Why Communism?

[Jacob Cliff]

This sounds like a basic question (and it is), but yesterday my teacher (who is a self-proclaimed materialist and atheist, but not a Marxist) asked me why we should go through so much trouble to achieve this society, and instead why not just ensure a sort of liveable social-democracy where corporate profits are distributed more equitably. And I rebuted with that it doesn't get rid of the inherent contradictions and exploitation, but I feel that was a weak rebuttal. What are your stances on opposition to social democracy in favor of communism? Why should we achieve communism?
And how do I explain communism without sounding like a utopian fool?

And just to knock down two birds with one stone (since I don't want to make another post with another question), that same day a Libertarian Capitalist asked me about incentives. And of course, I think we all know self improvement and autonomy are better incentives than monetary pay, but I don't see how that can be the case at all in jobs that are completely necessary but nobody wants to work. He works at a restaurant and he was hounding me with how communism would ensure people are working at these places and also about the potential that mass amounts of people would stop working altogether and only live off freely-accessible goods.

[Tim Cornelis]

Advantages of communism: no unemployment, no poverty, no hunger, no debt, no financial stress, shortened work day, no obnoxious boss, no tyrannical management, immense reduction of crime, no worries about making ends meet, no worries about whether one will have a job in the future, whether one can still pay for their children's education. It provides stability and certainty and it relaxes society. A real human community. Overall reduction of misery, abolition of oppression and exploitation and injustice. Can social-democracy provide this? No. Sweden, social-democracy's poster child, still has poverty, unemployment, crises, and uncertainty. And there's obviously no guarantee that a social-democratic redirection will result in such a best case scenario. Look at Greece, just an equally big chance it'll end up like that.

Bonuses: no annoying commercials littering TV, the internet, and the streets.

=====

Well yeah, if you transplant the current conditions of relatively scarcity and work conditions then obviously that's going to sound unworkable. But it's really a lack of imagination and creativity. Communism is not synonymous with free access, this is only the case with a higher more developed phase of communist development. And it presupposes a significant shortening of the work day through automation. It presupposes that all the mundane work that is not creative and people tend to not want to do is automated and mechanised as much as possible so that either no one has to do it or the labour time input it requires can be a shared burden. As long as that's not possible we will rely on labour certificates.

Quote by Marx:

"the realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite."

[Alet]

This sounds like a basic question (and it is), but yesterday my teacher (who is a self-proclaimed materialist and atheist, but not a Marxist) asked me why we should go through so much trouble to achieve this society, and instead why not just ensure a sort of liveable social-democracy where corporate profits are distributed more equitably.

So we still have exploitation, alienating markets and labor, economic crises, greed for money, etc. etc. etc. That's basically just capitalism hiding behind the red curtain. Furthermore, any kind of "social" capitalism does only work for economically strong countries. Lowering the rate of profit is lowering investments, thus damaging competitiveness.


And just to knock down two birds with one stone (since I don't want to make another post with another question), that same day a Libertarian Capitalist asked me about incentives. And of course, I think we all know self improvement and autonomy are better incentives than monetary pay, but I don't see how that can be the case at all in jobs that are completely necessary but nobody wants to work. He works at a restaurant and he was hounding me with how communism would ensure people are working at these places and also about the potential that mass amounts of people would stop working altogether and only live off freely-accessible goods.
Emancipation of labor. We live in a society that teaches us that we have to work for money to live properly. Well, basically this is true atm, but it is not an universal law. A human's meaning of life is not lying on his sofa and getting everything for free. There has not always been compulsion to work or working for own supply in history, simply because there have not always been societies that were based on competition. Humans have often worked for others without receiving payment or any kind of reward, even today we can see this. Starts with the family when you do the housework because your mom is ill or you help your neighbor in his garden. It does not even end in the domain of IT, where programers provide free software. Labor should not be and is not something you do to get material rewards, it should be and is a social interaction.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I mean, our perspective isn't that impoverished workers should have a bit more money, our perspective is that human society needs to move beyond the sort of social organisation that makes poverty and wealth possible. And poverty is simply one of the many problems that capitalism causes. How would the "liveable social-democracy" address bigotry and chauvinism, workers forced to work themselves to death, the police, unpaid domestic work, restrictions on the reproductive capacities of women, gender gaps, pollution (which tends to be found where workers live of course) etc. etc.? It wouldn't.

We want a bit more than giving people a bit more cash, we want human society to organise the production and reproduction of objects and services necessary for human existence consciously, on the basis of free workers coordinating their efforts through a conscious scientific plan, to produce for need instead of profit.

(And the plan wouldn't work in any case. Where does the extra money come? From "corporations", presumably meaning Northrop and Yoyodyne and not the Crown of Canada. And how do they get the money? By exploiting workers.)

And why tax large business corporations, if the contention is that capitalism works? Surely you're just punishing success then? Why not tax small business out of existence, for example?

[G4b3n]

Bonuses: no annoying commercials littering TV, the internet, and the streets.


This is reason enough to be a communist in and of itself without a doubt.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't know, I think (sane, subdued) commercials are useful. It doesn't mean anything to me if the Research and Development Bureau of the Soft Drinks Syndicate has developed a new kind of cola if I don't know about it, surely.

[G4b3n]

I don't know, I think (sane, subdued) commercials are useful. It doesn't mean anything to me if the Research and Development Bureau of the Soft Drinks Syndicate has developed a new kind of cola if I don't know about it, surely.

Sure, if a syndicate were to "advertise" something it would be heartwarming as opposed to infuriating and depressing.

[ckaihatsu]

[O]f course, I think we all know self improvement and autonomy are better incentives than monetary pay, but I don't see how that can be the case at all in jobs that are completely necessary but nobody wants to work. He works at a restaurant and he was hounding me with how communism would ensure people are working at these places and also about the potential that mass amounts of people would stop working altogether and only live off freely-accessible goods.


This is a valid issue for a post-capitalist political-economy, and addressing it comprehensively is no small matter -- if goods *aren't* freely accessible then the question of how (liberated) labor is selected and resulting goods are distributed, becomes valid.

If liberated labor is to be rewarded proportionately to the productivity it creates then this is effectively a labor market, or the commodification of labor. And if this kind of labor-commodification is to be avoided then the question remains of how *to* value the fruits of production, for distribution and consumption -- any collective administrative valuation of such ('labor vouchers'), no matter how enlightened, would still be *arbitrary* (contrived and misaligned) either in relation to work inputs for production, to the valuation of the resulting goods for consumption, or both.

Here's the problem in an illustrated format:


Pies Must Line Up



http://s6.postimg.org/5wpihv9ip/140415_2_Pies_Must_Line_Up_xcf_jpg.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/erqcsdyb1/full/)


I created a framework of 'labor credits' that *only* apply to liberated-labor labor hours themselves, and are *not* exchangeable for goods, since those are supposed to be for eliminating scarcity for all, and should be 'free access' and 'direct distribution':


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/)


---





[G]iven that labor in a post-capitalist context *is* indeed liberated, it cannot be *artificially* increased, as with artificial scarcities (withholding food, housing, etc., for want of wages / money), or with coercion of any other kind.

The only thing left *would* be incentives, and the only incentive remaining in a social environment of material overabundance would be a share in the control (selection) of that which *is* necessarily scarce, more-or-less: labor.

So the more one works, at increasingly hazardous or difficult labor roles, the greater will be one's share in the selection of liberated-labor (hours), going-forward, through labor credits. (Note that in the absence of *capital* and capital *returns*, one becomes strictly limited to one's own labor-effort, which is certainly finite.)

Want more truffles? It's either d.i.y. or else you have to work to earn labor credits so that you can pay whoever *will* do the work to provide the world with more truffles. Those who do the work will naturally get first dibs on whatever they produce since they're right there at the point of production, and I can't even say for certain if the person putting forth the labor credits for the work would get *second* dibs on what's produced -- presumably that would be the case, but it would ultimately be at the discretion of the person doing the producing, first, and after that it would technically / actually be a *collective* matter, since all production is necessarily for the *commons* (to alleviate conditions of scarcity, for all).


---





[W]hy would *anyone* give a shit about labor credits and agree to do shitwork, even for an increased rate of labor credits, you ask -- ?

Because anyone who can command a *premium* of labor credits, as from higher multiplier rates, are effectively gaining and consolidating their control of society's *reproduction of labor*. Most likely there would be social ('political') factionalism involved, where those who are most 'socially concerned' or 'philosophically driven' would be coordinating to cover as much *unwanted* work territory as possible, all for the sake of political consolidation. Increased numbers of labor credits in-hand would allow a group to *direct* what social work roles are 'activated' (funded), going-forward.

Perhaps it's about colonizing another planet, or about carving high-speed rail networks that criss-cross and connect all seven continents underground. Maybe it's a certain academic approach to history and the sciences, with a cache of pooled labor credits going towards that school of educational instruction. Perhaps it's an *art* faction ascending, funding all kinds of large-scale projects that decorate major urban centers in never-before-seen kinds of ways.

Whatever the program and motivation, society as a whole would be collectively *ceding ground* if it didn't keep the 'revolution' and collectivism going, with a steady pace of automation that precluded whole areas of production from social politics altogether. Technology / automation empowers the *individual* and takes power out of the hands of groups that enjoy cohesiveness based on sheer *numbers* and a concomitant control of social reproduction in their ideological direction. The circulation and usage of labor credits would be a live formal tracking of how *negligent* the social revolution happened to be at any given moment, just as the consolidation of private property is today against the forces of revolutionary politics and international labor solidarity.

[The Modern Prometheus]

Communism is the only way in which you can have a classless, stateless, egalitarian society You cannot achieve that through all the reforms in the world and no matter how you dress it up Social-Democracy is still plain old Capitalism. Those who think that we can have some sort of equal society where everyone is well off under Capitalism through the wonders of Social-Democracy are almost as unrealistic as say Utopian Socialists or Right Libertarians. Capitalism needs to be abolished and that means revolution not reform.

I believe Communism is the only way to achieve the best society possible not half measures such as Social-Democracy with a good welfare state for instance. Sure i would have rather lived in Scandinavia when the Nordic system was at it's best then say America but it's hardly anything approaching as good a system as possible and only serves to prop up Capitalism instead of doing away with both the state and Capitalism

[Comrade Jacob]

We could strive for a better world but it's my duty as a human to strive for the best world.

[BIXX]

This is a valid issue for a post-capitalist political-economy, and addressing it comprehensively is no small matter -- if goods *aren't* freely accessible then the question of how (liberated) labor is selected and resulting goods are distributed, becomes valid.

If liberated labor is to be rewarded proportionately to the productivity it creates then this is effectively a labor market, or the commodification of labor. And if this kind of labor-commodification is to be avoided then the question remains of how *to* value the fruits of production, for distribution and consumption -- any collective administrative valuation of such ('labor vouchers'), no matter how enlightened, would still be *arbitrary* (contrived and misaligned) either in relation to work inputs for production, to the valuation of the resulting goods for consumption, or both.

Here's the problem in an illustrated format:


Pies Must Line Up



http://s6.postimg.org/5wpihv9ip/140415_2_Pies_Must_Line_Up_xcf_jpg.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/erqcsdyb1/full/)


I created a framework of 'labor credits' that *only* apply to liberated-labor labor hours themselves, and are *not* exchangeable for goods, since those are supposed to be for eliminating scarcity for all, and should be 'free access' and 'direct distribution':


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/)


---





---

Gonna be entirely honest, what you describe with labor credits and such sounds exactly like if capitalism was entirely devoted to coop like structures.

[G4b3n]

We could strive for a better world but it's my duty as a human to strive for the best world.

Who says that is your duty? And the rhetoric of "best" world sounds pretty idealist.

[ckaihatsu]

Gonna be entirely honest, what you describe with labor credits and such sounds exactly like if capitalism was entirely devoted to coop like structures.


No prob.

What you're missing is that the labor credits could not be exchangeable for any goods or materials whatsoever -- this is because of the communist ethos which would be about collective production solely for the sake of eliminating scarcity, and not for exchange-value valuations of materials.

On the 'co-op' issue itself, here's my position:





What I'm hearing -- and please correct me on any misunderstanding here -- is that, no matter what the size, each commune would provide a direct distribution of its production *internally* to within its boundaries, while making certain goods available for exchanges *externally*, to other communes.

If this is the case then this is basically a patchwork *syndicalism*, and is not full communism. The existence of *any* exchanges, anywhere, implies an implicit *valuation* taking place, since communes could very well find themselves in competition with other ones, for the production of something for export. (One commune might be able to produce the thing for *less* in commensurate exchange, than another.)

Communism implies a full, unvarying 'direct distribution' so as to avoid any kind of exchanges whatsoever, so as to obviate exchange values entirely.


The labor credits would -- surprisingly -- enable an arbitrary 'direct distribution' at any scale, all the way up to globally, without material exchanges of any kind being necessary.