Artists in an anarchist communist society

[falce e martello]

Let's say I play in a band for a living.
In an anarcho-communist society could I do the same? I mean, being an artist could be considered a job?

[The Intransigent Faction]

Short answer: Yes.

You'd have a lot more freedom as an artist, as well, as you wouldn't need to worry about being beholden to the demands of a publisher, or record company, or network executives (for instance) or the general treatment of art as a commodity. In short, your ideas wouldn't be shot down, or you wouldn't feel compelled to self-censor on the basis of being too 'risky' or avant-garde to be profitable.

I should also add that you could, if you wanted to, do other things as well. Musicians/painters/etc. can have other passions that they work into their art which might even help them improve, and you'd be able to put time into that as well.

[Slavic]

As long as the utilities are operational and the people are fed, there will be artists in a communist society.

If that utilities are not running and people are starving, then society has no room for artists.

[anticap]

Consider also that the division between art and other forms of labor is not necessarily intrinsic. For Marx the division is the result of the alienation of labor in general (see Perlman's "Alienation of Living Activity (https://marxists.org/reference/archive/perlman-fredy/1969/misc/reproduction-daily-life.htm)"). Janet Wolff wrote of Marx's notion that, "all non-alienated labour is creative, and hence intrinsically the same as artistic labour..." ("aesthetics", from A Dictionary of Marxist Thought).

In other words, "after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want" (Marx (https://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)), most forms of labor -- barring the most undesirable, which will be automated as much as possible -- will again become expressions of our creative selves. It thus follows that, yes, of course you could be a musician in communist society (you asked about "anarchist" communism, but communism is communism). You could "do one thing today and another tomorrow, ... hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as [you] have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic..." (Marx (https://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm)). And since none of your labors would be alienated, they would not differ intrinsically from what we today call "art."

[Lord Testicles]

Let's say I play in a band for a living.
In an anarcho-communist society could I do the same? I mean, being an artist could be considered a job?

No, there won't be any jobs, there will only be work. Work that needs doing and work that you'd like to do.

[ckaihatsu]

No, there won't be any jobs, there will only be work. Work that needs doing and work that you'd like to do.


It's interesting that the goals / aspirations of communism are almost *contradictory* that way -- sure, we need *collective* efforts, so as to transcend capitalism's petty private profit-making mentality, but we also need *individualistic*, *non*-collective spaces, for the sake of humanity (otherwise everyone's just a tool for who-knows-what).





Consider that, post-revolution, there could be varying use-cultures among various geography-specific communal groupings -- some might set the boundary between individual and society fairly tightly so that personal sentiment isn't favored, and so that almost all efforts would be additions to the collective enterprise.

But *other* groupings, on the other hand, might be fairly *tolerant* of individual self-determination, and would give each person a *wide latitude* over the direction of their own efforts.


I think of the communistic gift economy as a 'baseline' -- that if humanity can shift its efforts to freely, voluntarily providing for the basics of life and living for everyone, then everything else that's more-artistic will spontaneously derive from individual volition, freed as it will be from the drudgery of providing for oneself and one's own, necessarily through the exploitative wage-labor system.

It's the 'work that needs doing' that will be the stuff of interest in a post-capitalist political economy -- how high might a liberated world set the baseline for 'what should be common', and how much (time) would be left over to the individual -- ?

[Skyhilist]

If that utilities are not running and people are starving, then society has no room for artists.

Disagree. Some of the periods in history where art has been most important has been during some pretty dark times. However, I think that artists would have to realize that art would need to be a side job when other work is in dire need of getting done. But I certainly wouldn't say such a society has no room for artists.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't there would be 'artists'. I think there would be 'people who made art'. No-one would get to say, 'ah well, the commune is burning down, but I'm just playing my fiddle'.

[Hrafn]

I don't there would be 'artists'. I think there would be 'people who made art'. No-one would get to say, 'ah well, the commune is burning down, but I'm just playing my fiddle'.

http://www.a-w-i-p.com/media/blogs/articles/Aricles18/obama_while_Rome_Burns_2_77.jpg

[FieldHound]

Suppose everyone was 'expected' (take that however you want) to do essential jobs 4 hours a day. Now suppose you happen to be an incredible musician that people love the music of, and would like to do a live concert tour of the country but had "duties" (whether voluntary or as part of a system) where you currently live, in a particular industry, whatever. Could you not put out some sort of request, given that you have enough fans, that each fan works an extra five minutes a day, two minutes a day, whatever, as "payment" for your shows (again, whether they would be the only ones to gain admittance or not doesn't affect the example) until your lack of work is covered by willing fans/appreciators that recognise that they will benefit from your art via getting to enjoy it live? I don't know if this concept already exists but it's something I've thought about lately. If you make amazing street art that hundreds of people love could they not voluntarily do an extra one minute of work a day each so that you can focus all your time and energy (or as much as you want) on full-time street art, that everybody enjoys the benefits of?

[Slavic]

Disagree. Some of the periods in history where art has been most important has been during some pretty dark times. However, I think that artists would have to realize that art would need to be a side job when other work is in dire need of getting done. But I certainly wouldn't say such a society has no room for artists.

And during those dark periods I'm sure there was starvation and homelessness. I don't think how society functioned during feudal and capitalist eras has any revelence on the ordering of a socialist society.

Let me rephrase myself. If capitalism has been abolished and people are still starving in your community due to lack of farmers, your an asshole if you pick up a brush instead of a hoe.

[Skyhilist]

My point wasn't that we don't need to people not to do physical labor in such times. My point was that some of the best critiques of the root problems that brought about these dark periods in the first place came through art, and therefore art was necessary to make any sort of progress. That said, I've already mentioned that no one should get to just paint stuff or something if other important work needs to be done, so I'm not sure why act like maybe there's some chance that I think that and just might be "an asshole" or something lol

[cyu]

Either you think people will be responsible when they are free, or you think people will be irresponsible when they are free. But it's a bit of a contradiction to believe that everyone else will be irresponsible, except me, and I will be the only person who sees the importance of doing the important things. (Unless you suffer from some kind of delusion of course ; )

[Slavic]

Either you think people will be responsible when they are free, or you think people will be irresponsible when they are free. But it's a bit of a contradiction to believe that everyone else will be irresponsible, except me, and I will be the only person who sees the importance of doing the important things. (Unless you suffer from some kind of delusion of course ; )


Who are you addressing? And I'm fairly sure no one is putting forward those two extremes.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Let me rephrase myself. If capitalism has been abolished and people are still starving in your community due to lack of farmers [...]

You just might be in an impossibly contrived situation, the rest of the world has apparently been killed by robots since "your community" doesn't have access to food except that produced locally, and it seems "your community" didn't even have the material prerequisites for socialism (as even under capitalism famines are not due to a "lack of farmers") in the first place.

Doesn't it tell you something that you're forced to rely on examples that are blatantly improbable?

[cyu]

Sorry off-topic and feel free to remove, but are people with bellbottoms allowed to disagree with one another?

[Slavic]

You just might be in an impossibly contrived situation, the rest of the world has apparently been killed by robots since "your community" doesn't have access to food except that produced locally, and it seems "your community" didn't even have the material prerequisites for socialism (as even under capitalism famines are not due to a "lack of farmers") in the first place.

Doesn't it tell you something that you're forced to rely on examples that are blatantly improbable?


Ugh this entire thread is based on assumptions on what a socialist society would look like and operate as, so don't throw "blatantly improbable examples" at me in order to disregard my entire argument considering no one knows how such a society would function. That is why I focused on total labor in a society and how it is allocated, which is a very broad and unspecific way to look at the production power within a society.

If not enough food is being produced, then I postulate that it is necessary for non-food producing labor to be changed to food producing labor.

I'm not going to get into the specifics of why there is a food/labor shortage, or if such a society suffering from starvation could truly be a socialist society. That is because no one here can divine the future, hence I am making broad statements to explain my point of view.

Doesn't it tell you something that you're forced to contrive outlandish examples to attack my point as opposed to presenting your own.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ugh this entire thread is based on assumptions on what a socialist society would look like and operate as, so don't throw "blatantly improbable examples" at me in order to disregard my entire argument considering no one knows how such a society would function. That is why I focused on total labor in a society and how it is allocated, which is a very broad and unspecific way to look at the production power within a society.

If not enough food is being produced, then I postulate that it is necessary for non-food producing labor to be changed to food producing labor.

I'm not going to get into the specifics of why there is a food/labor shortage, or if such a society suffering from starvation could truly be a socialist society. That is because no one here can divine the future, hence I am making broad statements to explain my point of view.

Doesn't it tell you something that you're forced to contrive outlandish examples to attack my point as opposed to presenting your own.

Complete agnosticism about the socialist society is predictably popular on RevLeft, but "socialism" is not a meaningless term, it designates a particular kind of society. And this is not a discussion about the finer details - we aren't discussing whether the central soviet will have a praesidium of twenty or seventy-one members, or whether the second-tier administrative units will be named "departments" or "raions" - but about the ABC of socialism - the liberation of human labour. Honestly, if you think people are too stupid or too lazy to work together, why be a socialist? Socialism relies on free human creativity - not "work or starve" nonsense, that would be a continuation of wage labour under a thin veneer of "socialism".

Your example is contrived as it only works if we assume that the productive forces are less developed than they are today. Sorry, that doesn't make any sort of sense.

Not to mention - who is going to force people to work, the socialist police? What an odd and frankly unappealing notion of socialism some people have.

[Slavic]

Complete agnosticism about the socialist society is predictably popular on RevLeft, but "socialism" is not a meaningless term, it designates a particular kind of society. And this is not a discussion about the finer details - we aren't discussing whether the central soviet will have a praesidium of twenty or seventy-one members, or whether the second-tier administrative units will be named "departments" or "raions" - but about the ABC of socialism - the liberation of human labour. Honestly, if you think people are too stupid or too lazy to work together, why be a socialist? Socialism relies on free human creativity - not "work or starve" nonsense, that would be a continuation of wage labour under a thin veneer of "socialism".

Your example is contrived as it only works if we assume that the productive forces are less developed than they are today. Sorry, that doesn't make any sort of sense.

Not to mention - who is going to force people to work, the socialist police? What an odd and frankly unappealing notion of socialism some people have.

I love how you propose statements that I have not even said and then proceed to attack them.

Where and when did I state that people are to "lazy" or "stupid" to work together?

Where and when did I state that people would be forced to work?

Thank you for making rediculous false statements and attacking me with them, awesome.

So back to the discussion.
I am not being "completly agnostic" about what a socialist society would look like. I am well aware that with the liberation of wage-labour, people will be free to labour how they choose. A free association of workers creating and producing without the drive of capital reducing their work to wage-labour.

This being said, I am under no illusion that a free association of workers will produce the exact amount of goods needed for the society at any given moment. This is not predicated on me thinking that workers can not work together or that the productive forces of said society are lesser then they are currently. This is because there is no such thing as a perfectly functioning society in which everyone's needs are allocated in real time in a precise manner. To think other wise is utopian.

Following from this, since we live in a chaotic world and despite our best attempt to order the chaos, things will fall through the cracks. Some neccesary materials might not have been produced in approiate quantity or quality for a certain society. If such were the case, then I would find it neccesary for the members of said society to focus their labour on correcting the production of said lacking/low-quality material as opposed to labouring on tasks that are peripheral to human survival.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I love how you propose statements that I have not even said and then proceed to attack them.

Where and when did I state that people are to "lazy" or "stupid" to work together?

"If capitalism has been abolished and people are still starving in your community due to lack of farmers, your an asshole if you pick up a brush instead of a hoe. "


Where and when did I state that people would be forced to work?

"If that utilities are not running and people are starving, then society has no room for artists. "



I am not being "completly agnostic" about what a socialist society would look like. I am well aware that with the liberation of wage-labour, people will be free to labour how they choose. A free association of workers creating and producing without the drive of capital reducing their work to wage-labour.

This being said, I am under no illusion that a free association of workers will produce the exact amount of goods needed for the society at any given moment. This is not predicated on me thinking that workers can not work together or that the productive forces of said society are lesser then they are currently. This is because there is no such thing as a perfectly functioning society in which everyone's needs are allocated in real time in a precise manner. To think other wise is utopian.

Following from this, since we live in a chaotic world and despite our best attempt to order the chaos, things will fall through the cracks. Some neccesary materials might not have been produced in approiate quantity or quality for a certain society. If such were the case, then I would find it neccesary for the members of said society to focus their labour on correcting the production of said lacking/low-quality material as opposed to labouring on tasks that are peripheral to human survival.

First of all, you're backtracking - originally you said that people might starve because there are not "enough" farmers "in the community". Now you're talking about something else entirely. And this is precisely why production in a socialist society will be planned, not dictated by some sort of quasi-market. And obviously there will be overproduction to cover exigencies - this is a matter of common sense.

[Slavic]

"If capitalism has been abolished and people are still starving in your community due to lack of farmers, your an asshole if you pick up a brush instead of a hoe. "

"If that utilities are not running and people are starving, then society has no room for artists. "
I honestly have no clue how you are taking these two statements and inferring that I think that people are stupid, lazy, and need to be forced to work by a state.




First of all, you're backtracking - originally you said that people might starve because there are not "enough" farmers "in the community". Now you're talking about something else entirely. And this is precisely why production in a socialist society will be planned, not dictated by some sort of quasi-market. And obviously there will be overproduction to cover exigencies - this is a matter of common sense.

First of all, I am not backtracking, I am elaborating on my previous statements. I will admit that they were rather vulgar and not that expansive so my last response saw to that. No backtracking, just elaborating a point that I still hold.

I think that we are talking about two different time periods of development. None of what I've said applies to a society with complete overproduction of goods, such a society would be the pinnacle of socialist achievements. What the OP was talking about was a specific type of labor in a socialist society.

Socialist society =/= overproduction

Also, quasi-market??? Where did you pull that from?

[The Red Star Rising]

Let's say I play in a band for a living.
In an anarcho-communist society could I do the same? I mean, being an artist could be considered a job?
Take a look at Deviantart, Tumblr, Youtube, or Mixcloud to see oodles of people who make artistic work with no compensation even in a capitalist society.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

First of all, I am not backtracking, I am elaborating on my previous statements. I will admit that they were rather vulgar and not that expansive so my last response saw to that. No backtracking, just elaborating a point that I still hold.

I think that we are talking about two different time periods of development. None of what I've said applies to a society with complete overproduction of goods, such a society would be the pinnacle of socialist achievements. What the OP was talking about was a specific type of labor in a socialist society.

Socialist society =/= overproduction

But overproduction is not something that will happen in the year 105105, long after everyone reading this has died. That sort of thinking is strangely prevalent on RevLeft of course - see also claims that things like central planning or the abolition of government over men are "utopias" - but overproduction is happening right now, under capitalism. Of course, overproduction is problematic for the M-C-M' cycle, but in socialism this cycle will not exist, and deliberate, systematic, planned overproduction will be enacted in order to cover any fluctuations in the desires of the population.


Also, quasi-market??? Where did you pull that from?

I wasn't directed at you as such, but a lot of people on RevLeft have a truly petit-bourgeois distaste for planning, and their "alternative proposals" always boil down to markets or simulations of markets.

[Spatula City]

The arts would most definitely exist-- especially in times of need. The 30s was a time of dire economic disaster and it was also the time when cinema entered a golden age-- largely because people needed the distraction more than ever.

You're not going to tear Mozart away from his piano because the crops need to be tended to, or because someone decided that society needs computer repairmen more than great composers.

It's probably not very likely that the entirety of soundcloud will be able to spend their entire lives in a music career, but I don't think this will be a problem when the music industry is no longer about creating pop culture icons instead of well, you know, music.

If making music was suddenly more about working hard at a craft and being respected as a person who is good at their job instead of being told you're a god who deserves having money and drugs and groupees thrown at you, the number of people actively seeking to become musicians might drop off considerably (and possibly also the number of people who are jerks).

The musicians who are serious about music tend to work hard at it, the ones who are largely content for it to be a hobby are happy if someone actually listens, and the ones who work primarily on their image and tweaking their sound to fit in with everyone else's so they can market themselves to the big starmaking record labels... suck. So you will only really lose the third category, and that's no loss at all.

Freed from the corrupting influence of profit, record labels would be able to promote acts based on actual artistic criteria as opposed to flashing lights, expensive clothes, loud thumping noises, etc.... and educational institutions could be proactive about cultivating an appreciation of the arts (as opposed to a thirst for wealth) in students.

Promotion is still important (Exit Through The Gift Shop was probably accurate) but there are ways to do that without turning into a Triumph Of The Will-style propaganda campaign touting your musician as something more than human. Canada and England have the CBC and BBC, which often promote domestic artists who would never be considered marketable by the mainstream US media machine, and they do it in a way that mostly focuses on their background, training, etc.

So yes, I think any sort of communist society, anarcho or not, would be a great boon to artists everywhere... MUCH better than the society we have now.

[MarxSchmarx]

This is one area where methodological individualism, and the old golden rule, shine.

We must begin with the acceptance that "worthy art" is distinct from the basic necessities of life such as food, shelter and medicine.

Any "artist" must contribute to these necessities; but beyond that, their contribution is essentially aesthetic, just as the contribution of, say, a software video game developer. Aesthetic contributions are important, but the problem is no one can agree on what makes a good video game, say, anymore than they can agree on a good piece of music.

Think of a form of art you despise - let's pretend it is something like Smooth Jazz performed by Kenny G. It strikes me, and I trust others, that Kenny G has just much as right to spend the bulk of his existence playing whatever he plays as, say, Beethoven or Tupac have spending their time composing. But Kenny G, Beethoven and Tupac must all contribute to the bare necessities of keeping society running. What those necesssities are must be enumerated by democratic decision making, but they would presumably include unpleasant tasks like keeping sewer systems in tact and butchering livestock as well as less onerous tasks like driving buses and designing electrical grids.

Methodological individualism and the golden rule will leave it up to people and their consumers to decide what to do in their free time - that is, outside the socially necessary productoin schema. If your hobby involves something that creates value for 10 million people (say you are a great documentary film maker) great. If your hobby creates value for your mother and your pet hamster, that's great too.

Once we get the labor involved to do the basic minimum of crap jobs to keep society running, there will be several billion individuals tinkering with their artistic vision. It is hard for me to imagine all of them will appeal to millions of others, but at the same time, my sense is it will be a flowering of artistic endeavors like we have never seen before once individuals are liberated from the needs to service the false demands of capitalistic value.

[ckaihatsu]

But Kenny G, Beethoven and Tupac must all contribute to the bare necessities of keeping society running. What those necesssities are must be enumerated by democratic decision making, but they would presumably include unpleasant tasks like keeping sewer systems in tact and butchering livestock as well as less onerous tasks like driving buses and designing electrical grids.




Once we get the labor involved to do the basic minimum of crap jobs to keep society running,


As a *finer point* of our politics I'll forward that we should be thinking 'full, hands-off automation' here, so that our mentality isn't one of 'Geniuses of smooth jazz having to muck around in the sewers' (heh), but rather one of 'Mechanizing and automating as much of society's common infrastructure as possible so that no crap jobs remain, so that more people may devote their lives to improving the smooth jazz genre as a whole.'

Perhaps there are unrealized technological paradigms for waste treatment that would bring us out of sewer-system maintenance *altogether*, and/or robotic slaughterhouses, self-driving buses, and new sources of clean power, respectively.

[Lily Briscoe]

Geniuses of smooth jazz

Lol'd

[ckaihatsu]

Lol'd


People *often* dedicate an entire post to respond positively to something I've written...(!)


= )

[falce e martello]

Correct me if I'm wrong: you're saying that artists, as their work does not produce wealth, should also spend 4-5 hours working on something "more useful"?
If so, I think some (if not all) punk rock musicians who make lots of money by selling records and still want anarchy must read this topic.


Take a look at Deviantart, Tumblr, Youtube, or Mixcloud to see oodles of people who make artistic work with no compensation even in a capitalist society.

I am aware of them as I'm part of them.
But we can't deny the fact that, even in capitalism, there are thousands of musicians, painters, artists in general who work as artists.

[Slavic]

Correct me if I'm wrong: you're saying that artists, as their work does not produce wealth, should also spend 4-5 hours working on something "more useful"?
If so, I think some (if not all) punk rock musicians who make lots of money by selling records and still want anarchy must read this topic.



I am aware of them as I'm part of them.
But we can't deny the fact that, even in capitalism, there are thousands of musicians, painters, artists in general who work as artists.

If work needs to be done to maintain the necessities of society, then this work will be done. If the necessities of society are being met, then there is room for artistic expression.

You are correct that there are thousands of musicians and artists in capitalists societies, as well as thousands of homeless and starving people.

[falce e martello]

If work needs to be done to maintain the necessities of society, then this work will be done. If the necessities of society are being met, then there is room for artistic expression.
.
And then when there's a need of work the circle restarts, right?

[cyu]

If there's no food left in the fridge, who in the family goes get groceries? Who in the family plays video games? How is this decided in your family?

If someone in your extended family is sick or elderly, who in the family goes take care of them? Who in the family plays video games? How is this decided in your extended family?

What if the same happens among your circle of friends? Your clan? Your tribe? Your parish? Your neighborhood?

[ckaihatsu]

If there's no food left in the fridge, who in the family goes get groceries?


Trick question, right -- ?

It's *catered*, of course.


x D

[falce e martello]

If there's no food left in the fridge, who in the family goes get groceries? Who in the family plays video games? How is this decided in your family?

If someone in your extended family is sick or elderly, who in the family goes take care of them? Who in the family plays video games? How is this decided in your extended family?

What if the same happens among your circle of friends? Your clan? Your tribe? Your parish? Your neighborhood?
If what you're saying with this post is "yes, the circle restarts", alright then.

[Slavic]

If there's no food left in the fridge, who in the family goes get groceries? Who in the family plays video games? How is this decided in your family?

If someone in your extended family is sick or elderly, who in the family goes take care of them? Who in the family plays video games? How is this decided in your extended family?

What if the same happens among your circle of friends? Your clan? Your tribe? Your parish? Your neighborhood?


As what I was going with. When things need to get done, growing food, fixing infrastructure, building homes, then things will get done.

Not to mention labor would be much more flexible since one does not have to worry about wage lose from cross training. If you had many different skills, you could apply all of them when they are required. In the current system you are less likley to switch your labor as you see fit since it will result in loss of wages.

[falce e martello]

As what I was going with. When things need to get done, growing food, fixing infrastructure, building homes, then things will get done.

Not to mention labor would be much more flexible since one does not have to worry about wage lose from cross training. If you had many different skills, you could apply all of them when they are required. In the current system you are less likley to switch your labor as you see fit since it will result in loss of wages.
What if my skills do NOT include the attitude to manual labor?
It seems like it's the only tipe of work someone can do in an anarchist society.

[ckaihatsu]

What if my skills do NOT include the attitude to manual labor?
It seems like it's the only tipe of work someone can do in an anarchist society.


*Not* being an anarchist I'll gladly point out that a post-capitalist material economy doesn't *have* to be constrained to communes, or to a localist-structured mode of post-commodity production.

( The following graphic is for the sake of illustration: )




Rotation system of work roles

http://s6.postimg.org/96tf7ovld/2403306060046342459_Gtc_Sd_P_fs.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/6pho0fbot/full/)


People may often be motivated to collectivize around projects that are "more than they can chew" -- meaning that the project would extend beyond their immediate environs and beyond any and all nearby persons.

Or, on the flipside, perhaps someone *wants* to work, not necessarily on just their own tasks / projects, but for *larger* efforts, and they aren't too particular about what the work is, just as long as it's socially beneficial.

In both cases a strictly localist approach won't be sufficient, and also in the case where someone doesn't want to do manual labor but it happens to be objectively required at that locale. Perhaps they're a very dedicated artist, and they insist that they would rather tend to their *own* artistic projects than better the collective good through any common-works project.

A post-capitalist political economy would need some relative *flexibility* in how it handles the supply and availability of liberated labor so that it isn't so easily bottlenecked by a too-organic approach to such.

The person advocating larger-scale initiatives would need more labor, beyond their own efforts, but -- with only localism -- would have no way to personally reciprocate for any broader cooperation that might be extended to their project.

The person who just wants to work could not receive any formal economic consideration for their efforts if they happened to wind up contributing much to a locality through their efforts.

The artist might turn out to be not *totally* socially intrasigent, but might objectively find better outlets and appreciation of whatever they *did* contribute, further outside of their immediate social environs.

I'll use these entirely realistic possibilities to suggest the following (from another thread):





[T]hese days, under capitalism, large-scale economic organization has been / is accomplished through the profit motive, with pooled (joint-stock) capital accumulations. But with that pushed aside society would not have anything 'more-macro' to find a common denominator for, if everyone can do just fine in their local environs and even enjoy their *personal* volitions. The *material* risk of saying 'Hey, let's go colonize Mars' -- or anything similarly ambitious -- would be *socially prohibitive* because of the lack of a large-scale social-material basis for its organization. This is where the 'labor credits' framework could come in, since it provides a socially objective verification of *past labor efforts*, regardless of its setting or social context.

This formalization and standardization of liberated labor would provide an economic 'language' and system of material accounting for the same -- it could lend a uniform approach to the provisioning of liberated labor that would fit into any locality- (geographically-) constrained planning, all the way up to any global-level centralized planning.





A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits




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

[cyu]

What if my skills do NOT include the attitude to manual labor?



There will of course also be elderly people in anarchist society, as well as those unable to walk, etc etc. It's not like any honest anarchists would force you to work, or do anything, for that matter. Likewise, no honest anarchists would prevent you from getting access to the things you need to survive.

The question might come up as to how the infirm would be able to get access to food if they have trouble getting around on their own. I would assume they have family and friends who support them, not to mention just plain nice people you might manage to find in capitalist society as well. The main difference between pro-capitalist and anti-capitalist society would be that in the anti-capitalist one, there would be no security guard to stop people from taking food (from wherever it happens to be) and bringing it to those who need it.