Anarcho-Communist society

[Kropotkin93]

Hi, i have a couple of things that i'm not quite sure about an anarcho-communist society.

Firstly, how would goods be distributed? In a capitalist society, the price mechanism and market allocate resources. In an an-com society, say i wanted to buy a lamp, who would produce it and how could they gauge the demand for different goods? (I understand there is a difference between owning a good and owning capital, which is used to exploit others)

Secondly, how would people be allocated to different tasks? If i didn't want to be a binman or postman (no offence :blushing:), who would stop me? Could i be forced into doing this, but then wouldn't you be exercising property rights over me so to speak? Leading on from this, if i wanted to sell my labour, and both parties consented, who would stop me from doing so?

Lastly, a standard definition of communism is one where there is absolute equality; everyone earns the same etc. however, how can this be reconciled with 'from each according to his ability to each according to his need'? if i need twice as much of a good as my neighbour, how can there be absolute equality?

I know that there are a lot of questions here and would be very appreciative, but i am fascinated by the workings of this society.

[VirgJans12]

Your lamp would be produced by factory workers who produce these. The demand gauge will be determined by people who do so for a living. Although there will be no capitalists or state to determine production quota, there will still be people investigating what needs to be produced and trying to arrange that. Otherwise everyone will produce the same goods, leading to shortages among other goods.

The workers of a workplace will determine if they need extra help together. Then you can apply. Or you can just join in as you are co-owner of everything. It just depends on how we'll arrange that. And no one can force you to do anything.

If you want to sell your labor, the only thing your "boss" could offer you is goods. A lamp, TV, table, or whatever. Because in a communism, there is no money. Your "boss" would have to work himself, receiving the same credit as you for every hour worked. So if he works for 7 hours a day, and you work 5 hours a day for him, he'd only have 2 hours a day to keep for himself. This makes having employees nearly impossible. And selling/buying labor useless. Also, as everyone owns everything, you'll always be working for yourself as well.

I'm not quite sure how we will apply absolute equality. If you need to study for 7 years to become a doctor, but could also earn the same as a postman, there would probably be a shortage of doctors. The main thing here is that there will be no bourgeoisie. Everyone will be a worker and there will be a low economic disparity. Therefore there will be no exploitation and all the money going into a few hands. Labor credits will remain very distributed.

Most likely, communism will emerge a long time from now. In an era where, for example, people have a chip in their finger that's scanned, telling if they need medicine, how much food, etc. That's how 'each according to his need' will probably be applied.

[Terminator X]

Secondly, how would people be allocated to different tasks? If i didn't want to be a binman or postman (no offence :blushing:), who would stop me?

Computerized automation of job distribution has been discussed, meaning you could go online (or to some central job board) to see various job postings available in the community, and take one if it interested you. If not enough people take certain jobs, there could be some sort of rotational job allocation instituted, where you would be required to do some of the "dirty work," but most of these types of jobs would only require a 30-day commitment or so, and you could then "post out" for a different job more to your liking at that point.

The ultimate goal of an anarcho-communist society, however, is to get to the point where certain jobs as not viewed as "dirty work," but simply working together to do things that need to be done, regardless of whether it's janitorial work, taking out trash, etc.

[ckaihatsu]

We can already address this topic in strictly *political* terms, in that a worldwide worker-collectivized political economy would have immense advantages over the continually crisis-ridden capitalist system that we're living in today.

Probably the greatest advantage is that it *wouldn't* depend on a cancer-like rate of economic growth for its well-being -- economic growth for its own sake would *not* be the watchword of a post-capitalist collectivized society. Instead it could readily produce a surplus of its own choosing, through economic democracy -- perhaps one that is modest, with reasonable civilizational development factored in.

Contrast this to the process of capital-based "growth" wherein the world is awash in liquidity, yet it does no good -- without the correct alignment of various components of the economy there are no opportunities for capital growth going forward. Risk looms everywhere from the anxiety of losing private accumulations, and so any possibility for pooling resources slips away even further.

It should occur to most people that humanity has come too far already to go along with absurd social practices of "musical chairs" because of an irrational faith in the market mechanism and financial capitalism. A society based on even the *slightest* of unrestrained voluntary liberated labor would *easily* manage to organize itself to use humanity's existing technology and machinery to supply everyone with solid livelihoods and modern comforts.

We should make sure not to be too defensive when laying out these basic logistics inherent to our position, *especially* in this current economic environment of profound capitalist crisis and class-based attacks on workers' wages, benefits, and organizing ability. Capitalism is at an impasse and will only lash out at us like a cornered, wounded animal. It has no way of remedying the mess it's gotten us into, so it's up to the people of the world to empower our workers and give them unrestricted access to the humane means of mass industrial production, for the best possible common interest.

[W1N5T0N]

but dont you think thats a bit creepy? having everything in your life be regulated by a chip in your finger? I think thats a bit too 1984/half life 2 style. I mean, why? Its not like one person is going to eat all of the food. The medical thing is not a bad idea in that respect, but one has to draw the line between complete control and registering medical needs. This technology could also be perverted to more evil uses if it ever gets big...

[nuisance]

people have a chip in their finger that's scanned, telling if they need medicine, how much food, etc. That's how 'each according to his need' will probably be applied.
haahahahahaaha i seriously fucking hope not.

[hatzel]

Yeah, the OP should seriously disregard that bit about the chips under the skin. None of that. No. Never. Some of the other stuff in that post was fine, though.

[Desperado]

In a capitalist society, the price mechanism and market allocate resources.

Sure, it allocates resources, but not at all effectively or fairly. Same to your job question - it allocates jobs, but most are pretty much forced or have next to no choice as to what their jobs are (and work far longer and in worse conditions than need be).

It is impossible that we ever make a perfect society, "pure" anarcho-communism you might say, with zero coercion and perfect equality. There will always be some flaws - some amount of social control by one or some over others (formal or informal). But when you look at the present state of affairs, it's pretty easy for anybody to conceive a better, practical system based on near (or much, much more) non hierarchical free agreements. I'd rather be pushed into a slightly unfair job rota any day rather than sell my labour for outright exploitation in capitalism, be part of not-perfect free associative directly democratic councils than forced under an unaccountable bourgeois ran state.

We will always strive to reduce hierarchy and oppression in all it's forms, but debating the minor inequalities of an anarcho-communist society is akin to discussing the inequalities of a dishwashing rota in a house where there is domestic abuse.

[VirgJans12]

but dont you think thats a bit creepy? having everything in your life be regulated by a chip in your finger? I think thats a bit too 1984/half life 2 style. I mean, why? Its not like one person is going to eat all of the food. The medical thing is not a bad idea in that respect, but one has to draw the line between complete control and registering medical needs. This technology could also be perverted to more evil uses if it ever gets big...

It doesn't have to regulate everything. But it could determine what you need, and so you will acquire whatever you need to satisfy those. After you have what you need, there will be plenty of wants left you can satisfy to your own liking.

Such a chip wouldn't have to control everything. But it could hold records of how much you've worked and such. It's not like they're going to implant mind control systems.

Think about it. It will most likely happen in the future.




Yeah, the OP should seriously disregard that bit about the chips under the skin. None of that. No. Never. Some of the other stuff in that post was fine, though.

I wasn't the OP ;)

[PhoenixAsh]

Lastly, a standard definition of communism is one where there is absolute equality; everyone earns the same etc. however, how can this be reconciled with 'from each according to his ability to each according to his need'? if i need twice as much of a good as my neighbour, how can there be absolute equality?


Well...I think you should not see it as absolute equality but as equality of autonomy and not necessarilly as equality in outcome.

This means every person has the same rights and the same obligations which they fullfill to their capacity...they receive from that what they need if its available in abundance or an equal share if it is not.

Obviously somebody with three kids needs more food for example...than somebody with only one. And somebody who has also a walking disability will receive the tools necessary to cope with that...somebody who hasn't got a walking disablity will not get that....because they would not need it. Quantatively one receives more than the other...but they both receive what they need to live their lives as good as possible.

Not everybody wants the same. But when it concerns scarcity products in high demand either society needs to solve the scarcity or here needs to be some kind of distribution of the products which is both fair and honest. I do not have a solution for that. I am sure others will have thoughts and ideas about it.

To sum up...the equality lies in the autonomy not in the outcome.

[Kropotkin93]

Thanks for the replies, my follow up question is does this system rely on a form of post-scarcity, where (nearly) everything everyone wants can be given to them? So would a current society not be ideal for an an-com system? How do you guys see marx's 'superabundance' fitting in to all of this?

Also, if i just decided to be lazy and do nothing, would i still be fed or would i be denied that so to speak? because if you dont give me food, then surely i am being coerced into working? what therefore makes this any different from capitalism?

[W1N5T0N]

The current problem is that as population grows, resources dwindle. However, this is largely due to corporate greed, as they try to get the maximum out of something, exploiting it until there is no more, always trying to get the best price. For example, due to todays "free market", economies in poor countries are so desperate that they have to rely so heavily on export goods they cannot grow enough food. Also, a huge amount of edible goods is wasted every year because strict regulations about the exact size and shape of it demands that a proportionally small amount is thrown away, which due to mass production and harvest still amounts to a lot!
THIS is the real problem. If there were a more sensible, sustainable way of managing resources and distributing them, this problem could be solved.

And i think the basis of an An-Com society would be that you want to work, and take part in the community, or you would not join the community in the first place. If you dont want to work with everybody, you can go off and make a living on your own elsewhere. Input of work = output of goods. The problem with this arises in the definition of "work": manual and mental work. A good solution would be to have both equally shared out.

[Blake's Baby]

Not just corporate greed, but just the unnecessary wastage involved in capitalism. war, and the military spending that exists even when there's no war, and accounting, banking, taxation, advertising, border controls blah blah yadda yadda; then there's all the stupid shit that happens because it makes more money to burn forests to make grassland to feed cows than it does to farm sensibly, because it makes 'economic sense' to tip food into the sea rather than let the hungry have it, etc.

Massive amounts of food, fuel, antural resources and people's energy are given over to tasks and products which only exist to make money, not to fulfill any actual human need. Liberated from capitalism all of this unnecessary waste could then be harnessed to production for need. This is where the super-abundance comes from, and it's actually real now. The problem for the world isn't scarcity, it's distribution, in other words private property. Production is fine, we make more than enough to see to hunmanity's needs (and could make vastly more for maybe centuries to come as the population expands) but private expropriation of the (social) product is what leads to poverty, starvation and all the rest of it.

[Terminator X]

Also, if i just decided to be lazy and do nothing, would i still be fed or would i be denied that so to speak? because if you dont give me food, then surely i am being coerced into working? what therefore makes this any different from capitalism?

In capitalism, people can work, but still be denied basic necessities - health care, decent housing, food, etc. Hell, people work 40 hours a week now and still don't have health insurance.

In an an-com society, if you contribute to the society through your work, you will be taken care of in all of these aspects (and more). Of course, if you don't want to work, you are welcome to make a living on your own outside of the society in a type of subsistence environment, but the benefits of working within your group would be far more beneficial.

[ckaihatsu]

---





If there were a more sensible, sustainable way of managing resources and distributing them, this problem could be solved.








It's about distribution systems. Communism (socialism with communal distribution) is usually conceived as a gift economy, but I think a democratic-community model of distribution is a much more accurate depiction of what the intent is. Hypothetically you could have various cities democratically deciding to have different distribution models for different product groups. That seems the most workable model to me.

- Market
- Labor vouchers
- Communal-Democratic
- Gift





This is an excellent point, one I'm surprised we haven't seen earlier. You're placing these various, differentiated methods of distribution on a sliding scale according to the relative *abundance* of the component goods and services produced within.

Perhaps, then, one of the major tasks of a mass collectivized political economy administrating all of this would be to simply categorize *all* goods and services according to their abundant availability, on this sliding scale -- I picture it as a circular bulls-eye centralized point of (all) production, radiating its production outward, with gift distribution closest to the center (indicating abundance), then a bulk-pooled communal-democratic method outside of that, followed by a ratio-based labor voucher system outside of that, with a market-type system (of floating exchange rates) on the outlying peripheral area for least-common and more-specialized items.