A few questions about communism/anarcho-communism

[Lanky Wanker]

So here are just a few things that I've been wondering about communism/anarcho-communism:

1. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
- in terms of buying things (both basic needs & luxury items), if there is no money, does this mean that people would be free to walk into a store and take whatever they need/want as long as they contribute to society fairly? And if so, is the idea that people will take more which will increase the demand for particular products, therefore creating more work for people?

2. Still referring to the previous theory/idea, what will happen to those who are unable to work (such as people with genuine disabilities - not alcoholics or drug addicts)? If a person has to contribute to society with labour in order to be able to take from society with money being non-existent, how will those unable to work support themselves?

3. People say that if everyone earns equal amounts from doing different jobs (referring to communism as a whole here), then no one will want to work harder in life or take on more skilful/challenging jobs. What would you say in response to this? Personally I would prefer a more physical job than one that relies on intelligence, so I can't really answer that myself.

Again, sorry if I got the wrong idea about anything in the first 2 questions. Thanks for the help.

[Leftsolidarity]

So here are just a few things that I've been wondering about communism/anarcho-communism:

1. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
- in terms of buying things (both basic needs & luxury items), if there is no money, does this mean that people would be free to walk into a store and take whatever they need/want as long as they contribute to society fairly? And if so, is the idea that people will take more which will increase the demand for particular products, therefore creating more work for people?

2. Still referring to the previous theory/idea, what will happen to those who are unable to work (such as people with genuine disabilities - not alcoholics or drug addicts)? If a person has to contribute to society with labour in order to be able to take from society with money being non-existent, how will those unable to work support themselves?

3. People say that if everyone earns equal amounts from doing different jobs (referring to communism as a whole here), then no one will want to work harder in life or take on more skilful/challenging jobs. What would you say in response to this? Personally I would prefer a more physical job than one that relies on intelligence, so I can't really answer that myself.

Again, sorry if I got the wrong idea about anything in the first 2 questions. Thanks for the help.

I think you just haven't completely broken out of the mental boundaries that we have been taught into. There are many different answers to the very legitimate questions you're asking.
The easiest answer (perhaps not the best but that is up to the one looking for answers) to these questions would be just to look back at history and how it's proven them to be unnecessary worries.
Also, it is not as though it will be as though we walk into stores to get our items and such.

Sorry for a very general answer but the same sort of questions can be turned onto capitalism yet that has been able to sustain itself I guess you could say.

[Quail]

So here are just a few things that I've been wondering about communism/anarcho-communism:

1. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
- in terms of buying things (both basic needs & luxury items), if there is no money, does this mean that people would be free to walk into a store and take whatever they need/want as long as they contribute to society fairly? And if so, is the idea that people will take more which will increase the demand for particular products, therefore creating more work for people?

People would take what they need, possibly from some kind of distribution centre (which would probably resemble a supermarket, only you wouldn't pay at the check-out), or perhaps with our levels of technology we could use some kind of database so that we know what the community needs. The idea isn't to create more work at all. The idea is simply that everyone has access to what they need. In a society based on cooperation, it is unlikely that someone would take an unreasonable amount of food because of the negative impact it would have on the rest of their community - a community that they helped to build. A gift economy is based on a post-scarcity society, i.e. there are enough resources around for everyone to live comfortably.

There isn't really a consensus on this, though. Most anarcho-communists would advocate a gift economy, but I think that some anarcho-syndicalists would advocate a labour voucher system.


2. Still referring to the previous theory/idea, what will happen to those who are unable to work (such as people with genuine disabilities - not alcoholics or drug addicts)? If a person has to contribute to society with labour in order to be able to take from society with money being non-existent, how will those unable to work support themselves?
The answer is in the question, really. "From each according to ability..." So if someone is unable to contribute, then the community will provide for them. Likewise, if someone can only contribute a little, they would contribute what they can and not be penalised for not being as able as someone else.

Just as an aside, addiction is a genuine mental health problem. If someone was unable to work due a mental health problem then I personally wouldn't judge or penalise them for needing to take some time off.


3. People say that if everyone earns equal amounts from doing different jobs (referring to communism as a whole here), then no one will want to work harder in life or take on more skilful/challenging jobs. What would you say in response to this? Personally I would prefer a more physical job than one that relies on intelligence, so I can't really answer that myself.

I don't think that people are inherently lazy, and in fact in a society where education is more freely available, I think that people would be more interested in pursuing challenging work because they would be able to do it. Lots of people work jobs that they find boring and unsatisfying in a capitalist society because they have to do so to survive (wage slavery). Given the opportunity, most people would want to do something that they find interesting and challenging. A communist society would give people that opportunity.

Also, in a communist society there would be no money or wages as such. People wouldn't be working for a living, but rather because they found it satisfying. The few unsatisfying but socially necessary jobs that remained could either be done by volunteers or a rota.

[Lanky Wanker]

People would take what they need, possibly from some kind of distribution centre (which would probably resemble a supermarket, only you wouldn't pay at the check-out), or perhaps with our levels of technology we could use some kind of database so that we know what the community needs. The idea isn't to create more work at all. The idea is simply that everyone has access to what they need. In a society based on cooperation, it is unlikely that someone would take an unreasonable amount of food because of the negative impact it would have on the rest of their community - a community that they helped to build. A gift economy is based on a post-scarcity society, i.e. there are enough resources around for everyone to live comfortably.

There isn't really a consensus on this, though. Most anarcho-communists would advocate a gift economy, but I think that some anarcho-syndicalists would advocate a labour voucher system.


The answer is in the question, really. "From each according to ability..." So if someone is unable to contribute, then the community will provide for them. Likewise, if someone can only contribute a little, they would contribute what they can and not be penalised for not being as able as someone else.

Just as an aside, addiction is a genuine mental health problem. If someone was unable to work due a mental health problem then I personally wouldn't judge or penalise them for needing to take some time off.


I don't think that people are inherently lazy, and in fact in a society where education is more freely available, I think that people would be more interested in pursuing challenging work because they would be able to do it. Lots of people work jobs that they find boring and unsatisfying in a capitalist society because they have to do so to survive (wage slavery). Given the opportunity, most people would want to do something that they find interesting and challenging. A communist society would give people that opportunity.

Also, in a communist society there would be no money or wages as such. People wouldn't be working for a living, but rather because they found it satisfying. The few unsatisfying but socially necessary jobs that remained could either be done by volunteers or a rota.

Thanks for the answers mate, you cleared it all up for me. Anarcho-communism is starting to sound like my ideal type of anarchy at the moment, but who knows.

[hatzel]

Thanks for the answers mate, you cleared it all up for me. Anarcho-communism is starting to sound like my ideal type of anarchy at the moment, but who knows.Have you looked at the Anarchist FAQ yet? I remember it was suggested to you in another thread, and it should be able to confirm or deny your current inclinations. As will talking to people here about it. Long live the learning forum! :lol:

[Lanky Wanker]

Have you looked at the Anarchist FAQ yet? I remember it was suggested to you in another thread, and it should be able to confirm or deny your current inclinations. As will talking to people here about it. Long live the learning forum! :lol:

yeah I read before I posted anything on the site, but I only skimmed over the first bit of it. I'll check it out properly now though lol.

[The Man]

So here are just a few things that I've been wondering about communism/anarcho-communism:

1. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
- in terms of buying things (both basic needs & luxury items), if there is no money, does this mean that people would be free to walk into a store and take whatever they need/want as long as they contribute to society fairly? And if so, is the idea that people will take more which will increase the demand for particular products, therefore creating more work for people?

2. Still referring to the previous theory/idea, what will happen to those who are unable to work (such as people with genuine disabilities - not alcoholics or drug addicts)? If a person has to contribute to society with labour in order to be able to take from society with money being non-existent, how will those unable to work support themselves?

3. People say that if everyone earns equal amounts from doing different jobs (referring to communism as a whole here), then no one will want to work harder in life or take on more skilful/challenging jobs. What would you say in response to this? Personally I would prefer a more physical job than one that relies on intelligence, so I can't really answer that myself.

Again, sorry if I got the wrong idea about anything in the first 2 questions. Thanks for the help.

1. I think that the description you laid (ie Gift Economy) Should be regulated depending on how high/low production is of said 'item'.

2. We support them. They could be radio hosts, or speakers etc, as well.

3. Communists/Anarchists don't want equal payment. We want absolutely no money at all. Therefore that abolishes greed. But there are multiple answers to your question:

1. You could work in the field of your hobbies or interests.
2. No one will be denied the means of life, but if someone does not work, in theory, they shall not have any luxuries.
3. If you want to make decisions over your community, you must be in a Worker's Councils, therefore you must work.
4. As another member here pointed out: Social stigmas can also be a powerful thing. For example, Society is disgusted by people who are 'turned on' by scat porn; And I think in Communism, people will be disgusted by the laziness of other people.

[hatzel]

As another member here pointed out: Social stigmas can also be a powerful thing. For example, Society is disgusted by people who are 'turned on' by scat porn; And I think in Communism, people will be disgusted by the laziness of other people.Just because I love being that complete a-hole who throws crazy minority opinions into learning, irrespective of whether or not he even believes them, in order to provoke some kind of discussion which might be advantageous to the learner in making them think of the issues at hand...

Do you consider this runs the risk of effectively creating a new moral hierarchy, distinguishing between those society considers 'lazy' and those society considers 'industrious'? That is to say, some sliding scale between the individual who works incredibly hard at a dirty, difficult and / or dangerous job at the top, and those who don't work at all at the bottom. Some might consider this constraint of new morality to be somewhat destructive, and detrimental to personal freedom; whilst we were previously compelled to work for wages, knowing that with more money we could increase our standing in society, nice cars, big houses etc., under this system, we are still compelled into work, in this case compelled by its social rewards, namely, the rewards of respect, of avoiding social stigma. Such a situation could mitigate the whole 'work as a joy' idea, if one only works so as not to be ostracised by society...of course the lazy will not ostracize each other, so the effect of being ostracised would not be personally detrimental, it would only lead to creating two distinct and separated social groups. Some may even expect them to even regress back into a quasi-class system, with one group quasi-proles, the other quasi-lumpen, with the inevitable antagonisms which come with it...

Hah, even I'm not sure if I'm taking myself seriously, but hey! Maybe I'll learn if I am soon...get it? It's the learning forum, I'm learning...ah, forget it! :(

[Gorilla]

Do you consider this runs the risk of effectively creating a new moral hierarchy, distinguishing between those society considers 'lazy' and those society considers 'industrious'?

I do. People like to work and be productive. We need to rid ourselves of the anti-communist cop mentality that denies this. No one enjoys sitting around and doing nothing all day - compare anyone on the dole with anyone who has a job. Even people with really shitty jobs will be on average 1,000,000% happier. People are amazing, creative, industrious beings and even under capitalism which makes everything suck, work is their primary outlet of self-expression. You have to pay or coerce them to work like you have to pay or coerce them to fuck - i.e. only when you are a pervert.

[Lanky Wanker]

lol big discussions again eh guys? I have another question about completely getting rid of money: if people work their hardest and in return get to take what they need to live, how do we control what people take in terms of luxuries? is the idea to have some kind of credit system separate from basic needs such as food? say for example I want a huge TV or a ferrari, how would I get this? I know some left wingers would prefer some kind of hour for hour system where, for example, if you work for 2 hours, you would be able to buy an item that took 2 hours to make, but how would people go about buying luxury items? doesn't "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" only include basic needs like a home, food, clothing etc.? it's not like you could say "I need a ferrari". not every left wing view supporting the abolition of money includes a "credit" or "voucher" system, does it?

[Gorilla]

lol big discussions again eh guys? I have another question about completely getting rid of money: if people work their hardest and in return get to take what they need to live, how do we control what people take in terms of luxuries? is the idea to have some kind of credit system separate from basic needs such as food? say for example I want a huge TV or a ferrari, how would I get this? I know some left wingers would prefer some kind of hour for hour system where, for example, if you work for 2 hours, you would be able to buy an item that took 2 hours to make, but how would people go about buying luxury items? doesn't "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" only include basic needs like a home, food, clothing etc.? it's not like you could say "I need a ferrari". not every left wing view supporting the abolition of money includes a "credit" or "voucher" system, does it?

These are all things that are interesting to discuss in the abstract but the main thing is the immediate need to overthrow the present order of things and establish working class power. The tendency of a successful working class revolution will be to move toward communism but the specifics of how are going to be dictated by circumstances.

[Lanky Wanker]

These are all things that are interesting to discuss in the abstract but the main thing is the immediate need to overthrow the present order of things and establish working class power. The tendency of a successful working class revolution will be to move toward communism but the specifics of how are going to be dictated by circumstances.

I've actually been thinking the same thing, but it's still good to know what we're trying to actual work towards.

[robbo203]

lol big discussions again eh guys? I have another question about completely getting rid of money: if people work their hardest and in return get to take what they need to live, how do we control what people take in terms of luxuries? is the idea to have some kind of credit system separate from basic needs such as food? say for example I want a huge TV or a ferrari, how would I get this? I know some left wingers would prefer some kind of hour for hour system where, for example, if you work for 2 hours, you would be able to buy an item that took 2 hours to make, but how would people go about buying luxury items? doesn't "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" only include basic needs like a home, food, clothing etc.? it's not like you could say "I need a ferrari". not every left wing view supporting the abolition of money includes a "credit" or "voucher" system, does it?


The thing about an anarcho communist economy I would suggest is that it would exhibit a number of core features which will in a sense be interlocking and mutually supportive. These would be in my view

1) Calculation in kind - not money prices
2) A self regulating system of stock control
3) The law of the minimunm - you economise most on things that are scarcest
4) Some socially agreed notion - however vague - of the production priorities of an anarcho communist society

It is this last feature that is relevant to this discussion. I am assuming that luxury items will, in the nature of things, be fairly low down in the order of priorities. What that means is that, when it comes to the allocation of resource, s there will tend to be a systematic bias in favour of high priority goods like decent housing or medical cover. That doesnt mean luxury goods wont be produced it , it simply means that the prospect of them being produced is more precarious and uncertain than for other goods since we cannot be sure that sufficient resources will be left over to produce such goods

In other words , luxury goods are more likely than any other goods to be subject to some form of rationing becuase by their very nature they will tend to be more scarce. As far as a system of rationing is concerned I do not favour a labour voucher scheme which I consider will be far too cumbersome and difficult to operate and moreover will prove to be socially divisive. Far preferable is my view is what I call the "compensation of model of rationing" based on the quality of housiing stock. I say housing stock becuase an anarcho communist society will inhererit from capitalism a wide range of housing stock from poor quality cramped apartments to spacious suburban mansions. Clearly you cannot have everyone living in the latter so perhaps one way round the potential friction like to arise from differences in housing quality is to give people forced (for the time being) to live in poor quality housing , priority access to luxury goods by way of "compensation".

I think this system would be far more straightforward to operate than any other I can think of. In fact in the UK if I remember correctly, properties used to be graded for the purposes of loical taxation into 5 different categories depending on a number of different criteria e.g num,ber of toilets, garden size etc. Some similar schema could operate in an anarcho communist society and form that basis upon which a differential system of rationing could operate