To each according to his needs

[Trigonometry]

How would this be accomplished exactly in a communist society?

Say I worked as a teacher, how exactly would I be paid? or with what?

Also workers should own the means of production, how exactly will that be done? A few large state owned corporation that every citizen is an equal shareholder in/work in one of?

[Revolutionair]

I'm no high authority on this matter but I will give it my 2 cents.

I think Karl Marx his main focus was to abolish the exchange-value of commodities. So instead of you buying things, everything is 'free'. Society will produce commodities for the use-value of the commodities. So we all produce NOT so we can sell the product at a higher price, but to satisfy the needs of everyone.

The definition of a communist society is a classless and stateless society. So there won't be an overarching state which has state-run businesses.

I am sure other people here will give better answers than mine.

[The Man]

Well. There would be no 'pay' or any 'currency' or 'money' in a Communist society. Everyone would, in theory, get all of their basic needs, no matter what. Anarchists generally propose a Gift Economy in which everything is free (depending on how high production is on such item.)

Workers would, in a Communist society, own means of production in common. Meaning the it would be owned as the community as whole.

There wouldn't be 'state-owned corporations', because the State wouldn't exist in Communism. Communism strives for a Stateless, Classless society. It would work like this: If you work, you become part of a Worker's Council that runs on Direct Democracy, that works with other Worker's Councils to manage the community.

Read more here, to get a general feeling of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_council

[Revolutionair]

If you work, you become part of a Worker's Council that runs on Direct Democracy, that works with other Worker's Councils to manage the community

We can, of course, never be sure of what the future holds. Right now, we only have certain visions and ideas that may be useful and worth implementing. But humanity at this stage of development talking about a communist society would be the same thing as hunters and gatherers talking about a capitalist society.

So while we are not sure on what will be the future form of society, we do have certain aims, like classlessness, and things we want to steer away from, such as exploitation.

[Trigonometry]

That's cool guys, I understand all that but what I meant is the literal how thing would work not abstract
ie. I teach at a school with no boss/pay basically for free for anyone who needs education then when I want to get a loaf of bread I go to the bread factory which produces bread at maximum production and grab whatever I need?

@The Man, how exactly is that different from what I proposed?
Stateless in the form of todays states sure, but are you proposing that there will be no form governance at all? Because worker councils are a form of government on a micro scale.

Basically I am thinking about how everyday life/details/logistics would function rather than the grand theoretics

@Revolutionair, I am in agreeance with you and that was what I had previously resolved, though I wanted to have a discussion on what others would imagine

[The Man]

We can, of course, never be sure of what the future holds. Right now, we only have certain visions and ideas that may be useful and worth implementing. But humanity at this stage of development talking about a communist society would be the same thing as hunters and gatherers talking about a capitalist society.

So while we are not sure on what will be the future form of society, we do have certain aims, like classlessness, and things we want to steer away from, such as exploitation.

I agree. Of course this is just an envision. But remember, if there is not a system in which the Workers control the Community through Worker's Self-Management, then it's not Communism.

[The Man]

@The Man, how exactly is that different from what I proposed?
Stateless in the form of todays states sure, but are you proposing that there will be no form governance at all? Because worker councils are a form of government on a micro scale.

Basically I am thinking about how everyday life/details/logistics would function rather than the grand theoretics



Communists are opposed to the State, not governance. We define the State as (In Marxist theory) A Hierarchical apparatus that controls the economy. Worker's Councils are not hierarchy, they are a Direct Democracy.

I prefer a temporary state (The Marxist-Leninist ideology) that acts as a Vanguard for other revolutions.

In Marxist Theory:

"An institution used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule."

[Tim Finnegan]

Communists generally propose a Gift Economy in which everything is free (depending on how high production is on such item.)
News to me, and, I suspect, to most communists.

[The Man]

News to me, and, I suspect, to most communists.

I meant Anarchists, I apologize.. What type of system do you propose?

[Tim Finnegan]

I meant Anarchists, I apologize.. What type of system do you propose?
Personally? I'm open to suggestions. I imagine that to a large extent these things will have to be determined by circumstances, and that they will doubtless evolve over time.

[The Man]

So Tim, You don't really know what type of Communism your fighting for?

[Tim Finnegan]

So Tim, You don't really know what type of Communism your fighting for?
Do you mean to ask if whether or not I presume to dictate to the proletariat how they shall go about "the administration of things" in a post-commodity society, or whether I know that this administration shall be undertaken by the proletariat as a politically empowered class?

As I said, I'm open to suggestions, I just don't have much faith in seers. See my the link in my tendency for more information. ;)

[Trigonometry]

I see I am not the only one stumped on this issue then


Communists are opposed to the State, not governance. We define the State as (In Marxist theory) A Hierarchical apparatus that controls the economy. Worker's Councils are not hierarchy, they are a Direct Democracy.

I prefer a temporary state (The Marxist-Leninist ideology) that acts as a Vanguard for other revolutions.

In Marxist Theory:

"An institution used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule."

then I suppose when I may have been a bit misleading when I said state owned corporations where all citizens are given equal shares; in which case there is no hierachy because all citizens are equally proletariat/bourgeousie none are exploiting another; I guess a better way of saying it would have been government owned corporations.

[Tim Finnegan]

I see I am not the only one stumped on this issue then
Oh, I'm not stumped: my lack of precise answers is, in fact, a response to the question in itself. Communism establishes itself through the process of a revolution carried out by the working class, and so the working class will ultimately determine the "administration of things" in communism, the revolution struggle itself providing the blue-print for communism's earliest forms. All we can do now is offer suggestions as to the form such a society may take, not start issuing firm declarations, let alone diktats. That is simply Utopianism Lite, and Marx avoided it for a reason.

[The Man]

Do you mean to ask if whether or not I presume to dictate to the proletariat how they shall go about "the administration of things" in a post-commodity society, or whether I know that this administration shall be undertaken by the proletariat as a politically empowered class?

As I said, I'm open to suggestions, I just don't have much faith in seers. See my the link in my tendency for more information. ;)

I meant like, Your not fighting for a Communist society like Marx envisioned? Stateless, and Classless, with Worker's Self-Management?

[The Man]

I see I am not the only one stumped on this issue then



then I suppose when I may have been a bit misleading when I said state owned corporations where all citizens are given equal shares; in which case there is no hierachy because all citizens are equally proletariat/bourgeousie none are exploiting another; I guess a better way of saying it would have been government owned corporations.

Worker owned 'corporations' I guess you could say, because the common man is in control of it.

[$lim_$weezy]

There is nothing wrong with providing possible explanations for the way things could work. Of course, it's up to the community to decide what it will do, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss it either on an ideal level or as a suggestion. (not saying that Tim Finnegan isn't open to suggestions!)

[Revolutionair]

Basically I am thinking about how everyday life/details/logistics would function rather than the grand theoretics

Then I suggest that you create a thread in Theory or Economic Theory. The posts there are more in depth than those that you will receive in the Learning forum.


Communists are opposed to the State, not governance

But if there are those who are being governed and those who are the governors, that is a pretty good sign that the society is a class society. Communism is a CLASSLESS, stateless society.

[Trigonometry]

Oh, I'm not stumped: my lack of precise answers is, in fact, a respond to the question. I think that communism establishes itself through the process of revolution, and so that it will be shaped by that process; there will be no "glorious day" when we all switch from capitalism to an already-blueprinted communism (or socialism, in Leninist terminology). All we can do now is offer suggestions as to the form such a society may take, not start planning for that society. That is simply Utopianism Lite, and Marx avoided it for a reason.

In that case surely we could propose a few viable rough ideas, because it seems this matter is completely overlooked despite the great intracacies of our other theories.

This is where I see the critique of Marxists being people living in a world of theoretics and are often incapable of producing anything tangible beyond hours upon hours of (intelligent) criticism.
In contrast to more 'moderate' left wing organisations such as the SDP who are seemingly more down to earth, taking a compromise, and gaining real tangible results for the working class.

I'm sorry if this is in the wrong section, I assumed it was out of my own ignorance rather than that the issue was actually overlooked

[The Man]

But if there are those who are being governed and those who are the governors, that is a pretty good sign that the society is a class society. Communism is a CLASSLESS, stateless society.

Most Communists support a governance of Worker's Councils in which every worker gets to vote in a Direct Democracy, where they elect INSTANTLY Recallable representatives to make decisions over the community.

Definition of a Workers' Council:

A workers' council is the phenomenon where a single place of work or enterprise, such as a factory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory), school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School), or farm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm), is controlled collectively by the workers of that workplace, through the core principle of temporary and instantly revocable delegates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate).

In a system with temporary and instantly revocable delegates, workers deliberate on what is their agenda and what are their needs, and mandate a temporary delegate to divulge and pursue them. The temporary delegates are elected among the workers themselves, can be instantly revoked if they betray their mandate, and are supposed to change frequently. There are no managers and all the decision power and the organization is based on the delegates system.So I don't really see any class there

[Tim Finnegan]

I meant like, Your not fighting for a Communist society like Marx envisioned? Stateless, and Classless, with Worker's Self-Management?
Those are general characteristics, not specific forms of organisation or distribution, which is what is being discussed here.

[Trigonometry]

Those are general characteristics, not specific forms of organisation or distribution, which is what is being discussed here.

this is what I had meant in my OP

sorry if I wasn't clear enough

[Tim Finnegan]

Oops, missed this:


In that case surely we could propose a few viable rough ideas, because it seems this matter is completely overlooked despite the great intracacies of our other theories.

This is where I see the critique of Marxists being people living in a world of theoretics and are often incapable of producing anything tangible beyond hours upon hours of (intelligent) criticism.
Well, we can certainly offer and discuss suggestions, but the nature of class struggle dictates that they be limited in detail, and for the most part speculative. To the extent that any real concrete plans can be drawn up, they can only really be for action within the present society, which is to say proposals for revolutionary organisation, and from them rough sketches of post-revolutionary models deduced.


In contrast to more 'moderate' left wing organisations such as the SDP who are seemingly more down to earth, taking a compromise, and gaining real tangible results for the working class.To be fair, the SDP are able to offer what appears to be a comprehensive program because they propose nothing revolutionary. When all you want to do is seek reforms within capitalism, then all you really have to do is offer a few tweaks here and there, which is rather easier than sketching out a vision of a new world.


I'm sorry if this is in the wrong section, I assumed it was out of my own ignorance rather than that the issue was actually overlookedI wouldn't say that it was overlooked so much as knowingly set aside. Marx himself was notably silent on the topic, and many believe this to be deliberate, myself among them. Marx distrusted grand blue-prints, and saw the movement of communism and the eventual communism society as inseparable; the movement actively generates the new society through its undertaking of the revolutionary process, rather than simply being a political organisation that sets about constructing it. Communism is the "real movement which abolishes the present state of things" and, in accordance with the Marxist understanding of historical progress, in doing so establishes the state of things to come. The dissolution of capitalism and the construction of communism are not subsequent acts, but the same act.