Few Questions About Communism [Archive]

View Full Version : Few Questions About Communism

RA89

4th April 2014, 01:17

Decolonize The Left

4th April 2014, 01:58

Apologies if these questions aren't clear, I've tried my best to put down the thoughts in my head coherently.

1] Is there anyway to predict/know what the average communist house would look like?

No. Communism just means the working class controls the means of production, it doesn't mean houses have to be X, Y, or Z.

2] What professions would be mandatory?

None. Communism is when the working class owns the means of production, so professions are filled according to need and ability, not mandate.

3] If money is abolished, and someone wishes to acquire something which is limited how would they obtain it? Assuming that they lack to skills to build it themselves.

It's hard to say. Most likely they would acquire it via their local community and the avenues of resource distribution there within.

4] How long until Communism takes place? And how do we know?

Impossible to say.

5] I see people saying that Russia was not really Communist, but then when they face the argument from Capitalists that "technological advancement and peoples incentive to progress etc will suffer" they give the example of the USSR in the space race etc to prove that it's not the case, so which is it?

Generally speaking, most communist and leftists acknowledge that the USSR was not a communist state as the working class was not in direct control of the means of production (the state was, in the name of the working class, which is not the same thing).

RA89

4th April 2014, 03:10

No. Communism just means the working class controls the means of production, it doesn't mean houses have to be X, Y, or Z.

But if the means of production is controlled then that means that the really rich people will not be able to exploit people/get rich off of the labour of others. Meaning that they will not be able to afford mansions etc.

Accordingly really poor people will benefit and their standard of living will improve.

So surely whether directly or indirectly Communism dictates what sort of house someone will be able to obtain?

None. Communism is when the working class owns the means of production, so professions are filled according to need and ability, not mandate.

Isn't that the same thing though?

If someone is an expert farmer, society needs them to farm, and their ability is farming. So that would make it mandatory that the farmer put his skills to use (forced by the community)?

Or are you saying that it is up to the farmer whether he chooses to use his ability to fill societies needs? In which case what is stopping him from doing nothing?

It's hard to say. Most likely they would acquire it via their local community and the avenues of resource distribution there within.

So for example if there is a limited amount of HD TVs, is there any set system the municipal office could use to help allocate them to the community?

& Thanks for the response

AmilcarCabral

4th April 2014, 04:12

Hi, the great philosopher Schopenhauer said that the development of an individual and of a nation lies in 2 main sectors: the body and the mind. And not big houses, with big yards, not the amount of TV sets that people have, the amount of clothes that people have. Not based on luxury cars with lots of gadgets like the modern SUVs with self-parking technology, not on expensive jewerly.

Progress is not even based on wether US government can colonize Mars, and lots of super expensive stuff that we see in USA that are *externalities* and not on the *self*, on the inside of people, which is the body and mind. And only a socialist and communist system can be able to turn USA from a nation of 80 million people with great health and happy people and 220 million sick and depressed people

And we all that capitalism in USA has turned USA into a minority of people with great health and college professions, and a majority of sick people without college professions and superior knowledge.

The living standards of most americans are low even if they have BMWs and Ferraris parked in their houses, because most americans cannot enjoy great health and great knowledge, superior knowledge. And of course poor health and poor knowledge is also compatible with economic poverthy and pain. Because there is no way that a US citizen can support an honest socialist labor party without knowledge.

And I think that a socialist and communist system wouldn't invest in stupid fanzy un-necessary expensive things like luxury cars, luxury houses, etc and instead invest in what really leads to greatness and happiness which is the 310 million people of USA enjoying great health, great bodies and great minds (And capitalism cannot provide that to the 310 million people of USA, only to Tom Cruise, Jennifer Lopez, Obama, Donald Trump and the upper classes of the nation)

PD: So that's why even though USA, and many other nations like Spain which are supposed to be first world nations, the great majority of people of developed capitalist nations really live in a third world lifestyle, because they don't reach full self-realization, greatness power and happiness which is really based on enjoying superior knowledge, great health and great physical energies, while being entertained with TV, luxury cars, cell phones and toys and gadgets. And I think that's why millions and millions of people living shitty lives in big developed countries do not revolt, because they place progress and self-realization on external things, on irrelevant inanities and absurdities that do not contributed at all to progress and human development

.

.

Apologies if these questions aren't clear, I've tried my best to put down the thoughts in my head coherently.

1] Is there anyway to predict/know what the average communist house would look like?

The amount of people living in poverty makes me think that if all the wealth/resources were spread out, then the average house would be 4 walls, a ceiling and a sink/kitchen (I know some Capitalists say that we'll have to give up a life of luxury to live in a shithole under Communism).

But then of course when I consider the amount of wealth the top 1% etc have, then it makes me think it wouldn't be that bad.

Obviously I'm guessing indoor swimming pools and back garden golf courses would be gone for sure, but if everything was truly equal what would the average house look like under Communism?

2] What professions would be mandatory? Just jobs which directly contribute to the sustainability of life (e.g.food, housing, textiles etc.)?
Would something like a sport or acting career be only done in conjunction with the mandatory job or would a certain level of talent in those fields allow for the job to become the person's sole career as it is regarded as providing a benefit for society (entertainment)?

3] If money is abolished, and someone wishes to acquire something which is limited how would they obtain it? Assuming that they lack to skills to build it themselves.

4] How long until Communism takes place? And how do we know?

5] I see people saying that Russia was not really Communist, but then when they face the argument from Capitalists that "technological advancement and peoples incentive to progress etc will suffer" they give the example of the USSR in the space race etc to prove that it's not the case, so which is it?

AmilcarCabral

4th April 2014, 04:38

85cNRQo1m3A
In the american Ayn Rand Sarah Palin capitalism people hate each other. Communism and socialism will save americans from their Jared Loughner, Adam Lanza crazy life of hatred and Robinson Crusoe !!

Another negative impact of capitalism in USA not being able to provide progress and individual self-realization to every single american is that the capitalist philosophy of life leads to emotional, and mental depression, narcissism, paranoia, and many other personality disorders, because humans are social animals, who need love, human and social contact from the moment they are born until death. And the american brand of capitalism educates people into living a lone-ranger, Ayn Rand, "you are on your own" "do it your self" philosophy of life. This philosophy of life is totally anti-scientific, its against the minds and bodies of humans. And that's another reason of why most americans live a poor living standard, a low quality of life, because there is no way to reach fullness, self-realization personal power and personal happiness if people in America are taught that they should not rely on anybody, on any political party, on any group and that they should be lone-rangers like Robinson Crusoe.

You can own 10 BWMs and if you live such an Ayn Rand Robinson Crusoe lone-ranger life you will never be any thing in life, and that's why most americans do not reach greatness. Because it is impossible to do any thing in life alone.

So socialism and communism would increase the well-being of people by far, when socialism comes to USA americans will be saved from a life of zero love, zero social contact, zero social support, zero hugs, zero pads in their backs, relying on cigarettes, anti-depressants, drugs and alcoholic drinks to fill the holes in their souls created by feeling like if they are living in ghost towns

.

Decolonize The Left

4th April 2014, 05:05

But if the means of production is controlled then that means that the really rich people will not be able to exploit people/get rich off of the labour of others. Meaning that they will not be able to afford mansions etc.

Accordingly really poor people will benefit and their standard of living will improve.

So surely whether directly or indirectly Communism dictates what sort of house someone will be able to obtain?

Housing, clothing, luxury items, etc... are always "dictated" by whatever economy is in place as an economy is the management of goods and services. So, in that sense, sure... but it's a stretch to use the word "dictate" as this implies authoritative measures above and beyond the collective decisions of the working class.

Isn't that the same thing though?

If someone is an expert farmer, society needs them to farm, and their ability is farming. So that would make it mandatory that the farmer put his skills to use (forced by the community)?

Or are you saying that it is up to the farmer whether he chooses to use his ability to fill societies needs? In which case what is stopping him from doing nothing?

Yes, it will be up to each person to determine their own needs and abilities. What is there to stop them from doing "nothing" is their community, obviously, which is directly affected by each and every person's actions in the local economy and society.

So for example if there is a limited amount of HD TVs, is there any set system the municipal office could use to help allocate them to the community?

That would be up to the community but, sure, the community could organize any number of ways to equitably allocate scare resources like HD TVs although I think that example is rather poor. Remember that under communism television would cease to exist as you know it today and society would be so radically restructured that it's very difficult to say one way or another what things would look like - if in any way at all.

& Thanks for the response

No worries.

AmilcarCabral

4th April 2014, 05:29

Indeed and one doesn't even need to be a leftist, a marxist, an a smart person to see with their own eyes how USA is like a sort of economic aparthied, and how most cities of America are divided into a small minority enjoying a great life full of happiness, and the majority living shitty lives and being depressed.

Housing, clothing, luxury items, etc... are always "dictated" by whatever economy is in place as an economy is the management of goods and services. So, in that sense, sure... but it's a stretch to use the word "dictate" as this implies authoritative measures above and beyond the collective decisions of the working class.

Yes, it will be up to each person to determine their own needs and abilities. What is there to stop them from doing "nothing" is their community, obviously, which is directly affected by each and every person's actions in the local economy and society.

That would be up to the community but, sure, the community could organize any number of ways to equitably allocate scare resources like HD TVs although I think that example is rather poor. Remember that under communism television would cease to exist as you know it today and society would be so radically restructured that it's very difficult to say one way or another what things would look like - if in any way at all.

No worries.

tuwix

4th April 2014, 06:36

So surely whether directly or indirectly Communism dictates what sort of house someone will be able to obtain?

No more than market and your purchase power in capitalism. You use soviet measure for communism. But the Soviet Union wasn't even near to communism.

Or are you saying that it is up to the farmer whether he chooses to use his ability to fill societies needs? In which case what is stopping him from doing nothing?

Higher phase of communism is IMHO an environment where there is no need to be a farmer. Almost all unpleasant forms are done by machines. You are free to choose there to do whatever you want.

Jimmie Higgins

4th April 2014, 10:12

1] Is there anyway to predict/know what the average communist house would look like?No. Imagine if people in 1750 predicted modern housing or if people in the 1870s predicted housing for communism... it would be an anacronism today. Even if we were on the verge of a revolution, we could maybe makes some recomendation on immediate questions of housing need (like converting empty office buildings for popular use and housing etc). But predicting how people who run their own communities and organize production together would design new communities under new daily conditions and relationships is speculation at best.

As I see it, being a Marxist/(most types)Anarchist revolutionary isn't about delivering equality or better standards and conditions of living to a passive population; it's about encouraging movements of workers to take an independant class stab at running things. Under that framework, workers are not passive recipients of communism, but the main actors who would organize it themselves.

The amount of people living in poverty makes me think that if all the wealth/resources were spread out, then the average house would be 4 walls, a ceiling and a sink/kitchen (I know some Capitalists say that we'll have to give up a life of luxury to live in a shithole under Communism).

But then of course when I consider the amount of wealth the top 1% etc have, then it makes me think it wouldn't be that bad.
Working class revolution creates the possibility to have communities and resources and infrastrcture revolve around a whole new set of paramiters. If, for example, it would be wasteful or too costly in terms of resources to allow every home to have a pool, instead, more public pools, maybe one per 5 families in communities could be built. It would be less overall pools than a neighborhood of McMansions with induvidual pools that get used what - 10 hours a week by 1-4 people when it's hot.

I don't know if that's THE anaswer, but it's a possibility - without profit and competition, production, collectivly/democratically organized, would have different priorities and possibilities. I think even today, it would be easy to imagine how society could produce less overall while producing a better life for all but the super rich. It won't and can't happen under capitalism - there can be a temorary "leveling out" like in the post-war period, but that's only temporary or a trend towards less inequality - because low-cost labor is necissary and so inequality of wealth and power are built-in.

Obviously I'm guessing indoor swimming pools and back garden golf courses would be gone for sure, but if everything was truly equal what would the average house look like under Communism? Why? Why can't more people have access to these things? I don't like golf, but more parks and so on would be welcome. Why not communities with one large common green area rather than suburbs that each family maintains. A common area would save a lot of labor and water resources in terms of yard work compared to induvidual yards. Again, just speculation on a pretty superficial and quick fix.

2] What professions would be mandatory? Just jobs which directly contribute to the sustainability of life (e.g.food, housing, textiles etc.)?
Would something like a sport or acting career be only done in conjunction with the mandatory job or would a certain level of talent in those fields allow for the job to become the person's sole career as it is regarded as providing a benefit for society (entertainment)?
The way jobs exist and are concieved of today is sooo much different than before, say 1890, that it would be hard for me to believe how we think of work today would apply to capitalism in 50 years let alone a totally different system based on democratic cooperative production and use-based production.

There are some tasks that are inherently unpleasant and people don't want to deal with them - while also wanting the tasks done. So that becomes a problem that people would have to collectivly figure out how to handle it. Capitalists don't have to worry about if we like our tasks, or if they are pleasnt - they have a pool of people who need work and so they just hire someone and give some extra wages if they need to. So unpleasnt or boring tasks that people decide are necissary can be delt with in any number of ways outside of Labor as commodity. In capitalism, the planning and the doing are seperate parts of production: the owner plans and decides and the workers exacute. If the laboers, the actual producers, decide the manner in which necissary tasks are done, they can come up with a more pleasnat way to do that, a lotto system, dividing up the unpleasnt task so everyone has to contribute but in a minimized way, etc.

3] If money is abolished, and someone wishes to acquire something which is limited how would they obtain it? Assuming that they lack to skills to build it themselves.Others have answered this. If something is rare and there is no analogue that could be mass-produced (like say, converting from fossil fuels to renewable sources), then people will have to figure out what they think is a fair way to divide it up. Things can be rationed, a sort of Library-lending system could be set up, etc.

4] How long until Communism takes place? And how do we know? You mean from now or after an insurrection where worker's overthrow capitalism? Either way, I don't know. Communism is a development, so likely a revolution would be more apparent and then after that, it would be a process, a change from the old relations to new ones.

5] I see people saying that Russia was not really Communist, but then when they face the argument from Capitalists that "technological advancement and peoples incentive to progress etc will suffer" they give the example of the USSR in the space race etc to prove that it's not the case, so which is it?There's two questions here. First the question of sci/tech advancement under capitalism, then the question of if the technical advancement of the USSR demonstrates how things could be sucsessful under communism.

I've been reading about science and technology under capitalim right now actually and it's interesting. For one thing, the market-science link happened really recently. It was only in the late 1800s that capitalists began to use scientific research to change the manner of production. This happened largely in Germany where their late-commer status created a need to find ways to produce basic industrial resources that were monopolized by Great Britian or other powers. So they funded industrial labs to find ways of chemically creating analogues and new uses for fuels and basic commodities. Scientific advancement before that had come from either workers themselves through craft-knowledge and skills or from sort of tinkerers and "philiosophers" and none of this was driven by market forces... the craft-knowledge was developed to increase production or make labor easier, but not because of the same motives as later capitalist technological development. So while capitalists have heavily invested in sciences, they came late to the game and it was only when they saw that scientific efforts could lower labor costs or increase production that science had any importance to the market. So capitalism, is not the source of innovation in the abstract, later industrial capitalism just generally funds research into ways to increase profits.

I don't think the USSR was communist, first of all, and I don't think their economic advances has anything much to do with socialism or communism. It was their own rapid "catching-up" or modernization in Russia, they build an industrial economy up in ways that are generally similar, but not identical, to how other late-developing capitalist countries (Germany for example) "caught up".

AmilcarCabral

5th April 2014, 09:33

Yeah have you noticed that in USA and in other countries the houses in bourgeoise right-wing middle class neighborhoods have super big yards, that are very irrational, that are a waste of space, a waste of fuel (because of the excess of lawn-mowing), and another thing is that the excess of waste of land and space leads to very horizontal cities in which people have to drive 25 minutes to 40 minutes a day just to go to work or any other daily activities.

But I think that the urban planning of right-wing very capitalistic societies like USA would need to be changed toward building cities in a rational scientific way

.

If, for example, it would be wasteful or too costly in terms of resources to allow every home to have a pool, instead, more public pools, maybe one per 5 families in communities could be built. It would be less overall pools than a neighborhood of McMansions with induvidual pools that get used what - 10 hours a week by 1-4 people when it's hot.

.

Jimmie Higgins

5th April 2014, 09:53

But I think that the urban planning of right-wing very capitalistic societies like USA would need to be changed toward building cities in a rational scientific way

Maybe because my town is dealing with a really bad case of the gentrifications I have been very interested in this question.

Our whole relationship to both the natural and built environment is tied in with capitalism. Where we live, how we live, what we have to do each day is all based on commodity production and social reproduction. A world where production and "life" are built around us, rather than being diciplined by the needs of capital, of land-profitability, of pushing off public problems to induvidual families, would have to be as different as a feudal market is to Wall Street IMO.

RA89

5th April 2014, 16:29

No. Imagine if people in 1750 predicted modern housing or if people in the 1870s predicted housing for communism... it would be an anacronism today. Even if we were on the verge of a revolution, we could maybe makes some recomendation on immediate questions of housing need (like converting empty office buildings for popular use and housing etc). But predicting how people who run their own communities and organize production together would design new communities under new daily conditions and relationships is speculation at best.

As I see it, being a Marxist/(most types)Anarchist revolutionary isn't about delivering equality or better standards and conditions of living to a passive population; it's about encouraging movements of workers to take an independant class stab at running things. Under that framework, workers are not passive recipients of communism, but the main actors who would organize it themselves.

I thought that the point of the workers running things was to create more distribution of wealth and prevent exploitation which is basically delivery equality?

I accept your reasons for why it cannot be predicted what the average house would look like. But can I ask what variables would decide it?

RA89

5th April 2014, 16:34

Housing, clothing, luxury items, etc... are always "dictated" by whatever economy is in place as an economy is the management of goods and services. So, in that sense, sure... but it's a stretch to use the word "dictate" as this implies authoritative measures above and beyond the collective decisions of the working class.

So a good economy would lead to a higher standard of living (in terms of housing and luxury items etc) for everyone right?

Under Communism what factors affect how good the economy is?

From my understanding people basically everyone would work to provide as many goods and services necessary for the community (and no more). Is this correct?

Since there's no money involved what else can contribute to this going well or bad?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

5th April 2014, 17:15

1] Is there anyway to predict/know what the average communist house would look like?

The amount of people living in poverty makes me think that if all the wealth/resources were spread out, then the average house would be 4 walls, a ceiling and a sink/kitchen (I know some Capitalists say that we'll have to give up a life of luxury to live in a shithole under Communism).

But then of course when I consider the amount of wealth the top 1% etc have, then it makes me think it wouldn't be that bad.

Obviously I'm guessing indoor swimming pools and back garden golf courses would be gone for sure, but if everything was truly equal what would the average house look like under Communism?

Well, first of all I don't think that many new houses will be built in the communist society. One decent skyscraper can house as many people as 30 houses or more, and the extra space can be used for public and municipal content, green spaces etc. I think most people in the communist society will prefer to live in skyscrapers surrounded by parks, squares, playgrounds etc., instead of in densely-packed houses.

Generally, though, communism doesn't mean "absolute equality" - that would be some peculiar sort of barracks authoritarianism. Communism means social control of the means of production and free access to the social product by all members of society. I don't think it is possible to predict what most apartments will be like in the communist society - except for some very basic things, like running water etc. - because that's something people in the communist society will have to figure out themselves. I don't think many people will want a mansion - think of the time they would have to spend cleaning it, without servants. But I don't know, maybe an entire group of people would want to live in one mansion, and roleplay, or host 24-hour orgies, or something. I don't know. Personally I would be content with "four walls and a kitchen", as long as I get a room and a bathroom as well.

2] What professions would be mandatory? Just jobs which directly contribute to the sustainability of life (e.g.food, housing, textiles etc.)?
Would something like a sport or acting career be only done in conjunction with the mandatory job or would a certain level of talent in those fields allow for the job to become the person's sole career as it is regarded as providing a benefit for society (entertainment)?

In the communist society, there would be no compulsion regarding work, or lack of work. If people want to do nothing their entire lives, well, alright. But that's not very plausible - have you tried doing nothing? It's harder than it sounds. And work, in general, will become much less onerous with the changed relations of production. Communism doesn't mean going from working a dead-end job 8 hours a day for your boss to... working a dead-end job 8 hours a day "for the community". It means a transformation of what work is, of what a job entails etc.

3] If money is abolished, and someone wishes to acquire something which is limited how would they obtain it? Assuming that they lack to skills to build it themselves.

Again, this is something people will have to reach an agreement on themselves. I think the simplest solution is a system of public access, analogous to e.g. libraries, galleries, museums etc.

4] How long until Communism takes place? And how do we know?

There is no way to tell. The laws of social development can't be used to predict the specific dates on which social changes will occur (just as e.g. biology can't predict the lifespan of a person the moment they are born).

5] I see people saying that Russia was not really Communist, but then when they face the argument from Capitalists that "technological advancement and peoples incentive to progress etc will suffer" they give the example of the USSR in the space race etc to prove that it's not the case, so which is it?

That depends on the tendency, to be honest. My tendency, Trotskyism in the tradition of Canon etc., sees the Soviet Union as a degenerated workers' state, a transitional society that had the potential to move towards socialism, but was hampered by a conservative bureaucratic caste. We consider the state-owned, centrally-planned economy to have been extremely progressive (if, again, held back by the bureaucracy), and point to the achievements of the Soviet Union as proof.

ckaihatsu

5th April 2014, 18:52

Apologies if these questions aren't clear, I've tried my best to put down the thoughts in my head coherently.

1] Is there anyway to predict/know what the average communist house would look like?

The amount of people living in poverty makes me think that if all the wealth/resources were spread out, then the average house would be 4 walls, a ceiling and a sink/kitchen (I know some Capitalists say that we'll have to give up a life of luxury to live in a shithole under Communism).

This line is based on two erroneous assumptions -- that [1] only currently-existing materials could be redistributed within communism, because further material development would come to a halt, and [2] that a communist-type social order would only be able to make available the most *spartan* of living necessities and would be unable to address the full expanse of what an economic system handles today.

While the detailed specifics of a potential communist future are too much of a stretch to speak to from the vantage point of today, I, for one, always appreciate the 'luxury' question (that you've raised) because it gets at the more-complicated "outer reaches" of what a society / humanity is able to accomplish through social organization.

Even if we take the '4 walls, a ceiling, and sink/kitchen' as a starting point, we'd then have to consider what would happen the very next day -- what if some people happen to be dissatisfied with that rudimentary, though egalitarian, initial social setup -- ?

People could simply point to existing, fancier houses that would most likely remain from the previous (our current) capitalist era, and say 'Who gets to live in *those* places?' (Or, what about varying geographical locations, nicer outside views, etc.)

So, to disabuse you (and/or the reader) from misconceptions [1] and [2], I'll say that it's reasonable to estimate that a communist-type society would, after an initial period of thorough redistribution, have a world population there with time on its hands. There's no good reason to think that time would come to a standstill, and that *no one* in the world would be interested in labor, or in being socially productive in some way.

The whole *point* of communism, anyway, is to free up what capitalism has brought into being, so that the technologies of mass production can be freely taken up by anyone, for the individual and common good, no longer having to satisfy the dictates of private property accumulation.

Even the communist theory that we incessantly discuss here at RevLeft is open at its furthest reaches to reasoning that can speak to *how* total material production could be organized, post-capitalism -- thus the 'luxury goods' question that you've raised.

But then of course when I consider the amount of wealth the top 1% etc have, then it makes me think it wouldn't be that bad.

"Wealth" in its abstracted monetary form would be *meaningless* in a fully collectivized social context because it would be unable to command a premium over what is generally available -- today we think of 'cash' and 'black markets' as the go-to ways for getting what we want when all else fails, but in a world where labor is free to do what it wants without the constraint of having to bring in wages (for life and livelihood), *nothing* would be proprietary. (To put it more concretely, people could just use whatever implements are around to produce whatever they like, in whatever quantities, and the products could be stored in warehouses for anyone to come and take from -- any formal discussions and social organizing of this phenomenon would only make it that much more orderly and socially useful.)

Obviously I'm guessing indoor swimming pools and back garden golf courses would be gone for sure, but if everything was truly equal what would the average house look like under Communism?

One point of theory that applies here is that, just as the distinction between 'owner' and 'worker' would be annihilated with the overthrow of capitalism, so too would the distinction of 'worker' and 'consumer' -- more to the point, at that point, would be 'What are people willing to do together to make happen, with the materials of the world at their collective disposal -- ?'

So, given that indoor swimming pools and back garden golf courses remain intact during and after a revolution, that 'luxury' question would be in front of us: Would indoor swimming pools and golf courses be imbued with enough *social value* at that point to justify their continued existence, *and* necessary labor for their upkeep -- ?

A collectivist political economy would take the place of the currently hegemonic *market* economics that we have today, so everything would be subject to public scrutiny and approval -- if no one could reasonably object and oppose your use of an above-average pre-existing house, indoor swimming pool, and back garden golf course, then it would be yours for the *use* of it (not absenteeist "ownership").

(And no one would be obligated in the least to contribute their labor for the upkeep of the same.)

2] What professions would be mandatory? Just jobs which directly contribute to the sustainability of life (e.g.food, housing, textiles etc.)?

Political economy, again -- emergency-type examples serve well for the purposes of illustration: What "professions" (work roles) would be 'mandatory' if an area had to cope with the destruction from a massive hurricane (etc.) -- ?

Would something like a sport or acting career be only done in conjunction with the mandatory job or would a certain level of talent in those fields allow for the job to become the person's sole career as it is regarded as providing a benefit for society (entertainment)?

Since jobs would no longer be commodified people would no longer be under any duress to work for wages for the sake of life and livelihood (communism is 'open-access') -- I maintain that 'specialization', as into life-long careers, would disappear as any given situation in time could be identified and addressed in a common, collective, cooperative kind of way.

3] If money is abolished, and someone wishes to acquire something which is limited how would they obtain it? Assuming that they lack to skills to build it themselves.

This is an excellent question -- I took the time out in past years to address this as specifically as possible, and I developed a model / framework that I'd be glad to discuss further:

communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://tinyurl.com/ygybheg

The short answer is that since nothing would any longer be commodified, and all materials and implements would be open-access, the only variable remaining would be that of 'labor hours'. The framework advances a system of 'labor credits' that represent actual (liberated labor) hours worked, times a hazard/difficulty multiplier. Earned labor credits would not be exchangeable for anything material since commodities would no longer exist -- labor credits could only be used to 'activate' available and willing liberated laborers, going forward, for the production of whatever is requested, in like proportion.

4] How long until Communism takes place? And how do we know?

We don't know.

5] I see people saying that Russia was not really Communist, but then when they face the argument from Capitalists that "technological advancement and peoples incentive to progress etc will suffer" they give the example of the USSR in the space race etc to prove that it's not the case, so which is it?

It's *not* a given that real communism would be unable to make further technological advances -- it would all be a matter of collective social priority ('political will').

The USSR is considered to be 'state capitalism' and it was as competitive as it could be on an international basis.

But if the means of production is controlled then that means that the really rich people will not be able to exploit people/get rich off of the labour of others. Meaning that they will not be able to afford mansions etc.

This is a contradiction, in your premise -- if rich people could no longer privately benefit from the labor of others then their wealth would be rendered useless. Mansions and other luxury goods could not be 'bought' because "money" could no longer command labor, and, without the necessity of having to work for money, people would take on active day-to-day roles of political participation (in the collectivist political economy), as over the issue of who gets to live in mansions or whatever.

Accordingly really poor people will benefit and their standard of living will improve.

This would be strictly within the context of 'a redistribution of wealth [luxury goods]'.

So surely whether directly or indirectly Communism dictates what sort of house someone will be able to obtain?

You may want to elaborate / explain here.

2] What professions would be mandatory?

None. Communism is when the working class owns the means of production, so professions are filled according to need and ability, not mandate.

Isn't that the same thing though?

If someone is an expert farmer, society needs them to farm, and their ability is farming. So that would make it mandatory that the farmer put his skills to use (forced by the community)?

Or are you saying that it is up to the farmer whether he chooses to use his ability to fill societies needs? In which case what is stopping him from doing nothing?

I myself would say 'nothing', aside from general social peer pressure, depending on the circumstances. Again, to use a critical-type scenario, what if an agricultural area was ravaged by an icestorm, and this locality had to look afield for agricultural produce for its continued survival and well-being -- ? Would a neighboring farmer be *obligated* to give up produce that had been pre-planned to serve as a local larder -- ?

So for example if there is a limited amount of HD TVs, is there any set system the municipal office could use to help allocate them to the community?

The rule of thumb here, for any shortfall in production, would be to 'increase capacity'.

& Thanks for the response

So a good economy would lead to a higher standard of living (in terms of housing and luxury items etc) for everyone right?

Basically, yes, but it would depend on the objective material tradeoff -- collectively -- of effort vs. satisfaction.

Under Communism what factors affect how good the economy is?

From my understanding people basically everyone would work to provide as many goods and services necessary for the community (and no more). Is this correct?

Communism doesn't have to be strictly localist -- that's, in particular, what my 'labor credits' approach is meant to address.

Since there's no money involved what else can contribute to this going well or bad?

Objective (natural) reality.

Worldview Diagram

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

Decolonize The Left

5th April 2014, 19:16

So a good economy would lead to a higher standard of living (in terms of housing and luxury items etc) for everyone right?

A "good economy" just means a "good" management of goods and services. The term "good" is obviously subjective here but, in my opinion, a good economy is one which effectively and efficiently manages goods and services for the long term. I think that a communist economy would best fit this bill.

The notion of "standard of living" is a biased one - one which results from a morality which prioritizes consumer durables and status/luxury items. I would suggest stepping back from that notion as a whole.

Under Communism what factors affect how good the economy is?

I don't understand what you mean here.

From my understanding people basically everyone would work to provide as many goods and services necessary for the community (and no more). Is this correct?

Basically, think: to each according to need and from each according to ability. You get what you need and you do what you can - the responsibility and meaning is upon you as a person within your community (as opposed to upon the profit mechanism under capitalism).

Since there's no money involved what else can contribute to this going well or bad?

Well, aside from competing economic systems, everything comes down to the workers involved.

RA89

6th April 2014, 02:24

This line is based on two erroneous assumptions -- that [1] only currently-existing materials could be redistributed within communism, because further material development would come to a halt, and [2] that a communist-type social order would only be able to make available the most *spartan* of living necessities and would be unable to address the full expanse of what an economic system handles today.

While the detailed specifics of a potential communist future are too much of a stretch to speak to from the vantage point of today, I, for one, always appreciate the 'luxury' question (that you've raised) because it gets at the more-complicated "outer reaches" of what a society / humanity is able to accomplish through social organization.

Even if we take the '4 walls, a ceiling, and sink/kitchen' as a starting point, we'd then have to consider what would happen the very next day -- what if some people happen to be dissatisfied with that rudimentary, though egalitarian, initial social setup -- ?

People could simply point to existing, fancier houses that would most likely remain from the previous (our current) capitalist era, and say 'Who gets to live in *those* places?' (Or, what about varying geographical locations, nicer outside views, etc.)

So, to disabuse you (and/or the reader) from misconceptions [1] and [2], I'll say that it's reasonable to estimate that a communist-type society would, after an initial period of thorough redistribution, have a world population there with time on its hands. There's no good reason to think that time would come to a standstill, and that *no one* in the world would be interested in labor, or in being socially productive in some way.

The whole *point* of communism, anyway, is to free up what capitalism has brought into being, so that the technologies of mass production can be freely taken up by anyone, for the individual and common good, no longer having to satisfy the dictates of private property accumulation.

Even the communist theory that we incessantly discuss here at RevLeft is open at its furthest reaches to reasoning that can speak to *how* total material production could be organized, post-capitalism -- thus the 'luxury goods' question that you've raised.

"Wealth" in its abstracted monetary form would be *meaningless* in a fully collectivized social context because it would be unable to command a premium over what is generally available -- today we think of 'cash' and 'black markets' as the go-to ways for getting what we want when all else fails, but in a world where labor is free to do what it wants without the constraint of having to bring in wages (for life and livelihood), *nothing* would be proprietary. (To put it more concretely, people could just use whatever implements are around to produce whatever they like, in whatever quantities, and the products could be stored in warehouses for anyone to come and take from -- any formal discussions and social organizing of this phenomenon would only make it that much more orderly and socially useful.)

One point of theory that applies here is that, just as the distinction between 'owner' and 'worker' would be annihilated with the overthrow of capitalism, so too would the distinction of 'worker' and 'consumer' -- more to the point, at that point, would be 'What are people willing to do together to make happen, with the materials of the world at their collective disposal -- ?'

So, given that indoor swimming pools and back garden golf courses remain intact during and after a revolution, that 'luxury' question would be in front of us: Would indoor swimming pools and golf courses be imbued with enough *social value* at that point to justify their continued existence, *and* necessary labor for their upkeep -- ?

A collectivist political economy would take the place of the currently hegemonic *market* economics that we have today, so everything would be subject to public scrutiny and approval -- if no one could reasonably object and oppose your use of an above-average pre-existing house, indoor swimming pool, and back garden golf course, then it would be yours for the *use* of it (not absenteeist "ownership").

(And no one would be obligated in the least to contribute their labor for the upkeep of the same.)

These answers all make sense to me, it seems that I have underestimated the flexibility of the system and that many things can be done at the discretion of the community?

The short answer is that since nothing would any longer be commodified, and all materials and implements would be open-access, the only variable remaining would be that of 'labor hours'. The framework advances a system of 'labor credits' that represent actual (liberated labor) hours worked, times a hazard/difficulty multiplier. Earned labor credits would not be exchangeable for anything material since commodities would no longer exist -- labor credits could only be used to 'activate' available and willing liberated laborers, going forward, for the production of whatever is requested, in like proportion.

I'm sorry I don't understand what the bolded sentence means, what are you saying the labour credits can be used for?

This is a contradiction, in your premise -- if rich people could no longer privately benefit from the labor of others then their wealth would be rendered useless. Mansions and other luxury goods could not be 'bought' because "money" could no longer command labor, and, without the necessity of having to work for money, people would take on active day-to-day roles of political participation (in the collectivist political economy), as over the issue of who gets to live in mansions or whatever.

You may want to elaborate / explain here.

I mean to say, since Communism redistributes wealth, and gives the workers control of the means of production, this means that people who were rich before Communism took place, will now not be so wealthy, and the people who were being exploited will now have a better standard of living?

Even when Communism took place, the former rich now that they couldn't make money off of others, would be forced into living less luxuriously as they wouldn't be able to afford the maintenance of the high life? And since the wealth they made via others labour will now go to the community this means the working class end up with a better standard of living. Is this correct?

Basically, yes, but it would depend on the objective material tradeoff -- collectively -- of effort vs. satisfaction.

So would that make it possible to have different communities with varying levels of advancement if hypothetically one town was lazy, and another wasn't, and they both stayed in the same place?

I read through the table you made but I think it's too advanced for me yet as I couldn't understand many of the terms/language.

Btw just want to say thanks for all the answers from everyone, I knew this was a place of discussion but I'm always surprised by the effort put in to helping others learn, means a lot. :)

RA89

6th April 2014, 03:38

The notion of "standard of living" is a biased one - one which results from a morality which prioritizes consumer durables and status/luxury items. I would suggest stepping back from that notion as a whole.

But doesn't what you're suggesting here go against what a large portion of the population adore, luxury items/home?
I can see the argument that it is superficial but that is the way it is, how do we know peoples mindset/values will change so dramatically?

I don't understand what you mean here.

Well you've said that -

A "good economy" just means a "good" management of goods and services.

I'm having trouble understanding what a good management of goods and services would be if there was no money.
The effort/skill/productivity of the workers/community + the fulfillment of the need of those goods and services?

Basically, think: to each according to need and from each according to ability. You get what you need and you do what you can - the responsibility and meaning is upon you as a person within your community (as opposed to upon the profit mechanism under capitalism).

Thanks for explaining this I've always been confused by that quote.

Jimmie Higgins

6th April 2014, 12:59

I thought that the point of the workers running things was to create more distribution of wealth and prevent exploitation which is basically delivery equality?Yes, but I think it's important to point out that socialism/communism are not about creating a policy of equality, but about empowering the class in society who produce collectivly (as a class) without needing to exploit. So the planners and the doers become the same thing in regards to production (unlike today where one group produces and is exploited has an interest mainly in use-value, workers, but those who plan and control or manage and decide how and what to produce are people who benifit and prosper from increasing the rate of exploitation and getting more exchange value). So I think "economic equality" is more of a natural side-effect of socialism, rather than a policy necissarily. However, the initial transfer of productive means to the working class does instantly create a level of equality that doesn't exist even in the modern capitalist countries with the lowest levels of inequality. So I might say an equality in terms of power and relations to production leads to an equality in terms of personal wealth.

I accept your reasons for why it cannot be predicted what the average house would look like. But can I ask what variables would decide it?Well people would have to balance what they would like in a community and what resources and time/labor they are willing or able to devote to that. I think initially this will take the form of democratic prioritization of some immediate needs and I would guess that: housing, food, health and education would all be some of the first things that people would want to transform in the aftermath of a revolution.

For housing when you think of how and why communities are built today it's largely just a combination of the needs of different industries and businesses for labor and - especially after the freeways and mass auto use in the US - by the best exchange for land value (which is also conditioned by the needs of business and industry and organized through banks and municiple zoning etc). A socialist society would totally replace all the existing conditions and so it's hard to say what development would look like when all the main factors in current development have been totally removed.

Personally, I think people would build communities designed to help socialize "social reproduction". So this would mean realtivly dense development compared to suburbs, but more common space and services than the closed off modern urban areas. A community that isn't atomized and isolating (as in modern homes where all daily reproduction is either bought or done by families induvidually) but is also not too populated so that induviduals don't feel like they are unable to be involved in community decision-making and so on. Things like child-care, laundry, kitchens/resturants, entertainment could be community-based which would save time and work overall and it would save induviduals from a home-life full of 70% just chores. So more free time from work would be an obvious socialist development in production IMO, but more free-time from "chores" or just daily upkeep and reproduction would also be a socialist development and priority in my view.

ckaihatsu

6th April 2014, 16:34

These answers all make sense to me, it seems that I have underestimated the flexibility of the system and that many things can be done at the discretion of the community?

I'm going to do two things here -- first, here's a diagram to illustrate the *simplicity* of the "components" of a communist-type political economy:

[8] communist economy diagram

http://s6.postimage.org/mgmjarrot/8_communist_economy_diagram.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/mgmjarrot/)

Secondly, I'll be using excerpts from my 'communist supply & demand' / labor credits model, as pointed responses to your post.

But I want to answer directly and say 'Yes', there could certainly be far more flexibility in the social organization of (mass) production because the whole global enterprise of continually adding to the domain of exchange-values (through profit-making) would be entirely eliminated.

I'll also take issue -- to a lesser extent -- with the term 'community' since it tends to mean 'locally socially constrained'. In my model I use the term 'locality' which has a more generic, geographic-denoted meaning to it:

Associated material values

consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily

Determination of material values

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

---

The short answer is that since nothing would any longer be commodified, and all materials and implements would be open-access, the only variable remaining would be that of 'labor hours'. The framework advances a system of 'labor credits' that represent actual (liberated labor) hours worked, times a hazard/difficulty multiplier. Earned labor credits would not be exchangeable for anything material since commodities would no longer exist -- labor credits could only be used to 'activate' available and willing liberated laborers, going forward, for the production of whatever is requested, in like proportion.

I'm sorry I don't understand what the bolded sentence means, what are you saying the labour credits can be used for?

Here's from my blog entry, which is an introduction to the system of labor credits:

A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits

To clarify and simplify, the labor credits system is like a cash-only economy that only works for *services* (labor), while the world of material implements, resources, and products is open-access and non-abstractable. (No financial valuations.) Given the world's current capacity for an abundance of productivity for the most essential items, there should be no doubt about producing a ready surplus of anything that's important, to satisfy every single person's basic humane needs.

[I]t would only be fair that those who put in the actual (liberated) labor to produce anything should also be able to get 'first dibs' of anything they produce.

In practice [...] everything would be pre-planned, so the workers would just factor in their own personal requirements as part of the project or production run. (Nothing would be done on a speculative or open-ended basis, the way it's done now, so all recipients and orders would be pre-determined -- it would make for minimal waste.)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673

I mean to say, since Communism redistributes wealth, and gives the workers control of the means of production, this means that people who were rich before Communism took place, will now not be so wealthy, and the people who were being exploited will now have a better standard of living?

As revolutionaries we mean to point to potentialities of the *future* rather than to feel straightjacketed by events of the *past* -- note that 'communism' and 'socialism' are spelled with lower-'c' and lower-'s' letters, respectively, to distinguish these social potentials as being distinct from what happened *historically*, with the Stalinism-type rulerships of the 20th century.

I also want to point out that the 'redistribution of wealth' and 'workers control of the means of production' are two *separate* things, if we think of the former as the full de-privatization of all private property, to add it to a new 'world commons', while the latter is specifically about how *future* production will be accomplished, going-forward.

The implication of all of this is that the quality of 'wealthy' doesn't translate so well from the timeframe of 'before' to that of 'after' -- this is because the 'after' context would be one of *only* use-values, and no exchange-values. Wealth in its familiar, abstracted financial form would no longer exist, in favor of having a much more robust general *infrastructure* of whatever it is that people say they want.

Even when Communism took place, the former rich now that they couldn't make money off of others, would be forced into living less luxuriously as they wouldn't be able to afford the maintenance of the high life? And since the wealth they made via others labour will now go to the community this means the working class end up with a better standard of living. Is this correct?

I hope to impress upon you (and/or the reader) that a proletarian revolution would be like a massive 'reboot' of what the material world is used for -- as revolutionaries we maintain that there is plenty of material *stuff* and human know-how to enable everyone to live comfortably and to do whatever it is that they really want to do, free from the current limitations of having to go through the medium of exchange-values, which systematically rob the laborer of their labor's value.

So would that make it possible to have different communities with varying levels of advancement if hypothetically one town was lazy, and another wasn't, and they both stayed in the same place?

Basically yes, and this is an implication from the way my model is set up, as well.

*However*, since there would no longer be any *commodity* goods, and all technologies would be used for the common good, we could readily see situations in which one locality could / would easily mass-produce *far more* stuff than they could possibly use themselves, in which case the stuff would become part of the 'commons', to be used by anyone else, anywhere, subject to objective logistics and/or social coordination.

Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

Material function

communist administration -- Assets and resources are collectively administered by a locality, or over numerous localities by combined consent [supply]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673

---

I read through the table you made but I think it's too advanced for me yet as I couldn't understand many of the terms/language.

No prob -- it's understandable. The model is comprehensive in its scope so it covers a wide terrain -- feel free to inquire about any of its aspects.

Btw just want to say thanks for all the answers from everyone, I knew this was a place of discussion but I'm always surprised by the effort put in to helping others learn, means a lot. :)

Yup -- keep in mind that it's in our own collective *class interest* to advocate-for, and realize, a world proletarian revolution.

RA89

7th April 2014, 03:08

No prob -- it's understandable. The model is comprehensive in its scope so it covers a wide terrain -- feel free to inquire about any of its aspects.

Thanks, I'd like to discuss the proposed supply and demand model, for the sake of understanding and not confusing myself I'll address it bit by bit then move on to the next parts once I've understood.

Starting with the "revolutionary policy *solution* (communist supply & demand)" http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population

Does this mean that all assets and resources belong to the community and that the community will together decide what to do with them?
What does "all assets and resources" cover? All land, property + raw materials etc?

-- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

What does this mean? That excess assets/resources can only be used by people if
-they intend to use it just for themselves and not the community (e.g. store in their house)
or
-they're fully accountable for anything negative that results from them using the excess assets/resources since they haven't been used in community/locality approved projects?
or something else entirely?

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

Does this mean that people who partake in liberated labour are the only ones allowed to control communist property?
And that they cannot as individuals privately own this property?
What is meant by "proceeds from work"? Could you please give an example of proceeds from work which could not be used or consumed by persons.
What falls under "communist property"?

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property

What does "actively used" and "in a personal capacity" mean?
What would qualify as a period of disuse that would lead to the possession in question reverting to collectivized communisty property?
E.g. not sitting on a sofa for a few months? What methods could be used to check whether such possessions are being regularly used.

ckaihatsu

7th April 2014, 17:21

Thanks, I'd like to discuss the proposed supply and demand model, for the sake of understanding and not confusing myself I'll address it bit by bit then move on to the next parts once I've understood.

Starting with the "revolutionary policy *solution* (communist supply & demand)" http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population

Does this mean that all assets and resources belong to the community and that the community will together decide what to do with them?

Yes.

[EDIT:] There would be a dialectical *dynamic* between the larger population (a locality, a number of localities by common consent, or a 'community'), and those who would be available and willing to put forth their liberated labor, from *any* geographic location. Ultimately it would be at the discretion of those with accumulated labor credits to pick-and-choose those individuals who are available and willing, given a mass-supported policy package that includes a budget of pre-allocated labor credits.

What does "all assets and resources" cover? All land, property + raw materials etc?

Yes, and especially the means of mass industrial production.

-- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

What does this mean? That excess assets/resources can only be used by people if
-they intend to use it just for themselves and not the community (e.g. store in their house)
or
-they're fully accountable for anything negative that results from them using the excess assets/resources since they haven't been used in community/locality approved projects?
or something else entirely?

Yeah, that pretty much covers it -- consider that either assets and resources would be *collectively* planned-for (as through RevLeft-like discussions and updates to per-workplace wiki pages, perhaps), or else they would be *unused*, in which case they / their use can't be denied to anyone.

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

Does this mean that people who partake in liberated labour are the only ones allowed to control communist property?

Yes -- the meaning is that absenteeist "rights" to an abstract "ownership" would not be valid, nor would even any 'private accumulations', because that implies a collection without active usage of it.

And that they cannot as individuals privately own this property?

Correct.

What is meant by "proceeds from work"?

The results of liberated labor. (Non-monetary.)

Could you please give an example of proceeds from work which could not be used or consumed by persons.

Sure -- if a group of people decide they want some new clothes and they find a way to source the raw materials (cloth, etc.), they might find that, using mechanized methods, they could easily produce far more finished pieces than they would care to have and use in the foreseeable future. (Perhaps they all decided as a group to budget 3 days to the endeavor.) All of the clothing that they could not possibly use themselves could either just be left there, or, more realistically, would probably be taken / delivered to some kind of clothing-oriented warehouse, for anyone from the public to retrieve for use.

What falls under "communist property"?

All assets and resources. Again:

Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common [...]

---

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property

What does "actively used" and "in a personal capacity" mean?

What would qualify as a period of disuse that would lead to the possession in question reverting to collectivized communisty property?

Granted, these *are* fuzzy terms, and I, from my existence in our present conditions, am objectively *unable* to indicate anything more specific here. (This is where I would agree with those revolutionaries who say that we can't formulate socialist policies in the here-and-now, since it would ultimately be up to those who are actually part of a revolution when it happens.)

Again the principle at work here is that absenteeist-type "ownership" would not be respected. Likewise, accumulations of materials for the sake of a *private*-type control would not be allowed.

E.g. not sitting on a sofa for a few months? What methods could be used to check whether such possessions are being regularly used.

Right -- again, I'll defer to those who would actually be in a position to make such specific policies.

This content from a past thread may be relevant here:

I've also wondered about how everyday use of *physical space* would change, once private property is done away with -- perhaps the communization of materials, and physical space, would mean that daily life would be much more *mobile* than today, perhaps more resembling the times of primitive communism, since there would be no more uncertainty in modern "foraging".

Private collections of whatever cultural artifacts would give way to a norm of *collectively* administrating such collections, more like a common network of museums or an academia that's as ubiquitous as the Internet.

It's tough to say, though, because it would probably hinge on how much slack the people of such a world would grant to the domain of *sentiment* -- would personal possessions *increase*, in a hoarding kind of way, for expanding and expansive personal reasons, or would society frown on such harboring of sentimentality, since all items themselves would be freely available anyway -- ?

A formal economy would be good to preserve and encourage individuality, but from a strictly material standpoint wouldn't be absolutely *necessary*, as the degree of socialized life increased. Doubtless there would have to be some complex balancing of the two, in all aspects.

The Jay

7th April 2014, 17:56

Apologies if these questions aren't clear, I've tried my best to put down the thoughts in my head coherently.

No worries. Details can always be flushed out.

1] Is there anyway to predict/know what the average communist house would look like?

The amount of people living in poverty makes me think that if all the wealth/resources were spread out, then the average house would be 4 walls, a ceiling and a sink/kitchen (I know some Capitalists say that we'll have to give up a life of luxury to live in a shithole under Communism).

But then of course when I consider the amount of wealth the top 1% etc have, then it makes me think it wouldn't be that bad.

Obviously I'm guessing indoor swimming pools and back garden golf courses would be gone for sure, but if everything was truly equal what would the average house look like under Communism?

That is really impossible to say. I can speculate that there could be more efficient means of housing people technologically. For example, condos are more efficient in terms of temperature maintenance as well as other utilities. Communal gardens would be more efficient and sustainable than getting all the food from a central location save some foods that do not grow in that location. This also introduces a means of having a walkable urban area.

That said, all of these things would be decided upon by the community.

2] What professions would be mandatory? Just jobs which directly contribute to the sustainability of life (e.g.food, housing, textiles etc.)?
Would something like a sport or acting career be only done in conjunction with the mandatory job or would a certain level of talent in those fields allow for the job to become the person's sole career as it is regarded as providing a benefit for society (entertainment)?

Again I can only speculate, but I think that there will be some centralization in terms of major industry. Not every person would logically be required to weave their own clothing when there are machines that can do the work thousands of times faster. Much of this organizing would probably take place during a revolution or Dictatorship of the Proletariat, setting up Communism.

3] If money is abolished, and someone wishes to acquire something which is limited how would they obtain it? Assuming that they lack to skills to build it themselves.

I would think that such a thing would be requested through the community if it is not readily available already. If it is something like a plane then probably not unless it would be used for the community's benefit.

4] How long until Communism takes place? And how do we know?

No person knows when Communism could come about but it would be known by the abolition of the law of value. Objects would not be commodities as defined by Marx in that the exchange value would not exist.

5] I see people saying that Russia was not really Communist, but then when they face the argument from Capitalists that "technological advancement and peoples incentive to progress etc will suffer" they give the example of the USSR in the space race etc to prove that it's not the case, so which is it?

This depends largely on whom you ask. I would attack the idea of incentives of reward as the sole means of technological advancement in itself. People are driven by many different things. Watch this for a quick intro:

u6XAPnuFjJc

RA89

8th April 2014, 02:01

RA89

8th April 2014, 02:05

Again I can only speculate, but I think that there will be some centralization in terms of major industry. Not every person would logically be required to weave their own clothing when there are machines that can do the work thousands of times faster. Much of this organizing would probably take place during a revolution or Dictatorship of the Proletariat, setting up Communism.

So since communism can only exist if the whole world has it, does that mean it can be safely said that there will be no sweat shops what so ever as technology will be used to make work easier everywhere?
Or just wherever possible? E.g. Will it be harder to achieve in poor countries and/or take longer?

The Jay

8th April 2014, 02:29

I think that you may be underestimating the potential speeds of technological development that would be possible by sharing materials and fuels. (http://opensourceecology.org/gvcs/)

ckaihatsu

8th April 2014, 18:21

Ultimately it would be at the discretion of those with accumulated labor credits to pick-and-choose those individuals who are available and willing, given a mass-supported policy package that includes a budget of pre-allocated labor credits.

Does this mean that people who have earned labour credits, will select others who volunteer themselves, with the project having been given a budget of labour credits in advance prior to the start of it?

Yes.

There may certainly be more than one proposal, policy package, and project in play -- several competing versions could be present, with differences over labor credits budgeted, number of work roles, etc. -- you may want to see the following past thread for a sample scenario:

'A world without money'

tinyurl.com/ylm3gev

What would a policy package entail? The general guidelines for production/building?

Yes, basically -- it would be more detailed than a general proposal, and would have its political backers:

Infrastructure / overhead

communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions

---

Yes -- the meaning is that absenteeist "rights" to an abstract "ownership" would not be valid, nor would even any 'private accumulations', because that implies a collection without active usage of it.

Do you mean this in the sense that only people not involved in the labour of something cannot claim ownership rights of it?
Or more broadly that nobody at all could have absenteeist rights to an abstract ownership of anything?

Correct -- the *broader* sense of it, since that would be all-encompassing and consistent.

Only use-values would be socially recognized, so any claims to an abstract, absenteeist "ownership" would be invalid.

---

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property

Is the bolded sentence above talking about the same sorts of material/property as the bolded from -

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

?
Or is the former talking about finished products and the latter about raw materials before the labour has taken place (along with reinforcing that finished products also cannot be privately accumulated)?

'Material' / 'Materials' is meant in the general, generic sense, so it wouldn't matter at all whether the material in question is raw materials, finished products, equipment, or anything else.

The principle at work here is again use-values -- if things aren't being used for the sake of production, and they're not being used in an active personal capacity, then they really can't be 'owned' by *anyone*, since that would just beg the question of what interaction anyone has with it, which would be 'none'.

Decolonize The Left

8th April 2014, 19:18

But doesn't what you're suggesting here go against what a large portion of the population adore, luxury items/home?
I can see the argument that it is superficial but that is the way it is, how do we know peoples mindset/values will change so dramatically?

People's mindsets are a result of their material condition. So before there existed cars, people thought trains were the best form of transportation. Before trains, horses, etc...

So people's mindsets/value systems change according to that material condition and communism is effectively a radical shifting of material conditions brought on by the people themselves.

I'm having trouble understanding what a good management of goods and services would be if there was no money.
The effort/skill/productivity of the workers/community + the fulfillment of the need of those goods and services?

Well, "good management of goods and services" is a subjective phrase. Some would say it's what leads to the most profit (capitalists). Others would say it's what leads to the most enjoyment (utilitarian philosophy). Radical leftists would say that it's what results from working class possession of the means of production.

In other words, "good management" comes as a result of communism and is not something which can be worked towards without it because to do so is idealistic and not materialistic.

RA89

9th April 2014, 22:40

'A world without money'

tinyurl.com/ylm3gev

Unfortunately the link in the first post no longer works.

I feel like I understand your explanations and would like to move on the next part.

ASSOCIATED
MATERIAL VALUES

ASSETS AND RESOURCES
HAVE NO QUANTIFIABLE
VALUE — ARE CONSIDERED
AS ATTACHMENTS TO THE
PRODUCTION PROCESS

Does this mean assets and resources have no quantifiable value in a monetary sense?
What does the bolded mean?
That assets and resources are simply seen as being no more than means to complete the production process?

LABOR SUPPLY IS SELECTED
AND PAID FOR WITH EXISTING
(OR DEBT-BASED)
LABOR CREDITS

Why do projects need a budget of labour credits?

Would labour be credits earned through hours put in, or through effort or something more tangible e.g. percentage of overall work completion contributed?

EVERY PERSON IN A LOCALITY
HAS A STANDARD, ONE-THROUGH INFINITY
RANKING SYSTEM OF
POLITICAL DEMANDS AVAILABLE
TO THEM, UPDATED DAILY

What sort of political demands would be available/could you define political demand?

Different localities have different political demands available?

RA89

9th April 2014, 22:49

I think that you may be underestimating the potential speeds of technological development that would be possible by sharing materials and fuels. (http://opensourceecology.org/gvcs/)

I think so too.

But then I think, if that's all that is needed to make a community relatively advanced then how comes out of all the multi-millionaires and billionaires who have ever lived - surely a few had to desire helping people in poverty - no ones turned some slum/ghetto into a well functioning place by buying those things?
Or is that just not possible because of the way capitalism operates?

People's mindsets are a result of their material condition. So before there existed cars, people thought trains were the best form of transportation. Before trains, horses, etc...

So people's mindsets/value systems change according to that material condition and communism is effectively a radical shifting of material conditions brought on by the people themselves.

Fair point. It sounds like the way people look at the world and each other will be dramatically changed. And that it can't be described until one lives it. Are there any theories on how people would think under a communist lifestyle?

ckaihatsu

10th April 2014, 16:55

Unfortunately the link in the first post no longer works.

I feel like I understand your explanations and would like to move on the next part.

Okay.

Associated material values

communist administration -- Assets and resources have no quantifiable value -- are considered as attachments to the production process

Does this mean assets and resources have no quantifiable value in a monetary sense?

Correct -- since there can't be any commodity-money within communism (by definition), nothing in this framework can be quantified in the monetary or financial sense.

What does the bolded mean?

It means that for all societal / formal purposes, all productive materials and resources can only be defined in terms of their part within a production process. This complements the first part of the statement by giving a *positive* description for assets and resources.

That assets and resources are simply seen as being no more than means to complete the production process?

Yes, for all significant social / societal concerns -- it's worth reproducing from the first section of the model to further note that:

Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

---

Associated material values

labor [supply] -- Labor supply is selected and paid for with existing (or debt-based) labor credits

Why do projects need a budget of labour credits?

The best way to explain this is to juxtapose this whole framework to that of a 'gift economy', where all liberated labor is strictly *voluntarist* / donated, with no system of currency *or* economics. A gift economy would *not require* the use of labor credits whatsoever, since people could just freely produce at-will from the fully de-privatized world commons, with the material proceeds going towards the common good. (Any social coordination here would only increase the potentials of complexity / sophistication of that production, as with cascading supply chains.)

The *problem* with a gift economy, though, is that it depends on voluntarist individualism too much -- sure, it would be moneyless and entirely self-selected, but there may not be enough emergent social coordination to enable any decisive complex production techniques / processes, or to advance technological developments for the society as a whole, since production could very well remain in its default localist, patchwork state.

My 'communist supply & demand' model implements labor credits to *overcome* this gift-economy limitation. It formally recognizes that various kinds of labor inherently have varying levels of hazards and difficulty, and so the model allows higher rates of labor credits to be earned, per labor hour, for increasingly hazardous and/or difficult kinds of work.

Those who, from whatever efforts completed, earn labor credits, are thus empowered to select and activate liberated labor going-forward, in proportion to those labor credits in-hand. (So, for example, someone who has only worked a few weeks, but at a particularly hazardous role -- say, mining -- would be able to fund someone else's liberated labor, perhaps for *months*, if it's a much-less-difficult work role, since the per-hour rate would be much less. Or, alternatively, the amassed labor credits could possibly fund *several* workers at a much-less-difficult work role, for the same period of time that it took to earn the labor credits with the more-hazardous work of mining.)

The point of *budgeting* labor credits, as an integral part of any locality-backed project or production run, is so that liberated labor is never *exploited*, since the labor credits in possession are proof that a like-proportion of liberated labor has already been completed and serves as justification for coordinating and activating others' liberated labor going-forward.

The system of labor credits does not interfere with any potential gift-economy-type voluntarism or one-to-one-type arrangements regarding liberated labor.

Would labour be credits earned through hours put in, or through effort or something more tangible e.g. percentage of overall work completion contributed?

Labor credits are earned strictly through labor-hours-times-difficulty-or-hazard:

Determination of material values

labor [supply] -- Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived

---

Associated material values

consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily

What sort of political demands would be available/could you define political demand?

It's absolutely open-ended -- 'political demands' could be whatever people happened to call-for, formally, through this system. The demands could either be about matters of collective co-administration, as over a particular proposal or policy package -- 'politics' -- or they could be for the production of anything material, as for individual consumption -- 'economics'.

Different localities have different political demands available?

No, there would be no up-front qualitative restrictions or variations due to the particular locality.

AmilcarCabral

10th April 2014, 19:32

Yeah this statement is totally correct and scientifical. Another thing I'd like to contribute to this debate is about the need of educating the general masses on 3 very important activities that are very basic for the development of a whole society, for the scientific progress of the world which are: reading, writing and talking in a rational way (That's what John Dewey the education thinker claimed).

And I've noticed that the extreme ultra-individualist, ultra-self-absorbed, ultra-narcissistic way of life of all americans destroys lots of things not only the economy as a whole, but the current ultra-individualist way of life of all americans is a great impediment for any collective planning, community planning and any rational communication between the residents and citizens of a local community.

That's why I think that most americans are so quiet when they are at Wal Marts and at public places, because the ability to read, write and talk has been totally maimed and destroyed and it would be repaired in a workers-dictatorship and in an anarchist-communist system

PD: Hell man *conspiracy of denial* and conspiracy of silence*, that's one of the worst things I hate about the whole United States, that the USA is almost at the edge of an economic apocalypse, in the middle of an inflationary meltdown, the country is going down. The roads, highways interstate highways are full of cracks and holes, bridges are falling. The Obamacare is a capitalist neoliberalism, fascist scam, Republicans are hissing and motivating the White House and US government into invading Venezuela and Russia. Food and gas prices are going up every day, and yet most people in America we see every day at supermarkets, at banks and in public places are totally silent, mute, and living in a conspiracy of silence and in a conspiracy of denial. What a weird nation with avoidant personality disorders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoidant_personality_disorder#Signs_and_symptoms

.

Yeah, that pretty much covers it -- consider that either assets and resources would be *collectively* planned-for (as through RevLeft-like discussions and updates to per-workplace wiki pages, perhaps), or else they would be *unused*, in which case they / their use can't be denied to anyone.

ckaihatsu

10th April 2014, 21:35

Sorry to nit-pick, but here's the only pea-under-the-mattresses thing I can find to comment on:

inflationary meltdown

So:

Deflation threat poses new dangers to world economy

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/01/17/pers-j17.html