Getting things done in a Communist society

[Soomie]

I had someone ask me the other day how things would be done quickly and efficiently in a Communist society. I know that a true Communist society would be stateless and a true democracy where everyone had an equal say in everything. There would be no countries or borders. But I can't really account for problems that would arise under this assumption. For instance, when it came to voting, how would we account for 7 billion people? My alternative would be to have small districts, like we have cities now, and the people within the districts would do their own thing. But the person pointed out that it would be difficult to keep everyone equal if one city were doing something differently than another city. He asked how we would determine the cost of something such as foods, and how trade of those foods would be handled (certain regions can't grow certain things so they would need to be imported). We can't really have anyone in authority making sure that all of this runs properly and that everything is being kept equal... so I'm having trouble working this out. Would police officers still exist to keep things running correctly? This of course would make some more equal than others, but I don't know how we would be able to fight against murderers and rapists. Does anyone have any ideas of their own that could solve some of these issues or explain them?

[Zukunftsmusik]

How to get "things" "done" is pretty vague. I guess it would go down pretty much like this, in one form or another:

Person 1: So, guys, we need to get this [insert "thing"] done. Anyone up for it?
Person 2: Sorry, I'm reading a book that day
Person 3: yeah, sure, I can do it.

Problem solved.

It's in many ways as weird as asking "how would we get things done in capitalism?". For us, living in capitalism, the answer is pretty obvious: through capital, the market. I'm afraid we can only answer that in "communism" (understood as post-revolutionary society) "things" will be "done" collectively, as opposed to today (privately).

Thing is, the problem with asking questions this way ("how do we do things in a future created in our heads for the very purpose of solving this hypothetical problem I encountered"), is that it's absolutely irrelevant to the worker's movement and its struggle in the real, existing world. This is where our task lies, here and now, not in ideologically created formulas. But I understand that people need to get over certain stages when getting familiar with new ideological territory. But this question is - I'm sorry - pretty irrelevant, and it has been asked many times before.

[Blake's Baby]

EDIT:

Sorry, I'd like this stricken from the record. A decent answer to these questions is required and I'm not providing it.

[Skyhilist]

There's not a universal answer that all communists will give and it's not necessarily a one size fits all solution. But I'd imagine a realistic scenario would look something like this: We'd look at the consumption of things amongst people who could afford them under capitalism and then prioritize how much we'd need of each item based on that. So, if people who could afford both pineapples and oranges only tended to buy oranges, then maybe there'd be more oranges on the shelves than pineapples. This would be done on a confederal level as preferences for various items tend to vary by region.

Obviously there's a learning curve here and this wouldn't get things exactly right. People would request at community assemblies more production of certain items in their areas and send delegates to report their commands at a higher level and to delegates of worker confederations. The delegates of these workers would report these requests for increased production to their workers, who would democratically bargain/reach an agreement on who would do what (e.g. Say you had 3 steal factories of different sizes. They might have some type of agreement that due to size, one factory does 30% of production for an area, another 25% and another 45%). If the demands for production were collectively deemed impossible on a local level, then most distant workplaces would be called upon to collectively aid in this increase of production. If the demands (say, for example more fruit production is requested by consumers than is actually possible) then community assemblies and worker assemblies bargain and reach a compromise.

Once we know what needs to be produced as well as when and how, the workers of factories are counted upon collectively to produce these goods for consumption. This, incidentally will help stop slacking in the workplaces producing these items because failure to produce an amount that a workplace/syndicate agreed to, if harmful to the community might lead to democratically agreed upon sanctions or something like that towards a workplace that was collectively slacking, which no one wants. So anyways, that's how I imagine things would be produced and consumed.

It's also important to note that many jobs relating to production might be seen as undesirable. Future technology that can replace workers will therefore be developed and be beneficial because it will lower the collective burden of work for the workers. Remaining undesirable work that must be done by people would be divided up equally amongst the able-bodied, making it so that each person had to work less and could even choose not to do certain jobs that they found most undesirable.

Community needs also would be different for different regions, which confederalism I think would help take care of. Say you don't like the types of resources prioritized for consumption in your area. If you really find it so abhorrent, you can freely more to another area where the community's collective goals do a better job of reflecting your own. This will lead to more community cohesiveness in getting things done.

Anyways, please again remember that there's no one size fits all solution, so not all communists have exactly the same sentiments on this. This is just personally how I (and I think many other supporters of confederalism) would like to see things 'get done' under communism. Plenty of others have other solutions and they may very well be equally viable. What's important is that the solution to things like this that serves in the collective best interest of humanity (and all life I'd say for that matter) is the one that gets implemented via collective decision making.

[ckaihatsu]

I had someone ask me the other day how things would be done quickly and efficiently in a Communist society. I know that a true Communist society would be stateless and a true democracy where everyone had an equal say in everything. There would be no countries or borders. But I can't really account for problems that would arise under this assumption.




For instance, when it came to voting, how would we account for 7 billion people?




My alternative would be to have small districts, like we have cities now, and the people within the districts would do their own thing.


I, for one, don't support the idea of political representatives for a post-capitalist context. The whole notion of political representation is today both obsolete and a distraction from the real issues of social production.

All of the informational logistics for enabling people to address political issues of mass production, etc., are already here, with the Internet, and could be used to discern the prevailing mass opinion on any given topic.





But the person pointed out that it would be difficult to keep everyone equal if one city were doing something differently than another city.


This *particular* point is something of a red herring, since the term 'equal' is used in an idealistic way, as though the slightest differences in individuality (or city) would inevitably cause infighting and lead to chaos and destruction.

What we *should* focus on is the fulfillment of basic needs, at a minimum, with a concerted organized push to *increase the quality* of what that basic standard is. 'Equality' is often used in an *antagonistic* way to suggest that our politics are not 'perfect' enough, and therefore not worthwhile.





He asked how we would determine the cost of something such as foods, and how trade of those foods would be handled (certain regions can't grow certain things so they would need to be imported).


Perhaps the logistical approach here would be to *develop* the raising of certain crops in areas that so far have not been able to do it (for capitalist-economic reasons). With full freedom of movement people might decide to initially *move* to areas that are better suited to raising staple crops, etc. Finally, 'trade' is a misnomer for a post-capitalist context since it would be *redundant* to actual full distribution of natural and finished resources from whatever points of sourcing.





We can't really have anyone in authority making sure that all of this runs properly


We're only anti-authority when it comes to *bourgeois* authority -- *any* social organization, as of our own, necessarily *implies* 'authority' in the basic sense of having guidelines (policy) that remain consistent in practice, for all.





and that everything is being kept equal...


(The 'equal' thing....)





so I'm having trouble working this out. Would police officers still exist to keep things running correctly? This of course would make some more equal than others,


Policing, if necessary, could simply be a civic-duty kind of thing, and handled in a mass-administrative kind of way, so that oversight is never concentrated into a standing elite.





but I don't know how we would be able to fight against murderers and rapists. Does anyone have any ideas of their own that could solve some of these issues or explain them?


Many say that antisocial behavior is mostly due to the ideology and practice of the status quo, one that's based on exploitation and oppression. Criminals, while damaging, are simply 'apeing' the actions of those at the top of society who happen to be *successful* in getting away with exploitative and oppressive practices.

In a society with no elite, there would be no elite to be envious of, to mimic.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I had someone ask me the other day how things would be done quickly and efficiently in a Communist society. I know that a true Communist society would be stateless and a true democracy where everyone had an equal say in everything. There would be no countries or borders. But I can't really account for problems that would arise under this assumption. For instance, when it came to voting, how would we account for 7 billion people? My alternative would be to have small districts, like we have cities now, and the people within the districts would do their own thing.

One obvious solution is an extension of the soviet system as it appeared in revolutionary Russia - a network of collegial, working bodies organised on several levels, with each body electing delegates to the higher bodies. On the most basic level, these bodies could be identical to the population in the area they "cover" - so that a city block or quarter soviet could be composed of all citizens in the area, a factory committee of all workers in the factory, and so on. I think that would be a good idea - it would enable all workers to directly participate in the administration of the community.

The logistical problems this represents are, I think, in principle solvable even today, with computerised voting and so on. Even an all-planet plebiscite could be held in this way. But democracy is more than voting - there need to be mechanisms that would ensure effective, representative debate, with minority interests being heard.

One could also consider such mechanisms as the selection of commissions, particularly advisory commissions, from a random sampling of the population.

Modern technology also enables direct communication between the central organs and local institutions; Chile was able to accomplish something similar using only a network of Telex machines, and I think this is a fascinating approach that has not been explored enough (admittedly, Allende's government, which commissioned the project in question - CyberSyn, I believe - was revisionist - but that does not mean that everything they did should be rejected).


But the person pointed out that it would be difficult to keep everyone equal if one city were doing something differently than another city.

Probably, but equality in this sense is not a Marxist demand in any case. The communist society means abundance and an end to scarcity, not some empty equality.


He asked how we would determine the cost of something such as foods, and how trade of those foods would be handled (certain regions can't grow certain things so they would need to be imported). We can't really have anyone in authority making sure that all of this runs properly and that everything is being kept equal... so I'm having trouble working this out.

In the communist society, there would be no prices. Production would be for use - one would produce, for example, books, because people want to read them, not in order to sell them. Of course, production would still need to be organised on a social basis. But this could be done on the basis of democratic, working bodies. For example, a commission could be established from the representatives of the central soviet to draw up economic plans, another commission to organise the transfer of the means of production to the factories etc. etc. Communism does not mean the end of all authority, but the end of state authority - the dictatorial authority of one class used to suppress all challenges to its supremacy.


Would police officers still exist to keep things running correctly? This of course would make some more equal than others, but I don't know how we would be able to fight against murderers and rapists. Does anyone have any ideas of their own that could solve some of these issues or explain them?

Presumably, in the communist society, the police and the standing army will have been replaced by a universal militia - the armed working people. Local detachments of this militia could oversee public security (something the actual bourgeois police is awful at due to their nature as a tool of the bourgeoisie), but I think these detachments would rarely have to stop an attempted murder or rape - rape in particular is a violent manifestation of class society, and the incentives for murder would be few in a communist society.