists as some numbers in a Swiss computer (but actally is registered in the Cayman Islands).