Scaling up communism

[RedWorker]

One common argument I hear from non-communists is that communism may work well in a small area, but would have trouble with working in a larger region, or as a worldwide system.

One example they commonly bring up is, for example, the coordination of transportation for distribution of goods, along with bringing up that there wouldn't be forced labor. From that they say things like: "So one whole region could be left without food if one guy doesn't go to work one day". They argue that in capitalism it would work well because all jobs are filled up because of division of labor and if you don't go to work you die.

As for me, I see it probably would work pretty well actually. However, how do you respond to such arguments?

[#FF0000]

One common argument I hear from non-communists is that communism may work well in a small area, but would have trouble with working in a larger region, or as a worldwide system.

"Communism" in a small area wouldn't be possible because no "small area" could produce the superabundance necessary. What you'd have is a small collective of people sharing things and being nice while still producing to trade with the outside world for what they didn't have.


One example they commonly bring up is, for example, the coordination of transportation for distribution of goods, along with bringing up that there wouldn't be forced labor. From that they say things like: "So one whole region could be left without food if one guy doesn't go to work one day". They argue that in capitalism it would work well because if you don't work then you die.


Folks who didn't work and just took and never gave wouldn't really be looked well upon in a communist society. Labor would still be necessary (though the aim would to make it as minimal and painless as possible).

The argument's just silly, tbh.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

"Communism" in a small area wouldn't be possible because no "small area" could produce the superabundance necessary. What you'd have is a small collective of people sharing things and being nice while still producing to trade with the outside world for what they didn't have.

I would add too that, Communism, ideally and inherently is global in scope aka world domination.


Folks who didn't work and just took and never gave wouldn't really be looked well upon in a communist society. Labor would still be necessary (though the aim would to make it as minimal and painless as possible).

I personally want to say that a post-revolutionary society would cease humanity's historical worship of work and hard labor. We have the technology to, to a very large degree, make it to were, very few people have to work work. Under capitalism, a lot of stupid and pointless jobs and positions exist in order to employ more of the population to keep the whole thing going.


The argument's just silly, tbh.

Yes, this.

[Kingfish]

I think the opposite argument is true in that communism can only work well on a large scale. The complete and total failure of socialist communes and utopian socialists in general demonstrates this.

On the small scale you can never achieve the benefits of collectivization (lack of resources, human capital, technology and economies of scale) and will have to either live at a vastly lower standard or in a way that defeats the purpose of the movement.

[Red Star Rising]

One common argument I hear from non-communists is that communism may work well in a small area, but would have trouble with working in a larger region, or as a worldwide system.

One example they commonly bring up is, for example, the coordination of transportation for distribution of goods, along with bringing up that there wouldn't be forced labor. From that they say things like: "So one whole region could be left without food if one guy doesn't go to work one day". They argue that in capitalism it would work well because all jobs are filled up because of division of labor and if you don't go to work you die.

As for me, I see it probably would work pretty well actually. However, how do you respond to such arguments?

They're wrong on both counts - Communism wouldn't work on a small scale because:
- Some form of state would have to exist in order to prevent the society being absorbed into the capitalist world.
- Communism requires self-sufficiency of society, this isn't possible unless you have absolutely every natural resource in large quantities in a small area. Otherwise a Capitalist form of trade is necessary
- There is no reason to believe why people would have any more trouble with the transportation of goods than we do now.
- Communism requires abundance of manufactured goods, impossible for a small society.

[ckaihatsu]

One common argument I hear from non-communists is that communism may work well in a small area, but would have trouble with working in a larger region, or as a worldwide system.

One example they commonly bring up is, for example, the coordination of transportation for distribution of goods, along with bringing up that there wouldn't be forced labor.


I think what's being argued is that a post-monetary collectivist political economy, to cover large expanses of geographic ground, would be too unwieldy and cumbersome to make work at large scales -- in other words how would you fit millions of people into the same 'boardroom' to hash out the logistics of who-does-what-when-and-also-how-will-they-be-compensated.

I'd say that the quick answer -- for these times -- is 'wiki pages for each workplace', but the downside is that such would be syndicalism at best, and would basically be a workplace-based commodity-type of production, or market socialism. There's nothing to guarantee that all liberated-workplaces would be able to agree on what's best for common production, and/or to coordinate such, even if we can assume a gift-economy from all of them.





From that they say things like: "So one whole region could be left without food if one guy doesn't go to work one day".


And here the argument is that the market mechanism is inherently more flexible at adapting to real conditions than conscious collective planning could ever be, because of its predetermined and fixed nature (by definition).





They argue that in capitalism it would work well because all jobs are filled up because of division of labor and if you don't go to work you die.


This is an admission of the coercive nature of commodity production, that commodifies labor -- which happens to be human lives -- along with everything else, which happens to be inanimate objects and materials.





As for me, I see it probably would work pretty well actually. However, how do you respond to such arguments?


I've taken efforts to address this question in its entirety, which can be summed-up as 'finding a common denominator for all types of labor roles, so that they can all be sized-up relative to one another'.

An illustration of the question is here:


Pies Must Line Up

http://s6.postimg.org/erqcsdyb1/140415_2_Pies_Must_Line_Up_xcf.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/erqcsdyb1/)


And my solution is here:





[I] have developed a model that addresses all of these concerns in an even-handed way, and uses a system of *circulating* labor credits that are *not* exchangeable for material items of any kind. In accordance with communism being synonymous with 'free-access', all material implements, resources, and products would be freely available and *not* quantifiable according to any abstract valuations. The labor credits would represent past labor hours completed, multiplied by the difficulty or hazard of the work role performed. The difficulty/hazard multiplier would be determined by a mass survey of all work roles, compiled into an index.

In this way all concerns for labor, large and small, could be reduced to the ready transfer of labor-hour credits. The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession, and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.




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

[The Idler]

Would you say wikipedia as done well against other encyclopedias?

[ckaihatsu]

[T]he quick answer -- for these times -- is 'wiki pages for each workplace'





Would you say wikipedia as done well against other encyclopedias?


Here's from a web search:

http://twiki.org/


Also:

http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/TWiki/PublicTWikiSites

[ckaihatsu]

[16] Affinity Group Workflow Tracker

http://s6.postimage.org/6spxhq1gt/16_Affinity_Group_Workflow_Tracker.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/6spxhq1gt/)


Affinity Group Image-Based Communications Protocol

http://s6.postimage.org/5sfvsu225/121219_Affinity_Group_Image_Based_blend_xcf.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/5sfvsu225/)

[Thirsty Crow]

One common argument I hear from non-communists is that communism may work well in a small area, but would have trouble with working in a larger region, or as a worldwide system.In fact, the kind of social transformation necessary for social relations of production which are encompassed under the term communism is very unlikely to obtain in a limited territory. This means that people will have to make communism work, to find ways of ensuring the stability and viability of this radically new kind of social production, starting from the global, and not the regional in terms of scale.


One example they commonly bring up is, for example, the coordination of transportation for distribution of goods, along with bringing up that there wouldn't be forced labor. From that they say things like: "So one whole region could be left without food if one guy doesn't go to work one day". They argue that in capitalism it would work well because all jobs are filled up because of division of labor and if you don't go to work you die.

This is completely ridiculous as it assumes there is only one possible way to ensure that people actually do stuff that is necessary. Basically, it's a kinda of a horror story, about that eternally corrupt beings known as humans who'd otherwise do jack shit if they weren't thretened by adverse consequences.

Needless to say, there's no reason to accept this story as it is far from impossible to come up with different kinds of social mechanisms ensuring that people do stuff. One huge advantage in this would be to alleviate the pressure of potential unemployment, impoverishment, cut throat competition with its social and psychological effects, and to drastically reduce labor time which one person needs to put in. Add to that a transformed process of child rearing and upbringing, and maybe differential forms of ascribing social value and status, and you end up with affirming the possibility.

What's especially interesting about the argument is the claim of capitalist efficiency which completely disregards the other side to the technical and logistic problem of providing food: namely, the social one, which means that folks without many don't have something to eat. But according to them all jobs are filled out and the threat of hunger is successful. It's just too bad that there seems to be a shortage of those things called "jobs". And that social provision is claimed to be a social burden, cause you know the capitalists need incentives to employ. But hush, and don't tell anyone that subsidies are the sweetest kind of incentives.