Communism brings abundance?

[Red Star Rising]

I have seen a lot of people on here talking about what the concept of a moneyless society entails. According to many, it can only truly be achieved once there is total abundance of any good or resource (ergo material things become worthless). I'm having trouble understanding how this would be possible at all - does it mean that all non-renewable resources are replaced with renewable ones that are not finite? Or does the abundance of resources come with the abolition of money? Can someone please explain this principal in simple terms?

[tuwix]

In capitalism a scarcity of goods and services now is mostly artificial. Capitalism to exist must produce more and more. In a world without a profit as a basic paradigm recycling may be used in so efficient way to solve a problem of scarcity in terms of non-renewable resources. In bourgeois propaganda, the biggest problem is energy. But the real problem is that fossil energy lobbys block a usage of renewable energy... So the only problem for communism is capitalism. Everything else is to be solved.

[exeexe]

Well the numbers here are not precise, it will just serve to draw a picture:

Lets say 100 years ago 100 workers could produce 1 car in 10 days
Today 1 worker can produce 100 cars in 10 days
And how will it be in 100 years? Maybe 1 worker can produce 10.000 cars in 1 day.

Its because people use tools, then machines, then assembly lines and then robots.

But the reason why items would be free is not because there is an abundance of items, but because people would want the items to be free.

[Comrade #138672]

No. The exchange-value of commodities would approach zero. Free means quite literally free.

[Kingfish]

I think one of the important things to understand in relation to this issue is that capitalism and the technological development that came with and from the industrial revolution has already given us abundance so in relation to this question the issue isn't so much how we produce things but how we distribute them.

The technology and resources already are sufficient hence abolishing money or new technology isn't required what is required though is a complete restructuring of how we allocate and distribute resources.

[exeexe]

To say that the exchange-value of commodities should approach zero is reformist and will never get the job done.
Its revolutionary when commodities will be liberated from exchange-value. To get the job done you would need a revolution.

[Red Star Rising]

Well the numbers here are not precise, it will just serve to draw a picture:

Lets say 100 years ago 100 workers could produce 1 car in 10 days
Today 1 worker can produce 100 cars in 10 days
And how will it be in 100 years? Maybe 1 worker can produce 10.000 cars in 1 day.

Its because people use tools, then machines, then assembly lines and then robots.

But the reason why items would be free is not because there is an abundance of items, but because people would want the items to be free.

Are you saying that human labour is unimportant? That a machine that takes the job of 100 people is a good idea? This can only ever work in a Communist society because only then can everybody reap the rewards which would make unemployment redundant in a way. This could lead to an abundance of cars I guess - everyone then gets a free car :laugh: But what about building and maintaining the machines that make cars? People would still have to do that but only a small number of experts would really qualify, if we apply this to all resources and goods, then doesn't that create a class of those who work and those who don't? Not to mention that this means that the reward for education and qualification is doing more work than everyone else?

Anyway, wouldn't abundance men large amounts of waste? Or does abundance in this sense mean having the means to produce unlimited amounts of something? Rather than constantly producing it? Would goods be constantly recycled or something when there is a physical abundance of it?

[Red Star Rising]

Well the numbers here are not precise, it will just serve to draw a picture:

Lets say 100 years ago 100 workers could produce 1 car in 10 days
Today 1 worker can produce 100 cars in 10 days
And how will it be in 100 years? Maybe 1 worker can produce 10.000 cars in 1 day.

Its because people use tools, then machines, then assembly lines and then robots.

But the reason why items would be free is not because there is an abundance of items, but because people would want the items to be free.

In order for items to be free because people would want them to be free, wouldn't there need to be a total abundance of that item or else you would just run out?

[Red Star Rising]

In capitalism there is an abundance of some things - food, water etc. that is incorrectly distributed. But what of cars and computers and the like? Surely an abundance of these things to be maintained an unbelievable amount of irreversible, unsustainable environmental damage would take place.

[Red Star Rising]

To say that the exchange-value of commodities should approach zero is reformist and will never get the job done.
Its revolutionary when commodities will be liberated from exchange-value. To get the job done you would need a revolution.

Money becoming obsolete can be seen as a reformist principal but surely a revolution would be needed to set the right social conditions for it. I don't think that it matters tbh because a revolution is necessary for Socialism/Communism anyway.

[exeexe]

That a machine that takes the job of 100 people is a good idea?

At least in a socialist society then definitely yes


But what about building and maintaining the machines that make cars? People would still have to do that but only a small number of experts would really qualify, if we apply this to all resources and goods, then doesn't that create a class of those who work and those who don't?

We already have these two classes in a capitalist society..
but in a socialist society those who dont work can find work among those who are working. And if they dont have the qualifications then they can learn the skills.


Not to mention that this means that the reward for education and qualification is doing more work than everyone else?

You shouldnt be rewarded for education in the first place. You get educated because you want to be educated not because society needs educated people.


Anyway, wouldn't abundance men large amounts of waste? Or does abundance in this sense mean having the means to produce unlimited amounts of something? Rather than constantly producing it? Would goods be constantly recycled or something when there is a physical abundance of it?

Depends how you plan to produce something. Even in capitalist factory is it possible to produce items without waste. Production order.

[exeexe]

In order for items to be free because people would want them to be free, wouldn't there need to be a total abundance of that item or else you would just run out?
Do you think because a computer screen cost 700$ that there will be more of them than when they are free?
I think the amount of computer screens available are determined by how much people are prepared to labor and not the price tag.

If you put labor into something you can say it should be free. Abundance is not a necessary condition. This is a common Marxist misconception of the issue because they think everything should be so scientific..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Really_Really_Free_Market

[Five Year Plan]

I have seen a lot of people on here talking about what the concept of a moneyless society entails. According to many, it can only truly be achieved once there is total abundance of any good or resource (ergo material things become worthless). I'm having trouble understanding how this would be possible at all - does it mean that all non-renewable resources are replaced with renewable ones that are not finite? Or does the abundance of resources come with the abolition of money? Can someone please explain this principal in simple terms?

There is no such thing as "total abundance" of anything. Everything is finite. The Earth will be swallowed by the Sun one day, after all. What communism requires is a reasonable level of abundance, a level sufficient to provide for everybody's needs as self-actualizing and creative members of society.

This level of abundance requires technological developments that contradict the private ownership of property, the exploitation of labor, and their corollary: anarchy in production realized through commoditized exchange relations via money.

[Red Star Rising]

At least in a socialist society then definitely yes

We already have these two classes in a capitalist society..
but in a socialist society those who dont work can find work among those who are working. And if they dont have the qualifications then they can learn the skills.

You shouldnt be rewarded for education in the first place. You get educated because you want to be educated not because society needs educated people.


And classes like these are what Socialism seeks to remove from Capitalism aren't they? And as for those who aren't working, what work would they find among those who are if machines replace manpower? Otherwise we are creating arbitrary jobs simply to keep people busy. I don't really understand what you mean :/

True. "Reward" was the wrong word, I meant motivation to be educated - without that, we cannot have experts in a certain field and technological advancement would slow.

[exeexe]

I dont know. But you could argue that a robot wont run much if people cant find jobs because then people wont have money to consume goods, so the guys who are operating robots wont have to work much either. Which would result in low amount of products on the market so people would be starving, which would result in people wanna make a revolution so that you could get products without money and that people could work without receiving a pay. But im sure we will figure out a workable solution once we reach that problem..

If you are fine with boring mundane work then fine you dont need to get an education.
SnhWLubvOS0

[Red Star Rising]

I dont know. But you could argue that a robot wont run much if people cant find jobs because then people wont have money to consume goods, so the guys who are operating robots wont have to work much either.

Would this be a problem in Communism? By this stage money would be fairly meaningless if it exists at all. I guess one could argue that the relatively easy working hours and the respect of the rest of society would keep the qualified working, and the simple drive for knowledge and an understanding of the world would be enough of a motivation to be educated without some kind of entitlement to reward. The reason I chose to study history, politics etc. is that I find them interesting rather than "what's in it for me?" I'm sure it's the same principal for many students of all subjects, and the abolition of capital would only increase this. It would also ensure that people's qualifications would be a more honest representation of their skills rather than their desires.

[ckaihatsu]

Would this be a problem in Communism? By this stage money would be fairly meaningless if it exists at all.


Agreed.





I guess one could argue that the relatively easy working hours and the respect of the rest of society would keep the qualified working,


I'll add that people could see the *results* and *impact* of their work efforts, *directly* on society, since there would be no middle step of commodification, ownership, and profit-extraction involved. These days such can only be realized through volunteer / hobbyist efforts, if one can afford to do it, and the scale of those affected is usually (arguably) very limited in scope, especially compared to what would be possible in a *post*-capitalist social environment with free-access to productive implements.





and the simple drive for knowledge and an understanding of the world would be enough of a motivation to be educated without some kind of entitlement to reward. The reason I chose to study history, politics etc. is that I find them interesting rather than "what's in it for me?" I'm sure it's the same principal for many students of all subjects, and the abolition of capital would only increase this. It would also ensure that people's qualifications would be a more honest representation of their skills rather than their desires.

[exeexe]

Would this be a problem in Communism? By this stage money would be fairly meaningless if it exists at all
It depends. Maybe it will take a period of starvation before people accept to move away from market values.

[Red Star Rising]

It depends. Maybe it will take a period of starvation before people accept to move away from market values.

Well then, that's a little dark. But I think that once global revolution is in full swing and the workers own the means of production, the abolition of money would be natural. People might cling to it but in a true Socialist state, it would matter very little anyway - resources would be distributed equally and items would be worth only what the people decided they were worth. Capital would become meaningless and people would eventually let it go, hopefully without starvation, when the means of production were sufficient.

[ckaihatsu]

---





This is no-scarcity economics [...] -- naturally, if one could just pick up what one wanted from a warehouse there wouldn't *be* the hassle of currency.




[I]f people could take what they want without even working at all, people wouldn't bother working for any kind of means of exchange because there is no incentive to do so.




So with that we've solved the *demand* side of things -- people simply take what they want, and only work for *use values*, and not for *exchange values*.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

In capitalism a scarcity of goods and services now is mostly artificial.

Capitalism to exist must produce more and more. In a world without a profit as a basic paradigm recycling may be used in so efficient way to solve a problem of scarcity in terms of non-renewable resources. In bourgeois propaganda, the biggest problem is energy. But the real problem is that fossil energy lobbys block a usage of renewable energy... So the only problem for communism is capitalism. Everything else is to be solved.

I don't think there is any way you can substantiate this point with valid evidence. Scarcity, in the sense of there being a finite amount of human resources, raw materials etc. for which to turn into finished goods, is not the problem of capitalism. Capitalism exaggerates the problem greatly because the profit motive is inefficient and inequitable in both the production and distribution of goods, but even the most efficient and equitable system of production and distribution of goods and services would still have some scarcity. At least given current technology and the scope for technological innovation. Perhaps some technological innovation of the future will change this but until it does, assuming that we could ever live in a post-scarcity world is just wishful thinking.

[Red Star Rising]

I don't think there is any way you can substantiate this point with valid evidence. Scarcity, in the sense of there being a finite amount of human resources, raw materials etc. for which to turn into finished goods, is not the problem of capitalism. Capitalism exaggerates the problem greatly because the profit motive is inefficient and inequitable in both the production and distribution of goods, but even the most efficient and equitable system of production and distribution of goods and services would still have some scarcity. At least given current technology and the scope for technological innovation. Perhaps some technological innovation of the future will change this but until it does, assuming that we could ever live in a post-scarcity world is just wishful thinking.

If there was an efficient system of recycling, then I think that we could simulate a post-scarcity world. Humans under Capitalism do produce enough food and water for everyone but it is simply distributed poorly and there is a ridiculous amount of waste. There are easily enough houses for every homeless person in the USA and enough money is wasted on military spending to pay for water supply, heating, electricity etc. (money would not be an issue in Communism anyway) As for items like cars or computers, not everyone wants a computer who doesn't have one - the demand for them isn't going to suddenly increase under Communism. We don't have total abundance, but we have sufficient resources.