Each according to his abilities, each according to his needs

[sithsaber]

Explain this concept

[Railyon]

Reactionaries view it as "work people as hard as possible while giving them just the bare minimum for survival".

For us it's the exact opposite.

[The Jay]

If you're hungry, farmers feed you. If you need pencils you get some. If you want diamonds, you need a damn good reason. If you are are good at chemistry, be a scientist or doctor. That's how I look at it, though, this is not a nuanced explanation.

[Caj]

It's the organization of production and distribution that characterizes the "higher phase of communism" (Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme). Individuals will work to the best of their abilities and in accordance with their desires, passions, and aspirations. These same individuals will be free to take from the common produce of society in accordance with their needs. The "needs" portion, by the way, includes more than just bare necessities.

Obviously such a method of production and distribution can only come about with a proper level of development of technology that can ensure post-scarcity conditions. For this reason, the higher phase of communism will be preceded by a "lower phase" in which a system of remuneration for labor will be maintained and a communal market will be established for the exchange of this remuneration for produce.

[Railyon]

For this reason, the higher phase of communism will be preceded by a "lower phase" in which a system of remuneration for labor will be maintained and a communal market will be established for the exchange of this remuneration for produce.

I'd take this with a grain of salt though. The necessity for a remuneration for labor is highly depended of context; one may argue that in the "First World" the productive capabilities have developed so extensively that we may as well skip such a "hidden wage labor" phase for the most part.

[Caj]

I'd take this with a grain of salt though. The necessity for a remuneration for labor is highly depended of context; one may argue that in the "First World" the productive capabilities have developed so extensively that we may as well skip such a "hidden wage labor" phase for the most part.

True, but some regions will inevitably need to undergo a "lower phase" first.

EDIT: Also, I think the necessity that will exist for a lower phase in some regions will not only be attributable to the existence of scarcity, but also to the need for a transition from everyday aspects of bourgeois society (buying, selling, receiving wages) to that of a money-less, market-less higher phase.

[Bostana]

A very beautiful and true phrase.

Each according to his ability means that he will do what he can but he will not be over worked.
Each according to his needs means that he will be given basic human necessities like food, shelter, water, and health care. And if a cancer patient needs a little extra then his needs are met.

[Proukunin]

How would this work for say a musician? I'm guessing that isn't an actually profession under socialism or?...

Because other than that i'm useful for carpentry. which I hate lol.

[Brosip Tito]

It's the idea for communist society.

[Deicide]

How will this work with toilet cleaners and people that unblock shit blocked sewage pipes?

[Caj]

How would this work for say a musician? I'm guessing that isn't an actually profession under socialism or?...

Because other than that i'm useful for carpentry. which I hate lol.

Under the higher phase of communism, one could be simply a musician and continue to take from the collective produce in accordance with one's needs. Naturally, needs are going to reflect the degree of labor done, so a kind of remuneration system in a sense exists under the higher phase.

[Caj]

How will this work with toilet cleaners and people that unblock shit blocked sewage pipes?

Former-bourgeois do that . . . at gun point. :D

In seriousness, though, I'd imagine that such jobs would be divided equally among all members of the community if nobody was willing to do them voluntarily.

[sithsaber]

Former-bourgeois do that . . . at gun point. :D

In seriousness, though, I'd imagine that such jobs would be divided equally among all members of the community if nobody was willing to do them voluntarily.

But does that mean janitors and nuclear physisists should be paid the same? (Although the Soviets set up a more merit based system by extremely favoring those with technical and managerial skills and we know how that turned out)

[The Jay]

But does that mean janitors and nuclear physisists should be paid the same? (Although the Soviets set up a more merit based system by extremely favoring those with technical and managerial skills and we know how that turned out)

They wouldn't get paid at all. There's no money in socialism.

[Caj]

But does that mean janitors and nuclear physisists should be paid the same? (Although the Soviets set up a more merit based system by extremely favoring those with technical and managerial skills and we know how that turned out)

Needs naturally reflect the amount and degree of labor expended. In a state of post-scarcity, payment for labor will be rendered unecessary.


They wouldn't get paid at all. There's no money in socialism.

Well, there will probably be something analagous to bourgeois money in the early stages of communism in many regions where technological development hasn't ensured post-scarcity.

In that case, the remunerations received by a janitor and nuclear physicist would differ based on the differences between the amount and degree of labor expended in each of their professions.

[blake 3:17]

How would this work for say a musician? I'm guessing that isn't an actually profession under socialism or?...

Because other than that i'm useful for carpentry. which I hate lol.

Music will sound better under socialism!

A primary goal of socialism, as a movement and as a mode of production, is to reduce the working week drastically. Rationally planned production and services should allow for artists of whatever medium, the time and flexibility to practice their art, without fear of starvation.

I don't think a couple of days a week of "drudge" work would interfere with an artist doing their best work. A socialist economy would allow for artists to take take extra time off in order to focus more intensively on their artistic production or to travel/tour as part of a group or individually.

[Prinskaj]

But does that mean janitors and nuclear physisists should be paid the same?
Money will be abolished, so there will be no paid to be given.
The distribution of goods, before a gift economy can take place, is a much deeper issue, with many different answer, like labor vouchers and the likes.
But these unwanted jobs will be phased out, as technological development would, most likely, be focused more on removing unwanted work.

[sithsaber]

They wouldn't get paid at all. There's no money in socialism.

reimbursed for their time, skills and labor


Needs naturally reflect the amount and degree of labor expended. In a state of post-scarcity, payment for labor will be rendered unecessary.



Well, there will probably be something analagous to bourgeois money in the early stages of communism in many regions where technological development hasn't ensured post-scarcity.

In that case, the remunerations received by a janitor and nuclear physicist would differ based on the differences between the amount and degree of labor expended in each of their professions.

thank you. My commie jargon been getting rusty

[Caj]

One thing that should be kept in mind is that there probably won't be generic job titles such as "janitor" under socialism. Most people will probably engage in many different kinds of work rather than being dedicated to solely one profession.

[Railyon]

EDIT: Also, I think the necessity that will exist for a lower phase in some regions will not only be attributable to the existence of scarcity, but also to the need for a transition from everyday aspects of bourgeois society (buying, selling, receiving wages) to that of a money-less, market-less higher phase.

Interesting point, but if we presuppose a successful revolution I don't know if the necessity of "fading out" bourgeois modes of thinking as part of the transition is still given. I think it will arise out of a need for a mode of distribution if anything, and not to overcome old modes of behavior; after all, when the revolution happens it's a fair assumption we have left those behind us or we wouldn't even get that far.

But that's just me rambling...

[blake 3:17]

How will this work with toilet cleaners and people that unblock shit blocked sewage pipes?

Not to pick on you, but I'm often amazed how bourgeois in attitude so many socialists are.

I've been on strike with sewage treatment workers before, and shared tasks with cleaning staff, and what is little recognized is that people doing this socially necessary work WHEN TREATED WITH DIGNITY take extreme pride in their work. I've worked in a number of schools where I had daily contact and conversation with janitorial staff and they saw their jobs very much as a public service -- keeping a safe and healthy environment is something to be proud of.

Other staff would often express elitist and just plain insulting attitudes to these workers. This work is often difficult and boring, but can be made more pleasant and respected.

[Positivist]

One thing that should be kept in mind is that there probably won't be generic job titles such as "janitor" under socialism. Most people will probably engage in many different kinds of work rather than being dedicated to solely one profession.

I agree that's a great idea.

[Klaatu]

In order for a Marxist system to work well, we must teach our children that greed is not only bad, it is evil. "According to ones' needs" must have a mechanism to prevent hoarding, by certain disturbed individuals (for example, the paranoid 'survivalist' folks living up in the hills, waiting for Armageddon to happen)

[Railyon]

In order for a Marxist system to work well, we must teach our children that greed is not only bad, it is evil.

First off, it is not a "Marxist system".

Secondly, metaphysical categories like "evil" are obscurantism. Why not teach them in a materialist manner? Make them read Capital to see what the old world was like?

Falling into ideological demagoguery won't help anyone, I think.



"According to ones' needs" must have a mechanism to prevent hoarding, by certain disturbed individuals (for example, the paranoid 'survivalist' folks living up in the hills, waiting for Armageddon to happen)
I think the impossibility of hoarding in any way to recreate classes is pretty much THE foundation of this new mode of social relations.

Beyond that, why not let them hoard? We're talking about post-scarcity after all, aren't we?

[Ose]

In order for a Marxist system to work well, we must teach our children that greed is not only bad, it is evil. Yeah dude, it's, like, totally against God and stuff. :rolleyes: Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the term 'Marxism' or 'Marxist' does not denote any kind of economic 'system'. The form of communist economic organisation will be dictated by people's needs at the time, rather than by some pre-determined plan. I'm not really a fan of such formalism.
"According to ones' needs" must have a mechanism to prevent hoarding, by certain disturbed individuals (for example, the paranoid 'survivalist' folks living up in the hills, waiting for Armageddon to happen)Such people are a minority too tiny to have any real impact on society as a whole, and if they did manage to accumulate enough stuff to cause a problem, people would just take it from them.

[Regicollis]

Something that I've been wondering about concerning the distribution of goods in a communist society is that some products will always be scarce because of physical limitations. Many luxury products are like this. For instance you can only produce a certain amount of champagne because it is only produced in a limited geographical area.

There would still be a need for a mechanism to regulate who gets the champagne. Today these products are rationed through prices but in a communist society someone would have to decide who has the greatest "need" for these luxury products or alternatively there would have to be some kind of lottery.

[Railyon]

Well, luxury items. Yeah.

I think lottery or some kind of rotating distribution would be okay, I guess. That is, if people are still going apeshit for luxuries - who knows?

Most of us are doing perfectly well without any of them, I can't quite see why suddenly there would be such a run for them, but again, who knows, all doors are open.

[Caj]

Something that I've been wondering about concerning the distribution of goods in a communist society is that some products will always be scarce because of physical limitations. Many luxury products are like this. For instance you can only produce a certain amount of champagne because it is only produced in a limited geographical area.

There would still be a need for a mechanism to regulate who gets the champagne. Today these products are rationed through prices but in a communist society someone would have to decide who has the greatest "need" for these luxury products or alternatively there would have to be some kind of lottery.

We don't know what the future holds, and the complexity of human social systems prevents us from ever knowing. All we can do is speculate until the future actually arives. That said, one way in which I can see the issue of scarcity of luxury products such as, say, champagne in the higher phase of communism is to have something like waiting lists, where one could sign up to receive a certain luxury item.

[hatzel]

In order for a Marxist system to work well, we must teach our children that greed is not only bad, it is evil.

As luck would have it that's the very opposite of truth. I mean even I - some religious mumbo-jumbo 'thou shalt not covet your neighbour's this or that or whatever' nutjob type - would never in a million years dream of teaching my kids anything even vaguely approaching this booty chowder...

[Klaatu]

First off, it is not a "Marxist system".

Explain?


Secondly, metaphysical categories like "evil" are obscurantism. Why not teach them in a materialist manner? Make them read Capital to see what the old world was like?

Falling into ideological demagoguery won't help anyone, I think.

The term 'evil' is just a term that peope understand the meaning of. No religion intended here, comrade.



I think the impossibility of hoarding in any way to recreate classes is pretty much THE foundation of this new mode of social relations.

Beyond that, why not let them hoard? We're talking about post-scarcity after all, aren't we?

Granted, this would be a minor issue overall. But then, greed, per se, is not such a minor issue. (is it?)

[Caj]

greed, per se, is not such a minor issue. (is it?)

"Greed" does not exist. It's a moralist construction. There is only the pursuit of actual and perceived self-interest. So no, greed is not an issue at all.

[The Jay]

"Greed" does not exist. It's a moralist construction. There is only the pursuit of actual and perceived self-interest. So no, greed is not an issue at all.

There is also empathy, and with empathy one may be measured as how much they put their needs and desires over others'. By that measure greed may be said to exist subjectively. Other than the existence of empathy, I agree with you 100%.

[Railyon]

Explain?
Communism is not synonymous with Marxism - from my understanding it is mainly a methodology of analysis, not how communism ought to look like.



The term 'evil' is just a term that peope understand the meaning of. No religion intended here, comrade.
[...]
Granted, this would be a minor issue overall. But then, greed, per se, is not such a minor issue. (is it?)

I didn't mean it in a religious way either - "good" and "evil" are just concepts that don't tell you much really. Moralism I guess, as what is good and what is evil is not fixed. It is, for a lack of a better word, too shallow to explain WHY something works the way it does.

Now greed. Greed is just a manifestation of a particular social relation that makes possible and encourages such behavior. Change the social relation in such a fundamental way as we envision it, and greed becomes a toothless tiger. Imagine, how would this greed manifest? And how would it come to sustain itself, that is, how would it ever form into private property?

[Positivist]

In order for a Marxist system to work well, we must teach our children that greed is not only bad, it is evil. "According to ones' needs" must have a mechanism to prevent hoarding, by certain disturbed individuals (for example, the paranoid 'survivalist' folks living up in the hills, waiting for Armageddon to happen)

I agree that it might be necessary to eliminate certain capitalist patterns of thought though I would advocate the development of mutualist beliefs rather than selfless ones. True selflessness is incompatible with individual happiness and is therefore opposed to the interests of any member of the community.

[Caj]

There is also empathy, and with empathy one may be measured as how much they put their needs and desires over others'. By that measure greed may be said to exist subjectively. Other than the existence of empathy, I agree with you 100%.

Empathy is a means to one's actual or perceived self-interests.

[Grenzer]

How will this work with toilet cleaners and people that unblock shit blocked sewage pipes?

Maoist-Third-Worldists exist for a reason.

[The Jay]

Empathy is a means to one's actual or perceived self-interests.

Then we have different definitions. Mine's better :P

[Caj]

Then we have different definitions. Mine's better :P

Empathy as an entity independent from self-interest is non-existent.

[The Jay]

Empathy as an entity independent from self-interest is non-existent.

Make a thread about it and we'll have a friendly duel about it. I'm sway-able in this subject so who knows?

[Lanky Wanker]

Not to pick on you, but I'm often amazed how bourgeois in attitude so many socialists are.

I've been on strike with sewage treatment workers before, and shared tasks with cleaning staff, and what is little recognized is that people doing this socially necessary work WHEN TREATED WITH DIGNITY take extreme pride in their work. I've worked in a number of schools where I had daily contact and conversation with janitorial staff and they saw their jobs very much as a public service -- keeping a safe and healthy environment is something to be proud of.

Other staff would often express elitist and just plain insulting attitudes to these workers. This work is often difficult and boring, but can be made more pleasant and respected.

I always find it annoying when people question me about being a commie and if I think a cleaner should be paid the same as a doctor. I pretty much say the same thing -- "their jobs are equally as important, why shouldn't they earn the same?", then if they're not TOO thick I explain how they won't "earn" in wages. Surprisingly, they sort of stumble on the point about both jobs being important, then usually go onto the "but the doctor spent years in university" stuff. Oh yeah? Well the cleaner spent years mopping up your shit and being degraded by people like you. Funny how capitalism turns everything into a huge set of stairs.


Empathy as an entity independent from self-interest is non-existent.

I'm stealing that line, it sounds fancy.

[Klaatu]

Empathy is a means to one's actual or perceived self-interests.

Greed is the compliment of empathy. Everything has an opposite.

By 'greed,' I mean greed as in a Capitalist system. In my opinion, greed is the antithesis of communism/socialism. And remember greed is
only a word. You can substitute any other word you like, the idea is still there.

[Caj]

Greed is the compliment of empathy. Everything has an opposite.

By 'greed,' I mean greed as in a Capitalist system. In my opinion, greed is the antithesis of communism/socialism. And remember greed is
only a word. You can substitute any other word you like, the idea is still there.

Criticizing capitalism based on some moral opposition to "greed" makes you sound like an idealist liberal (no offense). Instead of blaming "greed," we should recognize that the collective material self-interests (or "class interests") of the bourgeoisie are diametrically opposed to those of the proletariat. Communism isn't based on eliminating "greed." On the contrary, it's based on pursuing the class interests of the proletarians, their "greed", if you will.

[Klaatu]

Criticizing capitalism based on some moral opposition to "greed" makes you sound like
an idealist liberal (no offense). Instead of blaming "greed," we should recognize that the collective material self-interests
(or "class interests") of the bourgeoisie are diametrically opposed to those of the proletariat. Communism isn't based on
eliminating "greed." On the contrary, it's based on pursuing the class interests of the proletarians, their "greed", if you will.
__________________________________
No offense taken. I don't like liberals either! :lol:

Perhaps the word 'greed' is not strong enough (although 'theft' is probably more appropriate, concerning Capitalists)
I think a word half way between greed and theft might fit in perfectly. What say you?
__________________________________
http://thesaurus.com/
Main Entry:
greed  [greed] Show IPA
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: overwhelming desire for more
Synonyms: acquisitiveness, avarice, avidity, covetousness, craving, cupidity, eagerness, edacity, esurience, excess, gluttony, gormandizing, graspingness, hunger, indulgence, insatiableness, intemperance, longing, piggishness, rapacity, ravenousness, selfishness, swinishness, the gimmies, voracity
Antonyms: benevolence, generosity
Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition
___________________________________
Main Entry:
theft  [theft] Show IPA
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: stealing
Synonyms: annexation, appropriation, break-in, burglary, caper, cheating, crime, defrauding, deprivation, embezzlement, extortion, filch, fleece, fraud, grab*, heist, holdup, hustle*, job*, larceny, lift*, looting, mugging, peculation, pilferage, pilfering, pillage, pinch*, piracy, plunder, purloining, racket, rapacity, rip-off, robbery, robbing, score*, shoplifting, snatch*, snitch, steal, stickup, swindle, swindling, swiping, thievery, thieving, touch*, vandalism
Antonyms: return
* = informal/non-formal usage
Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition

[Caj]

__________________________________
No offense taken. I don't like liberals either! :lol:

Perhaps the word 'greed' is not strong enough (although 'theft' is probably more appropriate, concerning Capitalists)
I think a word half way between greed and theft might fit in perfectly. What say you?
__________________________________
http://thesaurus.com/
Main Entry:
greed  [greed] Show IPA
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: overwhelming desire for more
Synonyms: acquisitiveness, avarice, avidity, covetousness, craving, cupidity, eagerness, edacity, esurience, excess, gluttony, gormandizing, graspingness, hunger, indulgence, insatiableness, intemperance, longing, piggishness, rapacity, ravenousness, selfishness, swinishness, the gimmies, voracity
Antonyms: benevolence, generosity
Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition
___________________________________
Main Entry:
theft  [theft] Show IPA
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: stealing
Synonyms: annexation, appropriation, break-in, burglary, caper, cheating, crime, defrauding, deprivation, embezzlement, extortion, filch, fleece, fraud, grab*, heist, holdup, hustle*, job*, larceny, lift*, looting, mugging, peculation, pilferage, pilfering, pillage, pinch*, piracy, plunder, purloining, racket, rapacity, rip-off, robbery, robbing, score*, shoplifting, snatch*, snitch, steal, stickup, swindle, swindling, swiping, thievery, thieving, touch*, vandalism
Antonyms: return
* = informal/non-formal usage
Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition

I prefer the terms "exploitation" and "extraction (of surplus value)." They seem to have less moral connotations than terms like greed or theft.

What should be remembered, though, is that communism as a movement is not about ending greed, theft, exploitation through surplus value extraction, etc. Communism is not concerned with morality, but solely with the class interests of the proletariat. It just happens to be the case that the end of proletarian exploitation by the bourgeoisie is contained within these interests.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

EDIT: Also, I think the necessity that will exist for a lower phase in some regions will not only be attributable to the existence of scarcity, but also to the need for a transition from everyday aspects of bourgeois society (buying, selling, receiving wages) to that of a money-less, market-less higher phase.


. . . One thing that should be kept in mind is that there probably won't be generic job titles such as "janitor" under socialism. Most people will probably engage in many different kinds of work rather than being dedicated to solely one profession.

We certainly do live in a post scarcity western world, but that is at the cost of our corporations monopolising the global market and sucking up the surplus of the third world; not because the productive forces are so high, they are still caught in the trap of capitalism and the market*...

Wage labor cannot be abolished in socialism, wage labor cannot be abolished until there is: 1) complete social control of whole economic sectors/ commodities 2) the obliteration of the market 3) global socialism [end of the need for capital accumulation] 4) scarcity abolished [of course], with the latter having to be accomplished by capitalism, markets [unless the industrialised nations, i.e. the world, has before already become socialist].

Here you also mentioned the need for "communal markets" during lower stage of communism. I guess you meant the transition phase to communism, socialism (as in socialism there is the struggle for communist class structure and communist society), because when complete social workers control is reached and markets replaced by planning, there is no more need for wage labor, exchange, i.e. markets. Communism.

[Railyon]

Wage labor cannot be abolished in socialism, wage labor cannot be abolished until there is: 1) complete social control of whole economic sectors/ commodities 2) the obliteration of the market 3) global socialism [end of the need for capital accumulation] 4) scarcity abolished [of course], with the latter having to be accomplished by capitalism, markets [unless the industrialised nations, i.e. the world, has before already become socialist].

I take a bit of an issue of your use of wage labor here. Do you mean by that what Caj termed remuneration of work hours?

Because when I hear the term "wage labor" I immediately think of wage labor under capitalism with all that entails, separation of worker from the means of production for example, which pretty much excludes socialism unless by socialism you mean what is colloquially called "state capitalism".

And if so, I disagree that that path would be fruitful at all. But as said, it all hinges on what you mean by wage labor.

[Caj]

We certainly do live in a post scarcity western world, but that is at the cost of our corporations monopolising the global market and sucking up the surplus of the third world; not because the productive forces are so high, they are still caught in the trap of capitalism and the market*...

I agree. Post-scarcity does not yet exist. However, we are getting closer to such a condition. Take food, for example. Current levels of food production could ensure that everbody could have around 2,700 calories per day if equally distributed. With the overthrow of capitalism and the collectivization of the means of production, technological development will be subordinated to need rather than profit, bringing us even closer to post-scarcity.


Wage labor cannot be abolished in socialism, wage labor cannot be abolished until there is: 1) complete social control of whole economic sectors/ commodities 2) the obliteration of the market 3) global socialism [end of the need for capital accumulation] 4) scarcity abolished [of course], with the latter having to be accomplished by capitalism, markets [unless the industrialised nations, i.e. the world, has before already become socialist].

A few things here.

Firstly, wage labor will have been abolished under socialism. In fact, wage labor will be abolished once the proletariat takes state power and establishes the dictatorship of the proletariat. So no, "complete social control of whole economic sectors/commodities" (socialism) is not a precondition for the destruction of wage labor. The proletarian dictatorship destroys wage labor when there is workers' control of the economy.

Secondly, markets are means of exchange and distribution. They can exist with or without the social and material relation of production known as wage labor.

Thirdly, "global socialism" is redundant. Just say socialism. Again, although socialism is the condition for a global destruction of wage labor, wage labor is destroyed earlier by the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Fourthly, post-scarcity cannot be accomplished by capitalism. It can only create the technology to do so. The achievment of post-scarcity is the task of the proletariat and the post-proletariat* after the forcible appropriation of this technology from the bourgeoisie.


Here you also mentioned the need for "communal markets" during lower stage of communism. I guess you meant the transition phase to communism, socialism (as in socialism there is the struggle for communist class structure and communist society), because when complete social workers control is reached and markets replaced by planning, there is no more need for wage labor, exchange, i.e. markets. Communism.

Firstly, communism and socialism are synonymous. Don't fall for the Marxist-Leninist delusion of believing that socialism is a "stage" that can be established in one country. The transition that takes place within communist society is between the lower and higher phases of communism, both of which come after the DotP and are, therefore, classless and stateless. Their difference is a difference of distribution. In the lower phase, there is a communal market. This is not a market in the bourgeois sense. Instead of a bourgeois market which intermediates the exchange between two individuals, the communal market intermediates the exchange between an individual and his community.

Markets do not pressupose wage labor nor vise versa. What you're doing is simply equating wage labor with the existence of remuneration. This is a fallacy. Wage labor is more than just remuneration for labor; it as an exploitative form of remuneration that creates a hierarchical social relation between the wage-earner (the worker) and the wage-giver (the capitalist). Wages too are merely an exploitative form of remuneration, in which the capitalist extracts surplus value, leaving wages less than that of the true value of the worker's labor. Under the lower phase of communism, remuneration would not be subject to the extraction of surplus value, and the worker would consequently receive the full value of his or her labor.

*(The proletariat as a class is destroyed with the withering away of the DotP. By "post-proletariat," I mean workers in a communist society.)