"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

[Kingbruh]

Hey guys, can anyone tell me tell me what "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" means, and how it works? I'm still learning about Communism but I really need to know how this works before anything.:confused:

[Creative Destruction]

Following the proletariats' defeat of capitalism, a new classless society would emerge based on the idea: 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs'. In such a society, land, industry, labour and wealth would be shared between all people. All people would have the right to an education, and class structures would disappear. Harmony would reign, and the state would simply 'wither away'.

In a communist society, you would work into the social product according to your ability. That is, whatever skill you have to offer, how much ever work you can do, etc. But, on the same token, society would ensure that the individual's needs are met. Housing, food, recreation, the ability to grow as a human being.

In reality, since the Communist Manifesto was basically a call to arms, it simplifies things. Marx had a much more detailed vision in the Critique of the Gotha Program, based on a society that has negated capitalism:


From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion -- namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.

The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.

Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.

Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

[cyu]

From a purely anarchist point of view, it's basically "Make what you want, take what you want." As for ensuring a society like that works without requiring violence, then handling what people want is more a question for psychologists and social psychologists, rather than a question for those pretending to be economists these days. Of course, in the context of capitalism, if economists can be corrupted, so can any other profession - so the system that facilitates corruption must be eliminated first.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It essentially means the above - you give what you can, you take what you need.

The 'giving' applies to the production of goods and provision of services: in a society free of mandatory 'work', the theory is that people are freed to release their creative potential and thus, rather than being tied down to a single career (unless that is what they wish), they are free to pursue their creative talents in a number of areas that are needed and desired by others.

The 'taking' part applies to your consumption. Whilst the wild potential gains in living standards made possible by latter-day capitalism (i'm thinking post-WW2) and its consumer identity make it necessary for us to reconsider ideas of 'needs' and 'wants' from a Marxist perspective, the basic idea that, if you contribute what you can to society then you should be allowed to take - reasonably - what you want, is a strong idea and probably one of the few 'blueprint' ideas that Marx gave us that is most supportable.

In a society free of subjugation to work, serfdom/slavery and waged labour, the idea of 'from each according to his/her ability, to each according to her/his need' is a powerful one that should be supported as the philosophical base for a better society.

[Kingbruh]

Thanks guys, so basically what I understood is that, if you work the best you can, you take what you need. In order to have this, Altruism should be followed, correct? Without Altruism what's stopping someone from taking more than they need?

[Cliff Paul]

Thanks guys, so basically what I understood is that, if you work the best you can, you take what you need. In order to have this, Altruism should be followed, correct? Without Altruism what's stopping someone from taking more than they need?

Well under communism the productive forces in society would probably be at a level where everything would essentially be post-scarcity. Also, without the commodity fetishism of a market society, things like hoarding and unnecessary accumulation would probably cease to be an issue.

[Creative Destruction]

Thanks guys, so basically what I understood is that, if you work the best you can, you take what you need. In order to have this, Altruism should be followed, correct? Without Altruism what's stopping someone from taking more than they need?

When people "take more than they need" it's usually related to economics and social psychology. We have a system right now that encourages the mentality that you should take more and more, even if it isn't due to you. It would take a change in social psychology, and thus a change in the underlying logic of the system, to combat this.

Regardless, if something is not scarce and people are taking what they feel like they need -- again, this "need" isn't bound by any particular thing, it's an individual sense of need -- then there is no issue. In Marx's "lower phase," the rule governing scarce resources is that you get to draw from those resources in equal part what you've put in. This would prevent any particular person from hoarding a scarce resource, until we've been able to make it not scarce anymore.

[cyu]

what's stopping someone from taking more than they need?

Maybe they will. Do you believe people living in a society where the media is funded by consumer advertising would desire different things from a society where the media is not funded by consumer advertising?

What makes a person want something?

In any case, I'd like to clarify what the word "altruism" means. This is how I would break it down:

Altruism: Help others, hurt yourself.
Selfishness: Hurt others, help yourself.
Cooperation: Help others, help yourself.
Stupidity: Hurt others, hurt yourself.

There's a fine line between selfishness and stupidity - often short-term selfish behavior leads to long-term stupidity, as the society degenerates into tit-for-tat attacks.

There's also a fine line between altruism and cooperation. If people derive personal pleasure (ie. psychological benefits) out of helping others, is that cooperation or altruism? It would seem some moral and religious norms have evolved in order to turn what on the surface may appear to be materialist altruistic behavior, into cooperative behavior in terms of personal pride and satisfaction - after all, after basic biological health is satisfied, what else is left but psychological satisfaction?

[Creative Destruction]

Altruism: Help others, hurt yourself.

this can be altruistic, but isn't necessarily was altruism is.

[Kingbruh]

Also, without the commodity fetishism of a market society, things like hoarding and unnecessary accumulation would probably cease to be an issue. What is commodity fetishism?:confused:

[Kingbruh]

Altruism: Help others, hurt yourself.

I thought Altruism was the belief that man should help fellow man?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think it's obvious that no society is going to work through 100% voluntary participation.

The distinction between genuine 'needs' and wanton greed will always need to be governed in some way. The difference between current society - where ability to pay largely governs consumption, and ability to pay for many luxuries is generally limited to a small group of people in the world - and a future communist society is that the mechanics of this governance would, in a future communist society, use as little coercion as possible and, where coercion is needed, to eliminate greed for example, it would hopefully take the democratic form of social or community action, rather than some abstract 'rule of law' decided in far away lands by people who know nothing of your own personal situation and simply 'rule' over you.

[ckaihatsu]

I think it's obvious that no society is going to work through 100% voluntary participation.

The distinction between genuine 'needs' and wanton greed will always need to be governed in some way. The difference between current society - where ability to pay largely governs consumption, and ability to pay for many luxuries is generally limited to a small group of people in the world - and a future communist society is that the mechanics of this governance would, in a future communist society, use as little coercion as possible and, where coercion is needed, to eliminate greed for example, it would hopefully take the democratic form of social or community action, rather than some abstract 'rule of law' decided in far away lands by people who know nothing of your own personal situation and simply 'rule' over you.


'Greed' is an abstraction and can't be accounted for as any kind of *inherent* human characteristic.

I happen to think that avaricious- / hoarding-type behavior would be self-limiting in the social environment of communism since one could not 'own' anything that one could not actively *possess*. If one leaves a resort-type dwelling and returns to one's more-permanent abode, that person could not lay claim to the resort dwelling from afar -- anyone who's physically there could simply occupy that space (perhaps removing any of the person's possessions there to some kind of storage facility).

[cyu]

If you believe people can be brainwashed into believing in religions you don't agree with, then they can be brainwashed into being greedy.

If you believe people can be brainwashed into supporting politics you don't agree with, then they can brainwashed into being greedy.

If you believe people can be brainwashed into believing men should have short hair and mini-skirts look better on women, then they can brainwashed into being greedy.

[Tim Redd]

From a purely anarchist point of view, it's basically "Make what you want, take what you want."

This is a selfish individualist bourgeois point of view. Socialism is where people produce what you can and you have a right to at least what you produce. Communism is produce to the best of your ability and take what you need.

The quoted point of view fails on both the socialist and communist imperatives.

Radically, when one thinks in depth about the Socialist principle - produce what you can and you can take at least what you produce - there actually needs to be an adjustment. There are costs, expenditures of value required by the society as a whole, that must be paid for in addition to the amount you worked for. Indeed much if not most of these costs are what are required for the individual to make the contributions that generate. In other words receiving what you produce shouldn't be taken too literally.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Thanks guys, so basically what I understood is that, if you work the best you can, you take what you need. In order to have this, Altruism should be followed, correct? Without Altruism what's stopping someone from taking more than they need?

Why would you want to take more than you need? And I mean "need" in the very broad sense in which Marx used the term - communism is not some kind of universal poorhouse where only the bare minimum of physical needs is satisfied. Let's say I want to eat ten bananas. Why would I take eleven? I don't want to eat that extra banana, so all I'm left with is a slightly sweet and alcoholic scent as that one banana turns to inedible mush.

In capitalism, people buy more than they need because they're afraid of scarcity, or more often because they want to demonstrate their status. After all, Joe from down the street can only buy ten bananas, the poor fellow. He should have invested in education like me so he can buy eleven bananas then wonder why his life feels so empty. Obviously neither is a factor in communism - I mean, scarcity and status, not the crushing sense of emptiness. Already in capitalism, the productive forces have developed to the extent that food has to be destroyed so the prices can remain high. (There is starvation in the capitalist society - quite a lot of it! - but it's a matter of distribution, not production.) And in communism, anyone can take eleven bananas. Or twelve.

[cyu]

This is a selfish individualist bourgeois point of view.

Depends on your view of human nature. If you think it is natural for people to murder each other, then you don't believe anarchism can work if there aren't police guarding them. If you think it is natural for people to be greedy, then you don't believe anarchism can work if people can take whatever they want. If you believe it is natural for people to be lazy, then you don't believe anarchism can work if there is no forced labor.

It goes back to the question of human nature. Does it exist, and if so, what is it? I would say there is in fact human nature, but that humans are not naturally brutish, violence, greedy, nor lazy - I would say that human nature is also not naturally altruistic, peaceful, generous, nor industrious. Instead I would say that humans are easily brainwashed by the society they live in. If your parents raised you to believe that only deserve to be happy when you win, and that you should be unhappy when you lose, then those will be the emotions you feel when they happen. In short, the characteristics many people assign to "human nature" are not natural, but rather there is a more natural underlying aspect of human nature: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning

...but beyond what people are born with, there is something else. It is called society, culture. This exists outside of our genes. These are the ideas that are passed from person to person, generation to generation. These are responsible for both greed and generosity, laziness and drive. These ideas evolve just like DNA evolves in other animals. Once communication becomes possible between individuals, then the ideas in their culture suddenly evolve much faster. This is why humans don't evolve wings, but evolve airplanes instead. This is why humans evolve medicine much faster than biological disease immunity. This is why humans don't require as much biological evolution of cooperation, since it evolves in the culture much faster.

[Cliff Paul]

What is commodity fetishism?:confused:

There's a thread about it that's not too old, so you might want to look through that, but I'll try to explain it satisfactorily.

Basically, it's the phenomenon where by objects in a capitalist society have power/value which are seen as intrinsic to the objects themselves. So say you go to the liquor store and are looking at the various alcoholic beverages - a bottle of vodka is worth so many bottles of wine or a bottle of rum is worth so many beers, etc. In a capitalist society, every market interaction that takes place is mediated through "things". The result of the mediation is that it disguises the actual relations of productions and the true social relations of capitalist society. When we compare the value of alcoholic beverages on a shelf, we tend to see these commodities as objects with intrinsic value, rather than see the social relations behind that commodity - which is what ultimately gives it value.

Anyways that's the traditional Marxist explanation of commodity fetishism (or at least part of it) but the interconnectedness of every concept in Marxism makes it hard to explain any main idea sufficiently without devolving into a Kapital length polemic.

Admittedly, I probably shouldn't have used the term commodity fetishism in my previous post, since I wasn't really writing about it in the traditional Marxist sense. In my post I was referring more to how commodities have social values / social qualities and are used to express an individual's rank, prestige, or individuality.

[ckaihatsu]

Obviously neither is a factor in communism - I mean, scarcity and status, not the crushing sense of emptiness.


The latter is actually a *physiological* thing -- try some sea salt or coffee....


Sole (so-lay) -- a health plan for those who can afford unrefined sea salt

http://www.revleft.com/vb/sole-so-lay-t192551/index.html


Regarding *status*, I think that there would still be 'society' in communism, in the sense of what people do with their lives and how they relate to each other on the basis of that, and other life-y things. In that sense there could certainly be 'status', especially in the context of whatever major social happenings are going on. (A new sport becomes popular, or manned flight outside the solar system -- whatever.)





...but beyond what people are born with, there is something else. It is called society, culture. This exists outside of our genes. These are the ideas that are passed from person to person, generation to generation. These are responsible for both greed and generosity, laziness and drive. These ideas evolve just like DNA evolves in other animals. Once communication becomes possible between individuals, then the ideas in their culture suddenly evolve much faster. This is why humans don't evolve wings, but evolve airplanes instead. This is why humans evolve medicine much faster than biological disease immunity. This is why humans don't require as much biological evolution of cooperation, since it evolves in the culture much faster.


Ideas are the *dependent* variable, not the *independent* one -- it's not like ideas are the cause of slavery, etc., nor do ideas themselves precipitate greed, laziness, drive, culture, airplanes, or medicine.

If they did we could simply ask why, then, weren't airplanes invented much *earlier* in human history since, according to this, all that would be needed would be the idea of 'wanting to fly'.

Historical materialism, etc.

[cyu]

I think we're talking about different subjects with respect to ideas. I was referring to emotional ideas with respect to classical conditioning.

When a child is born, the child:

1. Has no concept of property.
2. Does not feel disgusted by "dirty" things.
3. Does not fear zombies, heights, tigers, or terrorists.
4. Does not care about winning or losing.

It is through conditioning, partly from parents, partly from the rest of society, that the following things are ingrained into the child:

1. Feeling indignant when their "property" has been violated. Become uneasy about violating "other people's property."
2. Are taught that various things are unhealthy and feel fear and disgusted by them, sometimes backed by scientific evidence, sometimes not.
3. Develop fears and phobias.
4. Feel a rush of happiness at winning. Feel angry or depressed at losing.

[Tim Redd]

Originally Posted by cyu http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2824096#post2824096)
From a purely anarchist point of view, it's basically "Make what you want, take what you want."
This is a selfish individualist bourgeois point of view. Socialism is where people produce what you can and you have a right to at least what you produce. Communism is [to] produce to the best of your ability and take what you need.

[The following is to clarify/correct my earlier response.]

Socialism contrary to what cyu claims above, isn't about just producing whatever you want. Producers in a socialist economy should produce according the overall economic plan for society. And then in general, you have a right to control, or use an amount of socially produced products/services that is relative to what others have produced for the economy.

As I stated earlier:

Radically, when one thinks in depth about the Socialist principle - produce what you can and you can take at least what you produce - there actually needs to be an adjustment. There are costs, expenditures of value required by the society as a whole, that must be paid for in addition to the amount you worked for. Indeed much if not most of these costs are what are required for the individual to make the contributions that generate. In other words receiving what you produce shouldn't be taken too literally.

[cyu]

I remember a reddit comment along the lines that the more you study psychology, the less you believe in free will. After all, like all sciences, psychology studies (if A happens) (then B results). However, when applied to human behavior, it removes choice - the more scientifically accurate you are, the more sure that people will "choose" B, thus free will no longer has a place in what you're studying.

On the other hand, there is another definition of "free will" which isn't really about choice - it's being allowed to do what you want to do. This may be where psychology, anarchism, and socialism intersect. How do you make people "want" to do what is necessary for socialism? If people don't *want* to do what is necessary for socialism, then you don't have anarchism, but more than that, you won't have a stable society. In fact, most revolutionaries get a partial crash-course in psychology anyway - otherwise they usually don't succeed in their goals.

[Tim Redd]

What is commodity fetishism?:confused:

Commodity worship. Being enraptured about the objects created in the production process. Marx speaks about it in his major work Capital.

[oneday]

Commodity worship. Being enraptured about the objects created in the production process. Marx speaks about it in his major work Capital.

What's missing from this definition is how the commodification of the products of labor obscures the social relations that are the basis of the capitalist mode of production. The world appears as neutral buying and selling of commodities which have taken on a life of their own. This obfuscates the domination of the possessing class, among other things.



As against this, the commodity-form, and the value-relation of the products of labour within which it appears, have absolutely no connection with the physical nature of the commodity and the material relations arising out of this. It is nothing but the definite social relation between men themselves which assumes here, for them, the fantastic form of a relation between things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy we must take flight into the misty realm of religion. There the products of the human brain appear as autonomous figures endowed with a life of their own, which enter into relations both with each other and with the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men's hands. I call this the fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour as soon as they are produced as commodities, and is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities.

[Loony Le Fist]

As far as food is concerned, the US has that handled. We produce enough food to feed the world over. Yet, as Xhar-Xhar Binks (the artist formerly known as 870) pointed out, we throw food away.

When I worked at the grocery store, they would throw away whole cooked chickens into locked wastebins. At a department store I worked at, shoes were spray painted and tossed in the trash. All of this done for the preservation of the almighty dollar.

[BIXX]

The distinction between genuine 'needs' and wanton greed will always need to be governed in some way.

Where is the line drawn for wanton greed? What is decided as a need? How much grey area is there? Most of the shit I want I don't need- is that wanton greed?

Who is in charge of regulating desire vs necessity? What about reasonable desire vs unreasonable desire?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

As far as food is concerned, the US has that handled. We produce enough food to feed the world over. Yet, as Xhar-Xhar Binks (the artist formerly known as 870) pointed out, we throw food away.

When I worked at the grocery store, they would throw away whole cooked chickens into locked wastebins. At a department store I worked at, shoes were spray painted and tossed in the trash. All of this done for the preservation of the almighty dollar.

I was actually talking about the EU in that post. Because of the insistence of the French bourgeoisie, the EU has a set of agricultural subsidies - mostly to such destitute farmers as the Dukes of Cornwall and Westminster. These result in massive agricultural overproduction and, to keep the agricultural prices high, much of what is produced is stored or destroyed.

Now this nicely demonstrates two things. First, that government regulation of the economy, when done by the bourgeois state, will benefit only the bourgeoisie (and maybe landlords to the extent that they exist as a separate class); it means superprofits for the bourgeoisie while workers starve. So don't fall for the old bromide that the bourgeois government only needs an "enabling act" (actual term used by Militant back in the day) to sort everything out.

And second, despite claims of "efficiency" capitalism means monstrous waste in material terms. In terms of profits, of course, capitalism is the most efficient system there is, but you can't eat money, you can't drink money, and you can't take shelter under money. Capitalism has given us the productive forces that can completely satisfy human need. But it binds them to relations of production that mean profit takes priority over need. I think the first thing a Socialist United States of Europe would do is send those mountains of butter and sugar to the starving of the world.

[BIXX]

[The following is to clarify/correct my earlier response.]

Socialism contrary to what cyu claims above, isn't about just producing whatever you want. Producers in a socialist economy should produce according the overall economic plan for society. And then in general, you have a right to control, or use an amount of socially produced products/services that is relative to what others have produced for the economy.

As I stated earlier:

So, my question then is what to do with people who refuse to produce? What if they don't refuse to produce, bit just refuse to produce what they are told?

Do they starve? Are they imprisoned?

In what way is that better than capitalism?

[oneday]

So, my question then is what to do with people who refuse to produce? What if they don't refuse to produce, bit just refuse to produce what they are told?

Do they starve? Are they imprisoned?


Why would anyone have to be told to produce anything? There could be a list of millions of different jobs to do with estimated labor needs for each based on the economic plan for society in your locale, choose a few and do them. If not, you will probably end up getting bored eventually.

[ckaihatsu]

I think it's obvious that no society is going to work through 100% voluntary participation.

The distinction between genuine 'needs' and wanton greed will always need to be governed in some way. The difference between current society - where ability to pay largely governs consumption, and ability to pay for many luxuries is generally limited to a small group of people in the world - and a future communist society is that the mechanics of this governance would, in a future communist society, use as little coercion as possible and, where coercion is needed, to eliminate greed for example, it would hopefully take the democratic form of social or community action, rather than some abstract 'rule of law' decided in far away lands by people who know nothing of your own personal situation and simply 'rule' over you.


---





I think it's obvious that no society is going to work through 100% voluntary participation.





Where is the line drawn for wanton greed? What is decided as a need? How much grey area is there? Most of the shit I want I don't need- is that wanton greed?

Who is in charge of regulating desire vs necessity? What about reasonable desire vs unreasonable desire?


Exactly.

All of these questions you've raised, PC, are *direct implications* from any kind of 'governance' -- that's why it's inherently problematic, and unnecessary, and should *not* be implemented.

(The other reason is because 'governance' implies 'those who administrate over governance', which tends to imply *specialization* -- most likely 'administration' for 'governance' will tend to be / become specialized, which would then effectively be a privileged class or caste distinction in relation to everyone else.)

Really the *point* -- so as to obviate 'governance' -- is to match up willing and available liberated-labor, to those types of production that are most wanted, on the whole, *and* to make it so that participants would receive reciprocal proportionate liberated-labor efforts, in turn. (That way those with less-popular wants / desires would necessarily have to be more *personally* involved in some way, since the scope of the endeavor is relatively small-scale. And on the flipside, *more*-common, *mass* projects -- as for food -- would only require relatively *nominal* effort from any given person since the support and participation could be very broad-based.)

[ckaihatsu]

[The following is to clarify/correct my earlier response.]

Socialism contrary to what cyu claims above, isn't about just producing whatever you want. Producers in a socialist economy should produce according the overall economic plan for society. And then in general, you have a right to control, or use an amount of socially produced products/services that is relative to what others have produced for the economy.

As I stated earlier:





So, my question then is what to do with people who refuse to produce? What if they don't refuse to produce, bit just refuse to produce what they are told?

Do they starve? Are they imprisoned?

In what way is that better than capitalism?





Why would anyone have to be told to produce anything? There could be a list of millions of different jobs to do with estimated labor needs for each based on the economic plan for society in your locale, choose a few and do them. If not, you will probably end up getting bored eventually.


Sorry, but I don't find this to be adequate -- the 'rock star' problematic applies here, where many could just say 'Yay, socialism! Now I get to only play music and live the lifestyle I want from whatever's being produced!'

I agree with PC that, from what's given here, there are those who could simply add their 'wants' to 'the overall economic plan for society' -- it could even be coordinated on a fairly large scale among thousands of people -- and then 'use an amount of socially produced products/services that is relative to what others have produced for the economy.'

[BIXX]

Why would anyone have to be told to produce anything? There could be a list of millions of different jobs to do with estimated labor needs for each based on the economic plan for society in your locale, choose a few and do them. If not, you will probably end up getting bored eventually.

I have numerous hobbies that are only consumptive I doubt I'd get bored not producing shit though.

Self-defense training, shooting, video games, other shit... If that could be my entire life that's definitely all I'd ever do. I don't mean this to say capitalism is better (it suffers this problem too) but that I have a hard tone seeing the real benefit to me having what y'all call communism.

[oneday]

Self-defense training, shooting, video games, other shit... If that could be my entire life that's definitely all I'd ever do. I don't mean this to say capitalism is better (it suffers this problem too) but that I have a hard tone seeing the real benefit to me having what y'all call communism.

Well, I used to be exactly like that too. Eventually I found there is a certain joy in producing things for other people that capitalism tries its best to kill.

There's always being a self-defense or shooting instructor, or creating new video games. Although I definitely don't fault anyone for not wanting to participate in the current system in any form.

[ckaihatsu]

Well, I used to be exactly like that too. Eventually I found there is a certain joy in producing things for other people that capitalism tries its best to kill.

There's always being a self-defense or shooting instructor, or creating new video games. Although I definitely don't fault anyone for not wanting to participate in the current system in any form.


Political re-education, with the goal of groupthink. Great.

(Note that you're assuming a certain amount of political *authority* here, with this action.)

[ckaihatsu]

Really the *point* -- so as to obviate 'governance' -- is to match up willing and available liberated-labor, to those types of production that are most wanted, on the whole, *and* to make it so that participants would receive reciprocal proportionate liberated-labor efforts, in turn. (That way those with less-popular wants / desires would necessarily have to be more *personally* involved in some way, since the scope of the endeavor is relatively small-scale. And on the flipside, *more*-common, *mass* projects -- as for food -- would only require relatively *nominal* effort from any given person since the support and participation could be very broad-based.)


A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits




[I] have developed a model that [...] 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.

This method would both *empower* and *limit* the position of liberated labor since a snapshot of labor performed -- more-or-less the same quantity of labor-power available continuously, going forward -- would be certain, known, and *finite*, and not subject to any kinds of abstraction- (financial-) based extrapolations or stretching. Since all resources would be in the public domain no one would be at a loss for the basics of life, or at least for free access to providing for the basics of life for themselves. And, no political power or status, other than that represented by possession of actual labor credits, could be enjoyed by liberated labor. It would be free to represent itself on an individual basis or could associate and organize on its own political terms, within the confines of its empowerment by the sum of pooled labor credits in possession.




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


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'



http://s6.postimg.org/nfpj758c0/150221_labor_credits_framework_for_communist_su.jp g (http://postimg.org/image/p7ii21rot/full/)

[ckaihatsu]

Lol, wtf? What action?


What would *you* call it, then -- ? 'Career counseling' -- ?

You're talking to this person under the aegis of *revolutionary politics* and making it sound like they need to change their ways. It's a slippery-slope from there to social coercion, depending on the larger political climate.

[BIXX]

Well, I used to be exactly like that too. Eventually I found there is a certain joy in producing things for other people that capitalism tries its best to kill.

There's always being a self-defense or shooting instructor, or creating new video games. Although I definitely don't fault anyone for not wanting to participate in the current system in any form.

But the issue at hand here is production- whether or not it takes a nicer face we end up at the issue that people, for a y society to work, requires production, with those who don't produce by choice being attacked/imprisoned. It'll create just as much fear associated with not working as there is now, under capitalism.

[oneday]

What would *you* call it, then -- ? 'Career counseling' -- ?

You're talking to this person under the aegis of *revolutionary politics* and making it sound like they need to change their ways. It's a slippery-slope from there to social coercion, depending on the larger political climate.

I'd just call it bullshiting in a discussion forum I guess. But you're right it probably doesn't belong in Theory forum, I was just mentioning my own experience as it related to PC, cause I've feel the same way in some respects.

[ckaihatsu]

I'd just call it bullshiting in a discussion forum I guess. But you're right it probably doesn't belong in Theory forum, I was just mentioning my own experience as it related to PC, cause I've feel the same way in some respects.


Hey, I hear ya, and I know you didn't mean anything by it -- I'm just looking at it from a strictly *political* standpoint and noting that (in my opinion) it's not good to mix the personal with the political, if at all possible, because of this issue of 'authority'.

What's more important in revolutionary politics is class consciousness in general, and 'getting everyone on the same page', whatever the best page may happen to be for any given moment in time.

I'm critical of 'groupthink' because we're not doing anything for the politics and the struggle by either deliberately or inadvertently building up sectarian-minded cults. (Not an accusation.)

[ckaihatsu]

(To elaborate, the 'action' you took with PC could be considered 'lifestylism' since you were addressing their personal life choices within a larger *political* context.)

[BIXX]

Also, oneday, the thing you propose- folks will just produce because they enjoy it- still holds the same, "but if you don't there will be consequences".

Have you ever tried to make money off of something you enjoy, oneday?

[oneday]

Also, oneday, the thing you propose- folks will just produce because they enjoy it- still holds the same, "but if you don't there will be consequences".


But the issue at hand here is production- whether or not it takes a nicer face we end up at the issue that people, for a y society to work, requires production, with those who don't produce by choice being attacked/imprisoned. It'll create just as much fear associated with not working as there is now, under capitalism.

It seems to be Marx's belief when he wrote the "From each according to.." line was that the division between "work" and "life" that capitalist society perpetuates is similar to the other socially created divisions - class, race, etc. These divisions would eventually be abolished as the capitalist system is finally phased out completely. Therefore there would no longer be the necessity for a coercive state to make sure people produce what was needed. Labor would be a "prime want" of life and people would simply do what needed to be done to keep society functioning.



In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!


That "work is hell" is not an eternal truth does not seem too outrageous if you consider all of things humans have held as eternal truths in the past. When labor-living environments are made for humans instead of profits I don't see why coercive institutions should remain eternal, either.



Have you ever tried to make money off of something you enjoy, oneday?
Well if you really want me to answer, PM me and I will, not much point of it on the Theory board.

[Tim Redd]

Political re-education, with the goal of groupthink. Great.

(Note that you're assuming a certain amount of political *authority* here, with this action.)

You and pc take freedom as doing just what the heck you want. But how about contributing to the resources that make your leisurely activities possible? You want the goodies, but feel you don't have a darn reason to do anything that makes the goodies possible. If you don't want to contribute then don't take stuff. That gets to much of what underlies contribute what you can and take what you need.

Especially when taken from a perspective that Marxism is about abolishing classes and class privileges. Here you have one group living off the labor and effort of others. Further Marxism and communism per Lenin is about abolishing exploitation and oppression of the masses. If you want to benefit off the labor of everyone else and not contribute then what are you are doing other than exploiting and oppressing the rest of us, while we contribute to the best of our ability.

[ckaihatsu]

You and pc take freedom as doing just what the heck you want. But how about contributing to the resources that make your leisurely activities possible? You want the goodies, but feel you don't have a darn reason to do anything that makes the goodies possible. If you don't want to contribute then don't take stuff. That gets to much of what underlies contribute what you can and take what you need.


Is this related to anything from the thread -- ?

And what *context* is this situated in? If you're talking about the present context of *capitalism*, then I would first like to get some of that 'peace dividend' that was promised back in the '90s, among other things that the world has already produced the resources for. (In other words this argument, directed at *anyone*, is a non-starter, due to capitalism's inherent wastefulness and inequality on a gargantuan scale.)

And if the context if that of a potential future *socialist* society, then anyone's 'activity' is moot since we're not even there yet.

Are you in the running to get elected for the position of 'Dad' -- ? Fathers' Day *is* coming up, so maybe *that's* it...(!)

[BIXX]

You and pc take freedom as doing just what the heck you want. But how about contributing to the resources that make your leisurely activities possible? You want the goodies, but feel you don't have a darn reason to do anything that makes the goodies possible. If you don't want to contribute then don't take stuff. That gets to much of what underlies contribute what you can and take what you need.

Especially when taken from a perspective that Marxism is about abolishing classes and class privileges. Here you have one group living off the labor and effort of others. Further Marxism and communism per Lenin is about abolishing exploitation and oppression of the masses. If you want to benefit off the labor of everyone else and not contribute then what are you are doing other than exploiting and oppressing the rest of us, while we contribute to the best of our ability.

Yeah, so, I'm just not about work. When you keep the logic of work you keep the logic of capital.

[Invader Zim]

So, my question then is what to do with people who refuse to produce? What if they don't refuse to produce, bit just refuse to produce what they are told?

Do they starve? Are they imprisoned?

In what way is that better than capitalism?

Well, how do you define 'produce'? Does produce mean only those who till the soil and work at the plant? Can a person not provide an equally worthwhile service by producing art? Training people? Studying stuff? Entertaining people?

I'm not saying that people not wanting to do anything would not pose a problem, but with a complete overhaul of education and accessibility, and with a totally different ethos to society, is this problem going to be a major one?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't think people not wanting to do anything would present a problem to anyone but themselves, really. Today, the chief determinant of productivity in material terms is not living labour but dead labour. If the bucket excavator breaks down, no amount of people with pickaxes are going to replace it. The same would be the case under socialism, as socialism is modern, objectively socialised large-scale industrial production run for the satisfaction of human need. If someone doesn't want to work, OK, whatever.

But as has already been said, most people will probably want to do something. In fact I can't think of a better way to kill someone's motivation than to put a gun against their head and go you're going to work otherwise we'll drag you off to the socialist reeducation camp :3.

[ckaihatsu]

Well, how do you define 'produce'? Does produce mean only those who till the soil and work at the plant? Can a person not provide an equally worthwhile service by producing art? Training people? Studying stuff? Entertaining people?

I'm not saying that people not wanting to do anything would not pose a problem, but with a complete overhaul of education and accessibility, and with a totally different ethos to society, is this problem going to be a major one?





I don't think people not wanting to do anything would present a problem to anyone but themselves, really. Today, the chief determinant of productivity in material terms is not living labour but dead labour. If the bucket excavator breaks down, no amount of people with pickaxes are going to replace it. The same would be the case under socialism, as socialism is modern, objectively socialised large-scale industrial production run for the satisfaction of human need. If someone doesn't want to work, OK, whatever.

But as has already been said, most people will probably want to do something. In fact I can't think of a better way to kill someone's motivation than to put a gun against their head and go you're going to work otherwise we'll drag you off to the socialist reeducation camp :3.


It's not a question of 'If-a-socialist-society-can-get-by-with-just-a-minority-producing-for-the-rest', it's more a matter of 'How-collectivist-could-it-be'.

I have no doubt that if capitalism were overthrown tomorrow it would take less than a month for everyone to become totally self-sufficient for all basic needs, on a household-by-household basis, given current technologies.

If we were to use *that* as a baseline, there would be hardly any collectivism over production but at least there'd be no more exploitation and oppression.

So the question becomes 'How much mass production should be retained, for efficiencies of effort, and what would be the political economy for that kind of collectivism, whatever degree it should be -- or may happen to be?'

So we can see that as soon as *any* degree of collectivism over (common) production is involved, however slight, the 'ethos' is unavoidably impacted by the question of 'Who's actively contributing to the common production, and who isn't?'

Even more complicated, then, is the question of 'Where should collectivism be directed towards', since technology, especially, *shouldn't* remain static while so much potential exists for improving the situation of humanity, as in both scientific and artistic explorations.

Objectively there *is* the dimension of the *scale*, or *scope*, of one's efforts -- they may be very personal, or very public.

[Tim Redd]

Is this related to anything from the thread -- ?

If you read more carefully you'd see the connection. I'm not confining myself to your limited cognitive abilities.

[ckaihatsu]

If you read more carefully you'd see the connection. I'm not confining myself to your limited cognitive abilities.


You were addressing me *personally*, so it's an implied accusation of some sort, but you're not clear on what the timeframe is, so your "connection" is objectively ambiguous at best.

[BIXX]

If you read more carefully you'd see the connection. I'm not confining myself to your limited cognitive abilities.

"I am omnicient and you are stupid- your stupidity limits my omniscience. I will not allow this."

Man you sound like my egoist phase

Since when did you become such a reactionary

[BIXX]

Disclaimer I have no idea what the statement you made was about, Redd, it just sounded really dickish.

[ckaihatsu]

Disclaimer I have no idea what the statement you made was about Redd, it just sounded really dickish.


Are you talking to me now? Which statement are you referencing?

[BIXX]

Are you talking to me now? Which statement are you referencing?

I was talking about the the way Tim Redd was talking to you. I thought what he said was shitty.

[ckaihatsu]

I was talking about the the way Tim Redd was talking to you. I thought what he said was shitty.


Yeah, I don't know what to make of it -- it's a sudden change in tone. We've been on-the-same-page in the past, regarding a-dialectical approaches to materialist analysis, like 'dynamics' and cognitive frameworks.

[ckaihatsu]

So we can see that as soon as *any* degree of collectivism over (common) production is involved, however slight, the 'ethos' is unavoidably impacted by the question of 'Who's actively contributing to the common production, and who isn't?'


I'll give a concrete example here -- let's say that someone really enjoys playing video games and that they're actually somewhat *decent* at several of them.

They make screencasts (video-grabs) of their games and post them for the world to access (as on YouTube).

Should this be considered 'contributing to society', or not -- ? (One could argue that others could learn-from, and be entertained, by these videos.)

I'm of the position that there *has* to be some way of *formalizing* what liberated work-effort is, and what isn't -- if it's really 'socially necessary' then that means that *someone*, somewhere, has to formally *request* it, at a minimum. What's more, a person requesting or 'demanding' production that necessitates someone else's labor should then be willing to *commit* some of their *own* labor, in kind, as a social gesture of cooperation, to show the person that they're not simply getting 'stuck' with a task that mainly benefits others.

This is where the 'labor credits framework' at post #35 would be relevant.

[Tim Redd]

Hey guys, can anyone tell me tell me what "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" means, and how it works? I'm still learning about Communism but I really need to know how this works before anything.:confused:

One thing I'll note is that while ""From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a key goal of the communist struggle, there is also the key goal to eliminate all exploitation and oppression as Lenin makes the case for in his work 'What Is to Be Done?'.

[Tim Redd]

Yeah, I don't know what to make of it -- it's a sudden change in tone. We've been on-the-same-page in the past, regarding a-dialectical approaches to materialist analysis, like 'dynamics' and cognitive frameworks.

For starters, I criticized aspects of both your and pc's view on this topic, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs".

On this topic/thread and other topics/threads I disagree with your stance in some, or all aspects. And on other topics/threads I have no disagreement with your, or pc's view. So I'm not saying things to simply attack you, but rather I'm making a point for how I see the issue(s).

[Tim Redd]

I'll give a concrete example here -- let's say that someone really enjoys playing video games and that they're actually somewhat *decent* at several of them.

They make screencasts (video-grabs) of their games and post them for the world to access (as on YouTube).

Should this be considered 'contributing to society', or not -- ? (One could argue that others could learn-from, and be entertained, by these videos.)

I'm of the position that there *has* to be some way of *formalizing* what liberated work-effort is, and what isn't -- if it's really 'socially necessary' then that means that *someone*, somewhere, has to formally *request* it, at a minimum.

What is necessary doesn't necessarily mean someone has formally requested it. Requesting something to be done may or may not occur or have occurred, nevertheless the activity/task may be socially necessary.


What's more, a person requesting or 'demanding' production that necessitates someone else's labor should then be willing to *commit* some of their *own* labor, in kind, as a social gesture of cooperation, to show the person that they're not simply getting 'stuck' with a task that mainly benefits others.Suppose the requester was disabled, and unable to physically do the task, but nevertheless the task made known by the requester should of necessity (should legitimately) take place?

[Tim Redd]

What is commodity fetishism?:confused:

I suggest looking up the term in of Marx's Capital, Economic Manuscripts (Grundrisse) (e-versions are at www.marxists.org) and via Google search.

And really for the most part just take it a face value: there are commodities and people fetishize them due to the materialistic nature of capitalist society, which promotes lusting after products versus real human pursuits that go beyond lusting after commodities.

[ckaihatsu]

What is necessary doesn't necessarily mean someone has formally requested it. Requesting something to be done may or may not occur or have occurred, nevertheless the activity/task may be socially necessary.


Yeah, I'm sure people would be constantly doing things for their own sake that happened to *also* have social utility, and would incidentally benefit others.

The formalization part is so that a post-commodity society can be collectively *self-aware*, as for what's being demanded on-the-whole, of 'itself'.





Suppose the requester was disabled, and unable to physically do the task, but nevertheless the task made known by the requester should of necessity (should legitimately) take place?


As long as someone else was *willing* to fulfill whatever request then I'm sure it would get done.

Also, I'll immodestly note that this is exactly the kind of situation where the 'labor credits framework' from post #35 would be relevant, and applicable -- on a person-to-person small scale, it would just be called 'swapping favors', but at *large scales* the issue of how *millions* of 'favor-swaps' could be coordinated, could be addressed with the use of labor credits.

[Tim Redd]

A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits






labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'



http://s6.postimg.org/nfpj758c0/150221_labor_credits_framework_for_communist_su.jp g (http://postimg.org/image/p7ii21rot/full/)

ckaihatsu, how does one reply to this #35 posted by you? While the click tab to read thing seems cool, you need to stop using the format if you want people to be able to quote your posts while being able to read all of what you wrote in the post.

[ckaihatsu]

ckaihatsu, how does one reply to this #35 posted by you? While the click tab to read thing seems cool, you need to stop using the format if you want people to be able to quote your posts while being able to read all of what you wrote in the post.


I do it just to rankle *you*, Tim.

(There's a link to the full blog-entry text at the very end. You're welcome.)

[BIXX]

I guess lets just pull out the general framework for how these discussions about work normally go:
P1: *says something along the lines of how work will need to exist always and forever under communism*
P2: so what's is gonna stop me from just taking food/other resources?
P1: well you need to work and have labour vouchers to show you've earned your food (or any other strange idea they have regarding ways to ensure people work before they eat).
P2: well fuck working so I guess I'll just steal.
P1: but you'll be caught by our community militias!
P2: so you're telling me that communism will have both money and police?
P1: blah blah blah labour vouchers aren't money blah blah blah community militias aren't police blah blah blah

Conclusion: life under communism is exactly like life under capitalism

Or

P1: *says something along the lines of how work will need to exist always and forever under communism*
P2: what will make me work?
P1: you just will and you'll like it
P2: I really doubt I'll start liking work
P1: you will

Conclusion: communism is capitalism that we enjoy???????

[Creative Destruction]

I guess lets just pull out the general framework for how these discussions about work normally go:
P1: *says something along the lines of how work will need to exist always and forever under communism*
P2: so what's is gonna stop me from just taking food/other resources?
P1: well you need to work and have labour vouchers to show you've earned your food (or any other strange idea they have regarding ways to ensure people work before they eat).
P2: well fuck working so I guess I'll just steal.
P1: but you'll be caught by our community militias!
P2: so you're telling me that communism will have both money and police?
P1: blah blah blah labour vouchers aren't money blah blah blah community militias aren't police blah blah blah

Conclusion: life under communism is exactly like life under capitalism

Or

P1: *says something along the lines of how work will need to exist always and forever under communism*
P2: what will make me work?
P1: you just will and you'll like it
P2: I really doubt I'll start liking work
P1: you will

Conclusion: communism is capitalism that we enjoy???????

third option: work is transformed from something that you do to toil, to something that is considered leisure. my hobby is woodwork, and that would be the work i do in a communist society.

[ckaihatsu]

I guess lets just pull out the general framework for how these discussions about work normally go:
P1: *says something along the lines of how work will need to exist always and forever under communism*
P2: so what's is gonna stop me from just taking food/other resources?
P1: well you need to work and have labour vouchers to show you've earned your food (or any other strange idea they have regarding ways to ensure people work before they eat).
P2: well fuck working so I guess I'll just steal.
P1: but you'll be caught by our community militias!
P2: so you're telling me that communism will have both money and police?
P1: blah blah blah labour vouchers aren't money blah blah blah community militias aren't police blah blah blah

Conclusion: life under communism is exactly like life under capitalism

Or

P1: *says something along the lines of how work will need to exist always and forever under communism*
P2: what will make me work?
P1: you just will and you'll like it
P2: I really doubt I'll start liking work
P1: you will

Conclusion: communism is capitalism that we enjoy???????





third option: work is transformed from something that you do to toil, to something that is considered leisure. my hobby is woodwork, and that would be the work i do in a communist society.


Ooooooo, oooooooo, me next -- !

P1: Communism will be *so* shitty that cannibalism will the norm, and zombie movies will turn out to be documentaries.

P2: No, we'll at least provide food and shelter.

P1: But *no one* likes building food and growing shelter, soooooo -- zombies.

P2: Well at least we'll all be equal.

P1: Yeah except for the victims of cannibalism.

P2: Hurricanes.

[BIXX]

third option: work is transformed from something that you do to toil, to something that is considered leisure. my hobby is woodwork, and that would be the work i do in a communist society.

So you're saying that work will take characteristics that it never has, in history, ever? OK, let me refer you to "you'll just enjoy work".

[Creative Destruction]

So you're saying that work will take characteristics that it never has, in history, ever? OK, let me refer you to "you'll just enjoy work".

Concepts get revolutionized all the time. It's not a far stretch. If what you do for leisure is the work you do, why wouldn't you enjoy it?

[oneday]

So you're saying that work will take characteristics that it never has, in history, ever?

Of course not, here on the revolutionary left board we all think that things will stay exactly the same as they are now, for all eternity.

[ckaihatsu]

third option: work is transformed from something that you do to toil, to something that is considered leisure. my hobby is woodwork, and that would be the work i do in a communist society.





So you're saying that work will take characteristics that it never has, in history, ever? OK, let me refer you to "you'll just enjoy work".


I happen to default to devil's advocate on this one, so:


P666: Society can function just fine when everyone's a rock star. [/irony]

[Cliff Paul]

P1: *says something along the lines of how work will need to exist always and forever under communism*
P2: what will make me work?
P1: you just will and you'll like it
P2: I really doubt I'll start liking work
P1: you will

Conclusion: communism is capitalism that we enjoy???????

Who's the "we"? I think most people here can envision themselves willingly partaking in some sort of "productive" activity.

Also there's proof that communism magically makes you enjoy work. Behind the Urals is basically about a bunch of people who volunteer to work 12 hours a day in -30 F weather in incredibly shoddy working conditions because they think they are building a better society.

[ckaihatsu]

Who's the "we"? I think most people here can envision themselves willingly partaking in some sort of "productive" activity.

Also there's proof that communism magically makes you enjoy work. Behind the Urals is basically about a bunch of people who volunteer to work 12 hours a day in -30 F weather in incredibly shoddy working conditions because they think they are building a better society.


They haven't built *heaters* yet -- ?? (Heh -- sorry.)





I guess lets just pull out the general framework for how these discussions about work normally go:
P1: *says something along the lines of how work will need to exist always and forever under communism*


Let's just tackle this, then....

As long as mechanical productivity is advanced enough so that those who *do* work will be productive enough to satisfy *everyone's* (basic) needs, then where's the problem -- ? Everyone is fed, clothed, housed, etc., by those who *want* to do that kind of labor for others, as a societal baseline.

That would make *all* work *optional* for everyone else, and if those basic tasks could be *automated* then work would be optional for *everyone*. The 'labor question' would be moot for the first time ever in human history, and whatever work people *did* do would be sheerly for advancing new forms of civilization, in the best sense of the term.

[StromboliFucker666]

Give what you can, take what you need.

The others have explained it better.

[Dave B]

I think it comes down to a more fundamental problem as regards what one thinks of oneself in relation to others and ‘society’ and the ‘meaning of life’ etc.

Or; am I what I do or what I consume.

Pity the children who have as yet not been fully indoctrinated with the bourgeois consumptionist ideology.

When you are a child, or a working class child anyway, you are surrounded by interesting and palpably useful things with a vague idea that they are produced by specialised human effort.

That is what grabs your attention and childish dreams first; the peculiar exchange relations that permits differential access to these things remains somewhat mysterious.

What one wants to be is a part of this cornucopia of opportunities to produce useful things; ie a train driver, fireman, a worker in a chocolate factory, a clown in a circus, a builder of ships or aeroplanes etc etc.

It is probably true on this middle class consumption orientated and thoroughly alienated site that people would mindlessly jump through hoops backwards to get their labour vouchers.

I am a self confessed snob in that respect; I work in a factory producing a staple food product and comfort myself in my fulfilled child like ambition of doing something useful.

( I had also achieved my first dream and first job of working in a chocolate factory but got sick of it and the smell after 3 months)

What do people do for their ignoble remuneration on this thread?

I have done shit myself; I worked as a croupier on roulette and blackjack table.

[Tim Redd]

In this discussion it should be noted that many goods and services are produced mostly or solely via automation, that is with minimal or no human labor input at all.

This would not necessarily negate the "to each" part of the maxim.

In addition there are goods and services coming from the production process whether manually or automatically created that will need to be distributed beyond what people require out of necessity. We need to set policy and plan for this kind of goods and services distribution.