Question about Communism

[den röde skogshuggaren]

This has been bugging me for a while and I thought this would be the perfect place to ask, so here goes:

Since there is no state(government) in a communist society, who would provide the universal health care, education etc(if there would be any)? Would it be sort of like "voluntary socialism" or what?

Just curious!

[ckaihatsu]

This has been bugging me for a while and I thought this would be the perfect place to ask, so here goes:

Since there is no state(government) in a communist society, who would provide the universal health care, education etc(if there would be any)? Would it be sort of like "voluntary socialism" or what?

Just curious!


This is a tentative comment, and is only my own opinion....

That said, I'd say that the very *notions* of 'health care' and 'education' are very paradigmatic, and would undoubtedly vary with the type of prevailing society in place and each particular norm of social relations.

If there are any areas of social life that are *more* controversial than politics itself, it would be the topics of health care and education. The former is about each *individual's* situation of total well-being, and a person's individuality varies widely according to their individual life history and personal sense of self. (For example, someone who is both motivated to be athletic and is most often doing physical things would probably be in better overall health than someone who is *obligated* to be physical, or someone who is self-motivated to be athletic but can't be for whatever reason.)

Education directly feeds into social norms and acceptable / 'respectable' modes of behavior, especially concerning positions of oversight and power. In past centuries both education and health were treated within the context / paradigm of royal permission and ecclesiastical authority, and similar parallels could be drawn to today's socio-political paradigm(s). (Consider that those gaining formal positions in both fields must be educated and approved from within the general culture of the ruling class, thus receiving a certain authorized approval as being the practitioners of both, and for other similar fields as well -- 'professionals'.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions


I'll add that both health and education can manifest at various levels of being organized -- some say that one should take responsibility for *their own* practice of both, while politics is of course concerned with the institutionalization of both for general social application.

So, to address your question, the exact same thing could be said for any *future* social context, as well -- perhaps a post-capitalist order would have a strong material interest in *standardizing* most accepted practices for health and education, depending on how conditions actually play out. Or perhaps a society might *devolve* such practices mostly onto the individual, in an Internet-information kind of way -- from our perspective here in the present it would be very tough to surmise *anything* without knowing the particulars of the real-world context of conditions.


Worldview Diagram

http://s6.postimage.org/axvyymiy5/120824_Worldview_Diagram.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/axvyymiy5/)

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Well, that could be answered rather short: the people.
We all do.

If we are in a communist society people will be doing what the like to do. Some will be constructionworkers some will be doctors etc.

[ckaihatsu]

Well, that could be answered rather short: the people.
We all do.




If we are in a communist society people will be doing what the like to do. Some will be constructionworkers some will be doctors etc.


I'm sorry but I have to take issue with this -- a post-capitalist communist social order could *not* be purely anarchic as you're making it out to be.

The momentum of the revolution that topples capitalist rule would have a certain social cohesion to it -- enough to topple capitalist rule, by definition. This momentum would exert a certain social paradigm going forward and would *not* give way to a free-for-all social norm -- this is also because society as a whole has an intrinsic interest in being organized (in many ways) and a post-revolution political economy would prefer to *socialize* people, than not.

Everyone living out their childhood fantasies of working life would *not* make for a sound society -- if this concept is taken literally it would be synonymous with a kind of individualistic headstrong psychosis on the part of everyone that libertarians could only hope to even *imagine*.

Some kind of (liberated) labor organization would be a certainty, but it wouldn't be an *exploitative* or *oppressive* one, since the material conditions enabling this *already* exist.

[tuwix]

This has been bugging me for a while and I thought this would be the perfect place to ask, so here goes:

Since there is no state(government) in a communist society, who would provide the universal health care, education etc(if there would be any)? Would it be sort of like "voluntary socialism" or what?

Just curious!


People and machines. You must remember that economy must be much more automated to get society into communism. With people the only difference is that they won't get paid and will get everything for free.

[Aurora]

This has been bugging me for a while and I thought this would be the perfect place to ask, so here goes:

Since there is no state(government) in a communist society, who would provide the universal health care, education etc(if there would be any)? Would it be sort of like "voluntary socialism" or what?

Just curious!
I think this is just a misunderstanding of what it means for the state to whither away.

Marxists conceive of the state as a product of the antagonism between classes with the ruling class protecting it's position as ruling class through law, the police and other institutions. This is the purely political side of the state, it's defining feature. This is what we want to get rid of, today this is the rule of the bourgeoisie over the proletarians.

But there is also the other side of the state, the social side, the administration of the affairs of the country, making sure hospitals are staffed and supplied, the direction of production etc. This is necessary in any society, there is no need to get rid of this.

The first step in doing this is to establish the rule of the proletarians over the bourgeoisie and by doing so transform all classes of society into proletarians, for when all are proletarians no one will be a proletarian, the state will lose it's political character.

To put it another way, today the police are used to protect bourgeois property, to break up strikes, implement lockouts, to repress the workers when they stand up.
When the workers take power the police will be used to confiscate bourgeois property, to open up the factories, to repress the bourgeoisie when they try to run off with their money and organise counter-revolution.
When there are no longer any classes the police won't be used against anyone, their sole functions will be to stop stealing and break up drunken fights etc and soon enough this function will be unnecessary as all will learn to do so, even today ordinary citizens break up fights.

The state loses it's political character and it's social functions are taken over by the vast association of the whole of society.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

It is useful here, to follow-up on Comrade Aurora's post with Lenin's definition of the state: Armed bodies of men protecting certain property forms. With the dawning of communism, the need for these armed bodies will disappear, hence no state. Will there still be government? Sure, why not? But it will have a purely administrative character. The idea that 8+ billion people will simply somehow spontaneously and without any administrative apparatus, feed, clothe, educate, house and provide consumer goods to the populace is silly. But the administration will not involve coercion. And the administrators will have no special powers of enforcement.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

This has been bugging me for a while and I thought this would be the perfect place to ask, so here goes:

Since there is no state(government) in a communist society, who would provide the universal health care, education etc(if there would be any)? Would it be sort of like "voluntary socialism" or what?

Just curious!


May I ask, why do you equate governing with a state?

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

People and machines. You must remember that economy must be much more automated to get society into communism. With people the only difference is that they won't get paid and will get everything for free.
Oh...so that's where Lenin went wrong! He just didn't wait for automation to come...
No, seriously? If we depend on machines and automation to do shit we can do, then we are seriously fucked.


I'm sorry but I have to take issue with this -- a post-capitalist communist social order could *not* be purely anarchic as you're making it out to be.

The momentum of the revolution that topples capitalist rule would have a certain social cohesion to it -- enough to topple capitalist rule, by definition. This momentum would exert a certain social paradigm going forward and would *not* give way to a free-for-all social norm -- this is also because society as a whole has an intrinsic interest in being organized (in many ways) and a post-revolution political economy would prefer to *socialize* people, than not.

Everyone living out their childhood fantasies of working life would *not* make for a sound society -- if this concept is taken literally it would be synonymous with a kind of individualistic headstrong psychosis on the part of everyone that libertarians could only hope to even *imagine*.

Some kind of (liberated) labor organization would be a certainty, but it wouldn't be an *exploitative* or *oppressive* one, since the material conditions enabling this *already* exist.

What you are looking for is Libertarianism or something. Or maybe classical Liberalism.
Communism is all about the abolishment of money and paid labor. If not for that, there is no communism.

Can you suply me with a proper argument for anarchist society being unable to work? Not just because you think it wont, or just that everyone has gotten used to it...a real argument.

[ckaihatsu]

If we are in a communist society people will be doing what the like to do. Some will be constructionworkers some will be doctors etc.





I'm sorry but I have to take issue with this -- a post-capitalist communist social order could *not* be purely anarchic as you're making it out to be.

The momentum of the revolution that topples capitalist rule would have a certain social cohesion to it -- enough to topple capitalist rule, by definition. This momentum would exert a certain social paradigm going forward and would *not* give way to a free-for-all social norm -- this is also because society as a whole has an intrinsic interest in being organized (in many ways) and a post-revolution political economy would prefer to *socialize* people, than not.

Everyone living out their childhood fantasies of working life would *not* make for a sound society -- if this concept is taken literally it would be synonymous with a kind of individualistic headstrong psychosis on the part of everyone that libertarians could only hope to even *imagine*.

Some kind of (liberated) labor organization would be a certainty, but it wouldn't be an *exploitative* or *oppressive* one, since the material conditions enabling this *already* exist.





What you are looking for is Libertarianism or something. Or maybe classical Liberalism.


No -- incorrect.





Communism is all about the abolishment of money and paid labor. If not for that, there is no communism.


Yeah, I agree with tuwix in post #5.





Can you suply me with a proper argument for anarchist society being unable to work? Not just because you think it wont, or just that everyone has gotten used to it...a real argument.


Yeah -- building on what I've already mentioned, it wouldn't be practical for work activity to be uncoordinated over broad geographies. If it manifested this way it would be like a global Third Worldism of producers -- albeit liberated -- they'd be mostly disconnected from each other when it comes to planning for production.

The hazard here is like that of what we see today in *underdeveloped* areas -- too many people spending too much of their life-time and labor for just subsistence farming. Liberation from commodity production should also include liberation from hand-to-mouth farming as well.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

No -- incorrect.

So tell me what a society is called without the abolishment of money and state.




Yeah, I agree with tuwix in post #5.


I don't get this. In post number 5 Tuwix throws the "without automation, no communism"-argument (which i in turn called bullshit).
Yet you quote my vision (and Marx's) of communism.
So...huh?




Yeah -- building on what I've already mentioned, it wouldn't be practical for work activity to be uncoordinated over broad geographies. If it manifested this way it would be like a global Third Worldism of producers -- albeit liberated -- they'd be mostly disconnected from each other when it comes to planning for production.

The hazard here is like that of what we see today in *underdeveloped* areas -- too many people spending too much of their life-time and labor for just subsistence farming. Liberation from commodity production should also include liberation from hand-to-mouth farming as well.

Why would decentralized production be so bad? You make what you need! Most production, especially the one in the third world you mentioned, is based on overproduction (No knowledge of the end-users thousands of miles away) or underproduction (prize regulation). Local production just seems more logical and less wasting.
Also, if you know the "market" you are producing for (because you're local), you don't overproduce, which in turn leads to less time thrown away making shit noone's gonna use.

Everything we need can be produced locally with the knowledge and the technology we have now. Sure some area's will not be able to, but not having money to worry about, how much will it cost to import?

[ckaihatsu]

So tell me what a society is called without the abolishment of money and state.




I don't get this. In post number 5 Tuwix throws the "without automation, no communism"-argument (which i in turn called bullshit).
Yet you quote my vision (and Marx's) of communism.
So...huh?


Yes, the *relations* of production ('superstructure') can be done without commodity production, money, or a (ruling-class-protecting) state. Here's a model that illustrates this:


Rotation system of work roles

http://s6.postimage.org/6pho0fbot/2403306060046342459_Gtc_Sd_P_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/6pho0fbot/)


What tuwix is saying -- which I concur with -- is that the 'base', or *means* of production, needs to be developed / advanced enough to relieve the people / producers of the world from having to bicker and fight over limited resources and production, since that reality just plays into the ruling class' divide-and-conquer strategies. Hence the need for sufficient technology and automation, so as to *leverage* people's efforts into liberated *mass* production.





Why would decentralized production be so bad? You make what you need!


All I can do at this point is repeat myself: The problem is *duplication of effort*, and lack of *economies of scale* -- why should 'need' vary widely, by locality -- ? For example, many could say *today* that they don't 'need' revolution, and that they're getting by just fine the way things are. Nonetheless we *know* that they, along with everyone else, are being exploited, and that a proletarian revolution would *relieve* them, and everyone, from having to give away a considerable portion of their lives to Wall Street, et al.

A revolution gains by commonizing political demands. It has an unavoidable *economic* complement, too -- commonizing mass needs for consumption and production.





Most production, especially the one in the third world you mentioned, is based on overproduction (No knowledge of the end-users thousands of miles away) or underproduction (prize regulation). Local production just seems more logical and less wasting.


Sure, local production may be 'sufficient', especially for the most rudimentary human needs, but who exactly should be defining the "ceiling" for what is considered 'sufficient' -- ? Overproduction is *not* good if the surplus is *not* wanted locally, and there's no administration existing to *generalize* and *coordinate* such surpluses from several localities over a broader scale.





Also, if you know the "market" you are producing for (because you're local), you don't overproduce, which in turn leads to less time thrown away making shit noone's gonna use.


Okay, so things could be administrated at a *local* level, but, again, it would be missing out on potentials for more-efficient and more-complex kinds of production, over *numerous* localities.





Everything we need can be produced locally with the knowledge and the technology we have now. Sure some area's will not be able to, but not having money to worry about, how much will it cost to import?


Sure -- I don't doubt your politics or intentions, but material items don't last indefinitely, and sooner or later *more* production is needed -- the question then returns to *how* should it be accomplished for the best results.

I will also include a kind of 'hybrid' model I developed that has the structural flexibility for these matters of scale to be done dynamically, to allow for more ad-hoc solutions, as you advocate, while also showing potentials for more-generalized production as well:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://s6.postimage.org/ccfl07uy5/Multi_Tiered_System_of_Productive_and_Consumptiv.j pg (http://postimage.org/image/ccfl07uy5/)

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I think you are describing a weird sort of board/centralised state or even superstate to an Anarchist. No matter what you say, i tend to disagree.

Hopefully some marxists can react to fit your question more.

[ckaihatsu]

I think you are describing a weird sort of board


This would be the most accurate description since it implies an administration of some sort. (Except for the 'weird' quality, of course.)





/centralised state or even superstate


Since you've been taking my words at face value it *wouldn't* be accurate to characterize my 'Multi-Tiered System' as a 'state' of any kind -- it's easy to see that a ruling-class-upholding bureaucracy wouldn't be required within its context.





to an Anarchist. No matter what you say, i tend to disagree.


Yeah, I wouldn't expect political agreement from an anarchist.