Job variety in a communist world

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I'm kinda wondering what to do with the big variety of jobs in this 21st-century-world.
No money means no commercial jobs, like salesmen, advertisors etc.

Can we hold all jobs or are some jobs to be abolished?
Or do we need to go back-to-basics and abolish all jobs but the essential, like farmers, weavers, bakers etc.?

I think the latter would be a step to far and unnecessary.
It just might be possible to turn mildly commercial occupations like webdesign and graphic arts into jobs of entertainment.
Only the heavily commercial jobs would have to be abolished.

Or am i wrong?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I'd like to think there'd be no careers. Just people doing jobs that are necessary or that they enjoy doing and being able to participate in anything else if they want to and are needed. Some people today find the time to volunteer to help out at youth clubs, old folks homes, arts cinemas etc so if we all had far more free time we'd all be able to devote that time to helping out wherever we wanted to (or not at all).

[Soomie]

I think there would still be careers. Just because we go communist doesn't mean we go back to the stone age. There would still be uses for salesmen and advertisers. I mean, yeah the money is out of the equation, but there will still be luxury goods for people to obtain. Basically, everyone would work the same amount of determined hours each week in order to obtain basic need items, such as food and shelter. If one wanted something that is not provided, like a television or more food, or even restaurant food for example, then they would just put in more hours, the same way we already do. I'm sure some jobs would end up being unneeded, but as far as which ones....hmmm.

At least that's my understanding of the transition.

[Blake's Baby]

I think another way of looking at is what work is necessary for society. We know straight off that a whole load of stuff is unnecessary, so by definition, the necessary amount is less than the current total of work, yes?

Now, we will want to improve some things (though a lot of problems we have are caused by waste, inefficiency, duplication... just think how much easier to use the roads/trains would be on the morning commute if workers weren't going to the 'unecessary' jobs...) but even so; we can massively increase the efficiency of the system by working less. Banking and finance, much of governmental work people do, border controls and patent offices and real estate and the military would all cease to have a function. Hundreds of millions of people would be freed up to either do more necessary work (allowing the workers currently doing that to have some time off) or learn to do other things. Thus society becomes more efficient, and more fulfilled as people have more 'free' time (the amount of necessary labour for society as a whole massively decreases).

People will still need food clothing power medicines tranport sanitation and a bunch of other stuff. Those things need to be produced and distributed. But I'd doubt there would be many 'jobs' as such, in that people wouldn't be stuck doing one thing unless they wanted too. Someone who is driven to become a doctor is unlikely to suddenly jack it in and think 'well, now I want to be a windowcleaner' or something.

Some things (like being a doctor) are highly skilled, and take years of training, whereas others only take a 20-minute talk on health and safety (good ladder technique etc). I doubt we'll be saying 'hey you've done a 20-minute ladder safety course, please come and diagnose this patient', that would be stupid, we will need trained doctors, and there are other jobs where you can see the same situation arising - highly skilled jobs essentially. But for many other jobs, no there's no real reason why they couldn't be more evenly distributed (even if sometimes it will mean a person who has got experience sheperding a gaggle of trainees/interns around, basically).

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I'm really loving the idea of the abolishment of currency combined with job efficiency.
Not having to fill out form after form, administration and stuff, really will improve efficiency and will help lowering the workload for a lot of jobs!

But what if doctors are to few? When noone want's to do sanitary-jobs, we could make a rotation system, where everyone would be obliged to help.
But for medical work...how would we solve that? Would you promise a to future doctor more or better stuff? Wouldn't that be fueling envy and thus fueling criminality?

[Decommissioner]

I would like to think people would have the option to partake in labor that fulfills them to some extent alongside socially necessary labor. Yes there will be builders and farmers, but those people may also partake in opening and booking a nightclub, or build DIY art projects, or invent "unnecessary" things.

Projects between three or more people could take a form similar to what really small local businesses do today, that is an actual space dedicated to social projects and services that may lie outside the realm of bare necessity. They would lack the actual "business" aspect of course.

The freedom to partake in personal hobbyist labor could potentially be used as incentive for some people to perform socially necessary labor.

It's all speculation of course, and the scenario I painted above would probably only work under the most ideal conditions.

[Ele'ill]

we could make a rotation system

No thanks

[Fruit of Ulysses]

I think there would still be careers. Just because we go communist doesn't mean we go back to the stone age. There would still be uses for salesmen and advertisers. I mean, yeah the money is out of the equation, but there will still be luxury goods for people to obtain. Basically, everyone would work the same amount of determined hours each week in order to obtain basic need items, such as food and shelter. If one wanted something that is not provided, like a television or more food, or even restaurant food for example, then they would just put in more hours, the same way we already do. I'm sure some jobs would end up being unneeded, but as far as which ones....hmmm.

At least that's my understanding of the transition.

Karl Marx's very definition of world communism specifically hinges on the abolition of the division of labor, meaning the end of occupational specialization, meaning that no one would have careers. This in no way means that we would be going back to the stone age however, as by the time humanity reaches communism technology will have developed to a level beyond our current imaginations, and the molding of the popular psyche shall be such that we will find new ways to solve our problems together as the need arises. Despite criticism for a perceived "rigid" or "stiff" attitude, socialism actually inculcates a certain violent spontaneity, the new socialist man will operate in a very fluid way; as simplistic as it sounds: people will do what they need to when they need to. And civilization will be structured in such a way as to make that entirely plausible, yet we may not be able to conceive of it now (most especially during the imperialist epoch). In communism there will be no need whatsoever for salesmen or advertisers. With the complete defeat of the bourgeois, any sort of bourgeois position shall disappear also. Lenin was found of the old socialist adage "he who does not work shall not eat"- a key aspect of bourgeois professions is that they receive payment despite not physically producing wealth. Thus, in a society utterly rid of bourgeois influence, there will certainly be means by which one might gain wealth without helping to physically produce it in some way.

[Fruit of Ulysses]

I dont mean to be a harping arse, I see that u stated "at least thats my understanding of the transition" but when you used the phrase "just cuz we go commie" i meant only to correct a semantic error, as communism refers to the end goal of socialist society and final stage of global development. The system you describe is indeed how Comrade Lenin described the workings of transitional socialist society. But I might add that jobs which would disappear would include any combination of classification of any position paid profits or dividends from private enterprises and many sallaried positions, many types of accountants and corporate executives will find themselves rotting in prison cells.

[Ele'ill]

Basically, everyone would work the same amount of determined hours each week in order to obtain basic need items, such as food and shelter.

who would deny me either of those if I refused to work

[Blake's Baby]

I dont mean to be a harping arse, I see that u stated "at least thats my understanding of the transition" but when you used the phrase "just cuz we go commie" i meant only to correct a semantic error, as communism refers to the end goal of socialist society and final stage of global development. The system you describe is indeed how Comrade Lenin described the workings of transitional socialist society. But I might add that jobs which would disappear would include any combination of classification of any position paid profits or dividends from private enterprises and many sallaried positions, many types of accountants and corporate executives will find themselves rotting in prison cells.

Don't want to be a harping arse, but there is no 'transitional socialist society'. The transitional society is the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the final stage of class society, and is not 'socialist'. Marx and Engels are pretty clear on this, even if Lenin isn't.



who would deny me either of those if I refused to work

If you refuse to work, there won't be food and shelter. Stuff doesn't just happen. If you want something, you have to put effort in, because houses don't build themselves.

'From each according to their ability, too each according to their need' is reasonable enough, isn't it?

[Soomie]

Thanks to everyone for clearing a few things up. I'm still learning, so I only have a basic understanding of the theories.


If you refuse to work, there won't be food and shelter. Stuff doesn't just happen. If you want something, you have to put effort in, because houses don't build themselves.

'From each according to their ability, too each according to their need' is reasonable enough, isn't it?

I have often wondered how this would be enforced in a communist society. I think there would need to be force, at least initially. Who is to stop the people who didn't want to work from just lazing about and creating chaos through violence or theft of others' food? I've been trying to work through this as I'm studying the communist theory. I guess the collective community would need to stand up and put those who go against the system OUT of the system. I don't know. Would there still be police officers in a communist society?

[Paulappaul]

If you refuse to work, there won't be food and shelter. Stuff doesn't just happen. If you want something, you have to put effort in, because houses don't build themselves.

'From each according to their ability, too each according to their need' is reasonable enough, isn't it?


I have often wondered how this would be enforced in a communist society. I think there would need to be force, at least initially. Who is to stop the people who didn't want to work from just lazing about and creating chaos through violence or theft of others' food? I've been trying to work through this as I'm studying the communist theory. I guess the collective community would need to stand up and put those who go against the system OUT of the system. I don't know. Would there still be police officers in a communist society?

Sounds like some Collective Community would have a monopoly on the use of force to impose is decisions *cough* a state. Personally if someone didn't want to work, It'd be fine with that cause it would be such a rarity it wouldn't manner. Not only do people like to be productive, like to work, there is certain social pressure behind contributing to society that I could imagine would only be amplified under a Communist Society that it would be bizarre if someone didn't want to work. And If they didn't want to work let it be an issue of family and friends. There have been plenty of days where I dread going to work cause I don't have the confidence or something else in my social life is bugging me...

[Blake's Baby]

There would be a state, as long as there was property, Paulappaul, because a state is just an organisation reflecting the existence of classes, which are just a social formation corresponding to property relations... until there is abundance, there is a state of sorts, because there is property of sorts; the 'withering away of the state' that Engels talks about is predicated on the end of classes, which in turn are predicated on the communisation of the means of production (and distribution). When there is enough for all, there is no necessity for a special formation for managing supply - no more property = no more classes = no more state...

What 'compels people to work' is necessity. We could, if we wanted to, all starve/freeze in the dark. If we don't want to do that, we must produce food, electricity, clothes etc. Those things don't happen without effort, so we have to put in effort to get them. That's not a difficult concept, is it?

[more_like_"crapitalism"]

If you refuse to work, there won't be food and shelter.


so, it's like capitalism? or, excuse me, "crapitalism"?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Hrm. Underlying this discussion, there seems to be an assumption that technology (both in terms of techniques and in the conventional sense of machines, etc.) in the communist mode of production would basically be the same as in the capitalist mode of production. Honestly, I think this is neither likely nor desirable, and represents a serious failure of the communist imagination.

Like, I pretty much hope there are no recognizable "jobs" after "the rev". Only permaculture food forests slowly overtaking the cities.

(I'm half-joking)

[Blake's Baby]

I hope not (that there's an assumption that technology and production techniques will stay the same). I'm rather banking on the revolution being the liberation of humanity's creative potential. But while we're making the transition, I still think we'll have doctors.

[Paulappaul]

There would be a state, as long as there was property, Paulappaul, because a state is just an organisation reflecting the existence of classes, which are just a social formation corresponding to property relations...But we are talking about a Communist World, not a world preceding it.


until there is abundance, there is a state of sorts, because there is property of sorts;

I think abundance is incredibly idealistic. There will never be an abundance of Oil on this planet or a number of other natural resources, and at our current pace of consumption it means the brutal exploitation of the environment. I think we need to learn to deal with that as long as we are on t this planet that we won't have an abundance without a serious distribution to the natural world.


What 'compels people to work' is necessity.Communism is the abolishment of "work" for necessity. But even presently, I could just as easily sign up to some government program or ask my parents for money. I think this is an incredible simplification of the present system. And if it is necessity which will drive me in a Communist society, then I don't want to be a part of your revolutionary project.


If we don't want to do that, we must produce food, electricity, clothes etc. Those things don't happen without effort, so we have to put in effort to get them. That's not a difficult concept, is it? If someone doesn't want to be a part of this indeed very simple concept, then it doesn't make a difference to me. I cook food (well I am line - cook), I love it, and I sew my own pants. I don't love it as much, but I will still do it regardless if my neighborhood is a couch potato. I'd say the vast majority of people find enjoyment in our work, we just hate having a boss, we hate having to pay taxes, we hate having landlords, etc.


But while we're making the transitionI am a Left Communist and its this analysis which has lead me to believe there is no transitional period anymore. The Productive forces, the technology the mass of unproductive and unused labor that far exceeds what Marx could have ever imagined gives me the impression we don't need a transitional period. Communisation is the immediate process and end too Communism.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Hrm. Underlying this discussion, there seems to be an assumption that technology (both in terms of techniques and in the conventional sense of machines, etc.) in the communist mode of production would basically be the same as in the capitalist mode of production. Honestly, I think this is neither likely nor desirable, and represents a serious failure of the communist imagination.

Like, I pretty much hope there are no recognizable "jobs" after "the rev". Only permaculture food forests slowly overtaking the cities.

(I'm half-joking)

Why would tech be so evil? It's there to make life easier! For example, you could make more clothes in less time. Why abolish that? In stead of making money for the capitalist, it would now benefit the people.

Just a side-track, you are against the use of nuclear power, aren't you? ;)

[Strannik]

Marx does not speak about abolishing division of labour, he speaks about the end of occupations. Division of labour is a useful thing whatever your project is. But when your project is done, but your needs unfulfilled, you have produce something else. People will be owners (and therefore responsible) for everything that society does and uses. If you want to have something and no one is making it, you have to make it yourself. Or, you have to convince others that making it is in their interests too. Here by the way a good salesman might still find use for his skills, even if money no longer exists.

[Ele'ill]

If you refuse to work, there won't be food and shelter.

No there is it's just an insurrection away.


Stuff doesn't just happen.

Especially when it's intentionally made to not just happen.



If you want something, you have to put effort in,

and *this* state will be better and honest no seriously



because houses don't build themselves.

States don't abolish themselves thathththb;ahbjhbthh (they don't)

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

No there is it's just an insurrection away.



Especially when it's intentionally made to not just happen.




and *this* state will be better and honest no seriously




States don't abolish themselves thathththb;ahbjhbthh (they don't)

Are you sure you're an anarchist? Sounds awefully like you are really against everything!

Capitalism == Evil!
Communism == Evil!
Work == Evil!
Mari3L-ism == new religion??

:confused:

[Blake's Baby]

No there is it's just an insurrection away.



Especially when it's intentionally made to not just happen.




and *this* state will be better and honest no seriously




States don't abolish themselves thathththb;ahbjhbthh (they don't)

Seriously; how long does the food last, how long does the power stay on, the trains keep running, hospitals keep working, without people actually working at keeping it all going?

[KafkaesqueWorld]

Here's my perspective on the whole thing.

For me, the "job" as we know it would not exist in a communist society, with the exception of people that work in the hard sciences. They might contribute to society in many ways that are unrelated to their fields, but they'd mostly work in research. I apply that to doctors, nurses, surgeons, etc. as well.

I would imagine that in a communist society, people wouldn't have to work nearly as many hours/days. If you have tons of people working in a factory, more work gets done at a faster pace. The only factor limiting the number of workers is the size of the factory. On the other hand, in a capitalist society, it's limited to "how many people the boss can afford to hire".

Progresses in technology would also minimize the need for very strenuous labor. While technology's effects in the workplace in a capitalist society have been negative (since machines are replacing people that have to work to survive), in a communist society, it would give people more time to do other things. There are many jobs out there that can be quite dangerous and it would be beneficial to us all to utilize machines to carry out said jobs.

Of course, technology would never replace all work. There are certain things that are better off left to humans. For example, I would want my doctor to be a living, breathing being with emotions and compassion.

I don't buy the idea that some people would do nothing in a communist society. People naturally get bored and they find things to do. It's why retired people get jobs even when they don't need the money. In fact, I would argue that people would contribute more to society if they were not tied down to some 9-5. A person who works 40+ hours a week might totally want to do volunteer work, but not have the energy to participate. The little time they do get off work is going to be for resting and recovering.

There are certainly some things (trash removal, custodial work, etc.) that SOME people won't want to do, but for every person that doesn't want to collect trash or clean up dog-poo, you can find another person that wants a clean, healthy environment. I'm one of those people for sure. I don't care to play around in trash, but I do care about having fresh, clean air and a clean neighborhood, and wouldn't mind doing anything it takes to make that possible.

To me, there also needs to be a fusion of work and recreation whenever possible. For example, we have bikes that generate electricity. We also have gyms with bikes and other exercise equipment. Why couldn't these two things be combined? Surely, we could produce workout equipment that generates electricity for a community. And nobody would feel like they're doing much work. Tons of people go to gyms with friends, workout and chat for long periods of time, not realizing how much work they've done. This is just one of many examples I can think of.

One issue that I tend to think about a lot is where non-social people fit in a communist society. I, for example, am an introvert (although I can and usually do pretend not to be) and a tad bit misanthropic. I would imagine that there would still be many ways for people like me to contribute to society without much socializing involved. I tend to like doing things like cleaning up alone. I don't need to be motivated by a group of people working with me to contribute. And of course, there will still be a need for things that require little socializing like computer programming, auto work, etc. in a communist society.


Just my thoughts.

[#FF0000]

But we are talking about a Communist World, not a world preceding it.

Oh hey look it's the point and somehow everyone everyone missed it

[#FF0000]

Are you sure you're an anarchist? Sounds awefully like you are really against everything!

Capitalism == Evil!
Communism == Evil!
Work == Evil!

We're all against work, though.

[Tim Cornelis]

We're all against work, though.

I'm not. Work is productive activity. Productive activity is necessary as long as there is no 100% automation. Some here seem to believe in the pipe-dream that machinery will take over all work, but that's simply not going to happen.

[Ele'ill]

Some here seem to believe in the pipe-dream that machinery will take over all work,

where was this?

[#FF0000]

Work is productive activity.

nope

[Yuppie Grinder]

Full communism means moving past division of labor, not because everyone should conform to our beautiful ideals or else, but because there will come a time when that is what will make sense economically, in theory.
To paraphrase Marx loosely cuz I can't find the quote, "Communism means being a fisherman in the morning, a doctor in the afternoon, and a philosopher in the evening."

[Will Scarlet]

For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I'm not. Work is productive activity. Productive activity is necessary as long as there is no 100% automation. Some here seem to believe in the pipe-dream that machinery will take over all work, but that's simply not going to happen.


nope


I think two meanings of the word "work" are floating around here.
-Work, as in wage-labour, should stop. We all agree on that (as far as any communist goes anyway).
-Work, as in doing labour for the sake of having something to eat, like farming, or somewhere to live, like building houses etc, is totaly ok! I would love doing that!

Now tell me again how food would magically appear if you would not perform some sort of labour.
Or are you the kind of person that want's to lay back and figure that someone out there will produce food for your lazy ass? (Not meant for you Tim, i'm totally with you!)

[Yuppie Grinder]

People toiling to sustain their existence is not socialism by any means. That does not mean all productive activity ends, not at all. It means that necessities are distributed according to need.

[Decommissioner]

I think the notion of "no work, no food or shelter" line of thinking is related in a way to "welfare is broken due to 'welfare queens." Now before anyone accuses me of putting words in their mouth, I am not saying anyone positively said the latter, though I see a similarity in the sentiment.

Punishing the extreme minority that absolutely does not work in a communist society is analogous to sweeping away the whole welfare system to stem the tide over the hypothetical "welfare queen," which if they are even real, exist in such small numbers that it doesn't break the welfare system.

It's an overreaction in an attempt to ensure "fairness". It also signifies the nature of labor under a society with such rules, which is implicitly completely un-revolutionary and undemocratic (why else would you need to ensure those who don't toil aren't provided for?)

I don't think the 9-5 wont exist in a communist society, nor will there be careers. People will most likely put in a lot of hours towards their professions (since they tend to be a labor of passion) while having the freedom to come in and out of other jobs. Workweeks will be so short, socially necessary labor jobs so flexible, and (hopefully) technology will be advanced enough, that punishing people for not working will seem moot. Society in general will be working a lot less than they do now. All people working all the time under communism would be simply overproductive and wasteful.

[Blake's Baby]

I think the notion of "no work, no food or shelter" line of thinking is related in a way to "welfare is broken due to 'welfare queens." Now before anyone accuses me of putting words in their mouth, I am not saying anyone positively said the latter, though I see a similarity in the sentiment...

I disagree with the first part, but won't accuse you of putting words in my mouth because I don't understand what you think the connection is.



...
Punishing the extreme minority that absolutely does not work in a communist society is analogous to sweeping away the whole welfare system to stem the tide over the hypothetical "welfare queen," which if they are even real, exist in such small numbers that it doesn't break the welfare system...

Who is talking about punishment? I'm saying that social provision (food, shelter, housing, medical care, education, power, sewerage etc) comes from puropseful human activity. If there is no purposeful human activity, there can be no positive results of that human activity. Quite literaly, if you don't work, shit doesn't happen. Not 'you will be denied shit by "The Authoritah"' but there is no shit for you to have because nobody made any shit.

If you want a sandwich, under capitalism, you have to prostitute yourself tp a boss so that can get money to buy a sandwich that someone else made. In socialsm, if you want a sandwich, you make a sandwich. If you don't make a sandwich, you don't get a sandwich, because there is no sandwich.


...It's an overreaction in an attempt to ensure "fairness". It also signifies the nature of labor under a society with such rules, which is implicitly completely un-revolutionary and undemocratic (why else would you need to ensure those who don't toil aren't provided for?)...

Really not sure what you're getting at here.


...I don't think the 9-5 wont exist in a communist society, nor will there be careers...

This sentence doesn't make sense. 'I don't think the 9-5 won't exist' = 'I think the 9-5 will exist' - well, I'm hoping it really won't exist personally, otherwise it's difficult to see exactly what the point is, but anyway that doesn't go with 'nor will there be careers' - I agree, once we have made the transition to socialism, unless people want to spend their lives focussing on one particular thing.



...People will most likely put in a lot of hours towards their professions (since they tend to be a labor of passion) while having the freedom to come in and out of other jobs. Workweeks will be so short, socially necessary labor jobs so flexible, and (hopefully) technology will be advanced enough, that punishing people for not working will seem moot. Society in general will be working a lot less than they do now. All people working all the time under communism would be simply overproductive and wasteful.

Even leaving technology out of it, I agree with the sentiment behind this, but who's talking of 'punishment'? The universe doesn't 'punish' you if you don't grow food, the universe doesn't care. You just starve, that's not a punishment. It's just you taking the decision not to be arsed about your own suvival.

Under communism, we'll still do boring stuff like going to the toilet and putting in lightbulbs and cleaning hair out of the plughole on the bath and all that kind of stuff. We won't shit on the floor (because 'someone else' will clear it up) and sit in the dark (because 'someone else' will change the bulb) and let the drain get blocked so the bath won't empty (because 'someone else' will clear it). We are 'someone else'.

It's really really simple. If we don't do stuff, stuff doesn't get done. In the end if we want to sit in the dark and cold slowly starving to death, that's absolutely fine: but if we don't then we need to do something about it. No 'punishment' necessary.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

But i won't go hungry because i have to share food produced by my own hand with others that will not work "because they don't have to"!
Hell no! I already do that now! Sounds an awfull lot like capitalism...

Did not Kropotkin say: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?

[l'Enfermé]

No, he didn't. In the socialist movement, the phrase was coined by Louis Blanc and was popularized by Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Programme.

[Soomie]

But i won't go hungry because i have to share food produced by my own hand with others that will not work "because they don't have to"!
Hell no! I already do that now! Sounds an awfull lot like capitalism...

Did not Kropotkin say: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?

I agree. The way communism was explained to me was by that quote. Everyone "works", and everyone is provided for. Of course, there are some people in society who won't be able to work, and who I don't think should. For instance, the elderly, the "truly" disabled, and students should be provided for. The former two are not able to do hard labor, but they can contribute in some way. Students should be allowed to pursue their studies, because school is a full time job in itself. But as with the first, I'm sure students can still contribute in some way. I don't like this whole "If you want a sandwich, you make a sandwich" thing. I get the premise of it, but I don't think that would exactly work out. There are still jobs that people need to do to get things done and provide for people. I know that communist theory asks for abolishment of the division of labor, and I agree to that to some extent, but I don't like the job bouncing thing that someone talked about. Communism, like capitalism, is a theory. We've never seen it performed in its true form, in any country. I don't think Marx was able to get to the extent of his opinions and ideas about how a communist society should, and would, be, but like any theory, I think that there is room to tweak it and make it work more efficiently, especially as the times change. I just feel that there needs to be a small push from somewhere to get things going. Things don't just happen, and the idea that "if you want a sandwich, then make a sandwich" is a bit too primitive to me. What if my sandwich skills are awful? There are plenty of people out there who love to cook and make food. I don't see why there can't be restaurants where people enjoy producing food for people. And that's another thing. If people are just out making sandwiches, or whatever, and they're sharing it with other people, won't we need someone to monitor food safety? See? We can't just sit around and be hippies and hope that everything will work out. Take for instance "cutting in a line." If everyone is permitted to cut in line and do as they please, there will inevitably be no line to cut. We need to plan this stuff out and have a little more structure. This is just how I see it.

[Tim Cornelis]

where was this?


Hrm. Underlying this discussion, there seems to be an assumption that technology (both in terms of techniques and in the conventional sense of machines, etc.) in the communist mode of production would basically be the same as in the capitalist mode of production. Honestly, I think this is neither likely nor desirable, and represents a serious failure of the communist imagination.

Like, I pretty much hope there are no recognizable "jobs" after "the rev". Only permaculture food forests slowly overtaking the cities.

(I'm half-joking)



nope

Such a compelling argument. Work "Physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something."


Full communism means moving past division of labor, not because everyone should conform to our beautiful ideals or else, but because there will come a time when that is what will make sense economically, in theory.
To paraphrase Marx loosely cuz I can't find the quote, "Communism means being a fisherman in the morning, a doctor in the afternoon, and a philosopher in the evening."

You can't just become a doctor you know.

[hatzel]

Now tell me again how food would magically appear if you would not perform some sort of labour.

It is, in fact, the very nature of food to 'magically appear' without the intervention of labour...


But i won't go hungry because i have to share food produced by my own hand with others that will not work "because they don't have to"!
Hell no! I already do that now! Sounds an awfull lot like capitalism...

> claims that an individual's right to consume is determined by the amount they 'earn' through their work.
> complains about things sounding like capitalism.

[Blake's Baby]

It is, in fact, the very nature of food to 'magically appear' without the intervention of labour...

I see, you like your sandwiches still on the stalk, then?

Harvesting grain = work. Threshing grain = work. Grinding grain = work. Mixing flour with other ingredients = work. Collecting fuel for fire = work. Collecting materials for oven = work. Building oven = work. Baking bread = work. Cutting bread = work (even if you don't have to mine the ore to smelt the iron to make a knife). Finding a filling for the sandwich = work. Putting filling in sandwich = work.

Now, tell me how food doesn't involve 'the intervention of labour' again?




> claims that an individual's right to consume is determined by the amount they 'earn' through their work.
> complains about things sounding like capitalism.

Not sure it's anything about 'right. The lack of labour = no production. No production = everyone starves in the dark.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

> claims that an individual's right to consume is determined by the amount they 'earn' through their work.

No i did not. I claimed that an individuals right to consume is determined by the mere fact that they work. And that preferrably according to his ability.



> complains about things sounding like capitalism.

Yeah...so?