Luxuries and drugs after the abolition of the money system?

[Lanky Wanker]

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 otherwise 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? also, speaking of luxuries and money; do you think that drugs (or at least softer ones like marijuana) would be legalised seeing as (arguably, but to the majority of anti-government pot smokers) it is only illegal because it would ruin alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical companies' profits? also, seeing as left wing aims for individual freedom, wouldn't harmful drugs be legalised too seeing as it is a person's choice to do what they want with their bodies? or would the "it puts others at risk" argument come into play? again, all answers are much appreciated.

[$lim_$weezy]

Obviously different people are going to answer this different ways because there really is no one correct answer that is more authentically leftist than the myriad other leftist answers out there.

After the abolition of money, luxuries would hopefully be produced and rationed based on some kind of demand. Peter Kropotkin proposed that everyone would work to create necessities for a few hours a day, and that afterward people could engage in luxury production (or not) based on their fancy (in an artisan-type, romantic, creative setting where someone who knows how to produce the luxury teaches another or some such system). However, there is no reason why a big-screen television for example could not be deemed a "necessity" in the sense it would be produced according to the community's democratically-formulated plan. A luxury could be produced either way, according to the scale with which it had to be produced. The community, in this system, would decide what it wanted to produce in the way of luxuries, and of course would attempt to produce enough for everyone who wanted them. Because the community makes the decisions about what to produce, items that are deemed useful would be the things getting produced.

Of course, ideally, by this point we would be in a post-scarcity society, and everyone who wanted anything could simply have it, though that is extremely ideal.

There are also groups who do support the "labor notes" or whatever they are called (I believe anarcho-syndicalists fall into this category?), but I think most Marxists oppose these as being close to the same as money, as Marx opposed it for philosophical reasons of alienation and such.

As for drugs, I imagine it would depend on the community. More anarchistic visions of society would of course allow drug usage as a personal freedom as long as it stayed personal. Authoritarian policy I can't speak for really, though I can say that some arguments about personal rights and freedoms I've heard from authoritarians would lead me to believe drugs would be illegal, though I'm sure it would vary with tendency. Thus, some would indeed place the supposed "good of society" over the personal freedom of private drug use. I am of course not speaking for all authoritarians out there (though hopefully for at least some!).

The left is incredibly varied, but I hope I didn't mistype too baldy, and perhaps helped somewhat.

[syndicat]

After the abolition of money, luxuries would hopefully be produced and rationed based on some kind of demand. Peter Kropotkin proposed that everyone would work to create necessities for a few hours a day, and that afterward people could engage in luxury production (or not) based on their fancy (in an artisan-type, romantic, creative setting where someone who knows how to produce the luxury teaches another or some such system).

this was one of the inconsistencies in Kropotkin. if there is exchange based on me doing work to produce something you want, then how do the groups doing this get the means of production? if they own it, then you have private property in means of production. if the community owns it, how does a group get permission to use it? Kropotkin said this system of exchange would be by "free agreement"...but that is compatible with a market system. and that would generate money inevitably.

in other words he's inconsistent because to say "luxuries" would be produced by groups thru "free agreement" is to say that these groups would earn something in exchange which would be a form of remuneration for work which he said he was against.

what's missing in his thinking was a non-market based concept of measuring benefit and costs so that people can earn thru their work an entitlement to some level of benefit.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Example: people who want to advance video gaming technology in a communist society will also do their best to produce the actual systems and games for people to use. Not for profit, but for the advancement of gaming, etc etc.

Understand?

[syndicat]

Example: people who want to advance video gaming technology in a communist society will also do their best to produce the actual systems and games for people to use. Not for profit, but for the advancement of gaming, etc etc.



where do they get the computers they work on? who makes them? who owns them? why would they do this if they get nothing in return?

[$lim_$weezy]

The resources would be available to everyone and there would be no private ownership of the means of production of course. But to say that one person cannot teach another a task because it would lead to the creation of money is absurd! Co-operation between people such as teaching is essential to the functioning of such a society! It would presumably not give rise to money because money would be undesirable in the community for various reasons.
How does the "free agreement" of luxury production differ from the way by which what are deemed necessities are produced? One is decided by the community, and the other by the individual. Kropotkin suggested a community workshop where inventions could be made and experiments carried out, at the peoples' will.
A barter system or other such thing cannot be effectively outlawed in an anarchist society for obvious reasons, so co-operation has to replace coercive law, as I'm sure you understand. In other words, there is free exchange, specifically of information- but for what in return, you ask? Ideally there would be no want of this, and much of the theory hinges on the selflessness of individuals in the society.

I suppose resource allocation could be handled democratically if there was a scarcity of material, or else by equal rationing to those wanting of it, depending on the circumstances. As for the reason to produce outside what is absolutely necessary for survival- the common good of course!

Eh I hope I got the gist of what you meant, though I feel like I may be rambling...

[syndicat]

The resources would be available to everyone and there would be no private ownership of the means of production of course.

okay, stop right there. what do you mean, "the resources would be available to everyone"? how is that possible. do you have any idea how computers are made? it is a very complex process that involves treating silicon (glass) with various chemicals, and then there is the process of assembling the chip into an IC assembly. This is actually very dangerous. It involves right now nearly a thousand chemicals...and many are carcinogenic and generally nasty.

so, what would it mean to say "everyone has access" to this? you going to let anyone waltz into such a plant to "do their thing"?

and it involves work. it's dangerous and a lot of stuff isn't fun. why would people do it? do they do it because they are then entitled to things other people make for them? if so then you have remuneration which Kropotkin said he was against.



How does the "free agreement" of luxury production differ from the way by which what are deemed necessities are produced? One is decided by the community, and the other by the individual. Kropotkin suggested a community workshop where inventions could be made and experiments carried out, at the peoples' will.


"At the people's will". What the heck does that mean? Does it mean that workers are continually subject to domination and micro-management by "the community"? Would the "community" appoint bosses?

Can you define "luxury"? I suggest the question here is ill-defined if you can't.

And production of "luxuries" can't be "decided by the individual." that's because their production is a collective process. so there needs to be workers self-management. and how is it decided that resources are made available to this group of workers to produce these things? Any thing you can think that could be produced will require resources that COULD have been used to produce something different. so how is that decided?

to talk about "free agreement" is just hand-waving. it tells us nothing at all.

[$lim_$weezy]

Things that need to be produced in large quantities or by dangerous industrial processes that are generally not fit for the individual to do alone- such as computers- would probably simply be produced in the manner of the necessities. That is, by a supposed rotation of people working on the job. It would be part of the more "mandatory" working day, as I see it. In the case where no one wants to produce the luxury in their spare time, and yet it is still wanted by the community, the community would simply decide on the creation of it.

With sufficient education, I don't see why everyone couldn't be trusted to just "waltz into the plant and do their thing". Also, with insufficient resources, these could be allocated democratically or rationed to those who want them.

By the peoples' will, I did not mean their collective will. I mean the individual desire for creation.

In this case, I suppose what we have been referring to as "luxuries" are just items with a use-value not directly related to what is considered "necessary" for survival, such as TVs. It's certainly not a rigorous definition. So if the community thought that computers were important enough for everyone to have one, that would become a necessity (by this definition) and would be produced in the manner of necessities.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Classify goods as 'normal' or 'luxury' during the Socialist, pre-abolition of money stage.

Normal goods to be available to everyone for free, at a low cost or heavily subsidised. Evidently, luxury goods would have to be earned in some way or another.

If we're talking about the communist phase, where money has been abolished, then i'd imagine that the classification would change from 'normal' and 'luxury' to 'abundant' and 'scarce'. Eliminate the market-type relations for goods and have 'abundant' goods freely distributed post-production, and have some sort of stipulation for the accrual of 'scarce' goods, perhaps 5%, 10% and 20% overtime each week, or performing a social good in the voluntary sector, would enable one to the community's blessing for procurement of 'scarce' goods.

There is no one answer, but many ideas that could be implemented. In fact, I imagine it's best if many different ideas are implemented on a local level, and we leave it at that.

[Lanky Wanker]

Can you define "luxury"? I suggest the question here is ill-defined if you can't.


when I say luxury I basically mean unnecessary stuff that is more for entertainment/materialistic happiness. obviously a car could/would be considered a basic need to get around, but what I mean is that you don't need a bugatti veyron to go food shopping or take your girlfriend out for dinner (or maybe you do lol). also, what if I want a jacuzzi in my garden? what if I want the latest mac that costs thousands of £/$? I understand the concept of a moneyless economy in terms of basic needs such as a home, clothing, food, water, and even a computer or TV, but I doubt we would be letting everyone walk into a mall, coming out with a huge top of the range TV, ps3 with 100 games and a huge bag of gucci designer gear. I hope you understand what I mean.

[syndicat]

Things that need to be produced in large quantities or by dangerous industrial processes that are generally not fit for the individual to do alone- such as computers- would probably simply be produced in the manner of the necessities. That is, by a supposed rotation of people working on the job. It would be part of the more "mandatory" working day, as I see it. In the case where no one wants to produce the luxury in their spare time, and yet it is still wanted by the community, the community would simply decide on the creation of it.



So you say it is "mandatory" that people work. How much? And how do we keep them accountable in terms of doing work that is useful? How are resources allocated to production?

It's not a plausible answer to say, "the community will decide." That's because it's COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE for the community to decide what each person will consume. It's only appropriate for that person to decide what they want. People don't all want the same things. People don't eat the same kinds of food, wear exactly the same clothes, listen to the same music, etc. But, how, then, to know how much of each of the tens of thousands of products to produce?

And rotation is not an adequate answer to the problem that some jobs now are more dangerous, onerous, boring, rote than others. That's just slumming. If people can just waltz in and do whatever they like, you'll have tons of people wanting to be actors, writers, musicians and other creative activities, and few people wanting to work in factories, steel mills, oil refineries, work on sewers, etc.

[Lanky Wanker]

And rotation is not an adequate answer to the problem that some jobs now are more dangerous, onerous, boring, rote than others. That's just slumming. If people can just waltz in and do whatever they like, you'll have tons of people wanting to be actors, writers, musicians and other creative activities, and few people wanting to work in factories, steel mills, oil refineries, work on sewers, etc.

would being a musician (as in actual performing, not musicians who are hired to record music for porno soundtracks) actually count as a career though? but you do have a good point.

[Ostrinski]

So you say it is "mandatory" that people work. How much? And how do we keep them accountable in terms of doing work that is useful? How are resources allocated to production?

It's not a plausible answer to say, "the community will decide." That's because it's COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE for the community to decide what each person will consume. It's only appropriate for that person to decide what they want. People don't all want the same things. People don't eat the same kinds of food, wear exactly the same clothes, listen to the same music, etc. But, how, then, to know how much of each of the tens of thousands of products to produce?

And rotation is not an adequate answer to the problem that some jobs now are more dangerous, onerous, boring, rote than others. That's just slumming. If people can just waltz in and do whatever they like, you'll have tons of people wanting to be actors, writers, musicians and other creative activities, and few people wanting to work in factories, steel mills, oil refineries, work on sewers, etc.What do you propose?

[syndicat]

I propose a few basic things:

1. There is a generous set of free public goods which the community decides for things where it makes sense for these to be decided collectively...we agree to provide comprehensive health care free to everyone, education at all levels of life free to everyone, free public transit, and other things the community decides on. But each community will have a budget. this depends on what the community decides in terms of the total social product that community has, that is, what portion of it is to be provided free as public goods?

2. Adults who are able bodied and not old enough for retirement are asked to do work. The community has an obligationn to provide opportunities for self-managing work for everyone.

3. Jobs are sysetematically redesigned by the revolultionary workers movement that takes over the means of production. Jobs are re-org'd so that everyone has some skill or decision-making in their job, generous training provided to ensure people can build their knowledge and skills. Thus we re-org the jobs so that nobody is forced to do only dirty, dangerous, harsh, rote work. These kinds of tasks are distyributed among the jobs of everyone. Nobody is allowed to do only fun, creative stuff.

4. Each person earns the same proporiionate share of the social product per hour of work for personal consumption (this is in addition to the free services). We're all in this together so the shareout needs to be equal.

5. People who are unable to work are alloted the same share of the social product as anyone else (in addition to any needs that are met thru the systems of free social services).

6. People, households, communities, regions have budgets, equal to their share of the social product, and they can decide how they want to take this, that is, what mix of products.

7. The revolutionary society sets up a particiipatory planning system that collects the info on all requests and production proposals and then publishes the total of requested products and total of proposed supply (proposed by the worker production groups). From this estimates of social opportunity costs will fall out, that is, expressed on a numeric scale in the form of planning or social accounting prices, not market prices.

8. People, communities, regions etc will need to revise their requedsts in light of these prices to stay within budget. But the control over planning for consumption rests with indidviuals, households, communities, and in the case of some major services and infrastructure with larger regional bodies (delegate congresses).

[Ostrinski]

5. People who are unable to work are alloted the same share of the social product as anyone else (in addition to any needs that are met thru the systems of free social services).

How would this work? Seems as though if everyone is receiving the full exchange value of their labor, how would there be anything left over for those don't work?

[Terminator X]

The problem is that you are applying a capitalist/consumerist mindset to this situation. Why are we worrying about Ferraris and big-screen TVs now? How about we work on getting everyone clothed and fed first? Or finding everyone work? Or worrying about a decent living wage for all?

Ferrari would very likely go tits-up after any revolution anyway. What is considered a "luxury" item now may not fit that definition in this hypothetical society, or even be available for consumption. And doesn't anyone grow their own weed anymore? :cool:

[syndicat]

How would this work? Seems as though if everyone is receiving the full exchange value of their labor, how would there be anything left over for those don't work?

I didn't say people receive the value of the products. I'm opposed to that. That would lead to inequality as different types of products embody different amounts of skill or scarcity of materials or production groups have better equipment, are more efficient, etc. It also assumes that worker production organizations are operating in a market, which I'm opposed to.

Rather, what happens is that the society makes a decision, based on direct participation, about what will be provided free to everyone, the things I called public goods, like education, health care etc. Now, after we subtract this, then from the remaining portion of the social product, it is distributed to individuals for personal consumption, their own share of the social product. Part of this goes to parents for child allotments, part goes to the retired, part goes to those unable to work, and part goes to workers and is alloted based on how many hours they've worked.

[Lanky Wanker]

The problem is that you are applying a capitalist/consumerist mindset to this situation. Why are we worrying about Ferraris and big-screen TVs now? How about we work on getting everyone clothed and fed first? Or finding everyone work? Or worrying about a decent living wage for all?

Ferrari would very likely go tits-up after any revolution anyway. What is considered a "luxury" item now may not fit that definition in this hypothetical society, or even be available for consumption. And doesn't anyone grow their own weed anymore? :cool:

LOL true about the weed, but I guess a lot of potheads are too lazy to grow. I know I'd have a go at it for sure if the laws on it were dropped. and yeah true we need to worry about poverty first, but as I said, it's always useful to know about these kind of things when deciding where abouts on the left wing you stand.

[$lim_$weezy]

So you say it is "mandatory" that people work. How much? And how do we keep them accountable in terms of doing work that is useful? How are resources allocated to production?

It's not a plausible answer to say, "the community will decide." That's because it's COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE for the community to decide what each person will consume. It's only appropriate for that person to decide what they want. People don't all want the same things. People don't eat the same kinds of food, wear exactly the same clothes, listen to the same music, etc. But, how, then, to know how much of each of the tens of thousands of products to produce?

And rotation is not an adequate answer to the problem that some jobs now are more dangerous, onerous, boring, rote than others. That's just slumming. If people can just waltz in and do whatever they like, you'll have tons of people wanting to be actors, writers, musicians and other creative activities, and few people wanting to work in factories, steel mills, oil refineries, work on sewers, etc.

The community decides who needs to work (those who are unable need not do so, supposedly) and how long people should work a day.

The community DOES INDEED decide about this "mandatory" or "necessity" production. Things such as food will be produced and distributed to members of the community. If half the people like one type of food and half another, then why can the community not produce both in that proportion? However, difficulty of attainment of certain foods would place the ingredients that made them up squarely in the "scarce" category, thus making the personal acquiring of such foods probably a matter of rotation or some other such equalizing mechanism.

Again, "actor" is not a career that produces these so-called necessities (unless the community dictates it as such, though this wouldn't make too much sense in my opinion), and thus a person cannot be an actor but in their free time. Jobs other than the production of these necessities will only be handled on a non-"mandatory" basis AFTER the necessities have been produced. For example, all viable members of the community work some number of hours in the morning, and they are left with all afternoon with which to experiment in the communal science labs, teach themselves and others in open forums, read or write, and, of course, participate in the production of these so-called luxuries. Resource allocation would be covered, as with most other things, by the community.

As for the more dangerous jobs, I don't see why rotation is inadequate. Of course, "re-organization" as you say would be ideal. Everyone gets the same exposure to the danger, and if this danger level is affected by outside factors, then this could simply be incorporated into the allotment of time at the job. For example, if a certain job is more dangerous in the winter due to the presence of ice, those working in the winter would work less at the same job than those who did it in the summer, when it was relatively safer, or else they would get more time on the easier jobs after they had completed the harder one. Thus, equality of condition is conserved.

I hope I'm making sense...

Reading what you have to say, it seems we agree on far more than what I at first thought! You've prompted me to look more into both my own views and yours!