Free riding in an anarchist society

[apathy maybe]

The 'problem' of free riding in an anarchist society.

Free riding is the process of an individual taking benefits from a group, without participating or adding to the group.

In a communist society you have a community where all goods are held in common.

Most people agree with the slogan, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". I know some people interpret this as meaning that people have to work if they are able, however, I would argue that this interpretation is not anarchistic. At least one Leninist I know and plenty of others, interpret this "ability" to mean desire as well as fitness. So a person must volunteer as well as being fit for the job. So a person who refuses to work, is still looked after by the community.

So, is it a problem if this sort of behavior happens? I would argue that this sort of activity (free riding) on a small scale is not a problem in any large-scale industrialised setting. Where there exists infrastructure and so on, there exists sufficient surplus that a small number of people can be supported by the community and society with out participating or contributing. However, in a setting where there does not exist a surplus, or where there is a large number of free riders, this argument does not hold up. This is where free riding is likely to cause a problem.

So, what should happen in such a scenario? People who are not anarchists are likely to put forward the idea that some level of force should be used to either, force the free riders to contribute, or else prevent them from gaining without contributing. However, as an anarchist, I am opposed to forcing anyone to do anything, and am left with preventing gain without contributions. I don't really like this option, are there any others?

What would you propose to do with free riders, both on a small and a large scale?

[Raúl Duke]

This is a very interesting question; and it has come to my mind many times when thinking of an anarchist society runned economically with the maxim: From each according their ability, to each according to their need."

However, right now I really can't think of many possible solutions; but this question is very important nontheless.

maybe the commune's assembly would decided to cut them off from many goods; only leaving necesarry things like food, water, etc.

maybe the possible solution would be based on how this communistic government is runned. Lets say it used a technocratic model; you just easily cut them off from the energy credits.

I don't think my above recommendations are the best ideas, but I really would like to see other's opinions about this question (so people, post please.)

[JKP]

The point is to eventually abolish work. I don't believe people should have to work to make a living and do what they want if the means of production can support otherwise. I think a more relevant question is how can get society going in that direction. That's why we have LTVs and technocracy.

[Fawkes]

I think JohnnyDarko's first idea would be the best one that I can think of now, but that would only be as a last resort.

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:14 pm
The point is to eventually abolish work. I don't believe people should have to work to make a living and do what they want if the means of production can support otherwise. I think a more relevant question is how can get society going in that direction. That's why we have LTVs and technocracy.
But you can't honestly expect technology that is powerful enough to sustain a society of billions of people will just appear, especially if no one is working to make that technology. So is your suggestion that we ride LTV's until the point ( possibly generations away) that we can sustain ourselves by machine only?

[JKP]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ!+February 27, 2007 05:45 pm--> (Jesus Christ! @ February 27, 2007 05:45 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2007 11:14 pm
The point is to eventually abolish work. I don't believe people should have to work to make a living and do what they want if the means of production can support otherwise. I think a more relevant question is how can get society going in that direction. That's why we have LTVs and technocracy.
But you can't honestly expect technology that is powerful enough to sustain a society of billions of people will just appear, especially if no one is working to make that technology. So is your suggestion that we ride LTV's until the point ( possibly generations away) that we can sustain ourselves by machine only? [/b]
You'd probably never reach a 100% automated economy simply because the latest future technologies will not be as mature as the previous ones, and thus require more resources and labor thrown into them so that they can be sustained. But I think you can get close. If most of the economy is gift based, with LTVs serving the rest of the areas that need it, I think that's the likely model communism/Anarchism along with technocracy.

[Floyce White]

There's something fundamentally wrong with posing political issues as "good people" versus "bums." It's a false, bourgeois-accounting method same as "from each...to each."

When you build a machine to read minds, then you can claim to have some special insight to the social contributions of others, the unnecessary hardships they've had to endure, and the hypocrisy they've had to deal with. Until then, save slurs about "free riders" for public toilets and other places where waste belongs.

[apathy maybe]

Floyce White: It wasn't my intention to talk about "good" vs "bad". I was simply raising the issue of "free riding", asking if it might be a problem, and if so what should be done about it (in an anarchist society).

In society to day, I have no problem with people "free riding" on (for example) public transport or stealing from corporations or whatever. In fact I encourage people to rip off corporations, big governments and other oppressors (just don't get caught).

But in an anarchist society where there is no (or minimal) oppression going on, this sort of thing may not be justified as much.


As I mentioned in my first post, where there exists surplus, people who live within the community without contributing (or contributing minimally) are not a drain on the community. However, where there are large numbers of people doing this, where there is not a surplus to support them, communism starts to feel pressure. I doubt that there would be large numbers of people in an anarchist community who will have had unnecessary hardships and it is obvious to most people, who contributes or not, we don't need a machine. Please note, this is not about now, this is about in a future anarchist (communist) society.


Anyway, so what could be done? JohnnyDarko's suggestion about cutting people of from anything but necessities is an interesting one, and perfectly plausible. I had not actually thought of it, but it is a possible solution. Another solution is societal pressure, though this can only go so far.

Another option, is to eject those members from the community. There is nothing in anarchist thought (as far as I know) that says a community can not expel members who are disruptive or so on. Free association works against people who don't contribute.

[The Grey Blur]

Shoot anyone who doesn't work, it's what Durruti would have done.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Isnt this where currency comes into play? Couldnt any sort of ration ticket or coupon remove this problem?

[apathy maybe]

Permanent Revolution: Kindly fuck off. If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion, don't come in being an arsehole.

Pow R. Toc H.: In a communist society, there wouldn't be any currency or LTV or such. In an individualist anarchist society, there probably would be currency of some sort, but in such a society, the problem would not arise in the first place.

[Dimentio]

Let everyone be free-riding as much as possible, and let machines do the work.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 28, 2007 05:38 pm
Permanent Revolution: Kindly fuck off. If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion, don't come in being an arsehole.
This is what I'm talking about, lack of work from you, I shoot you in the head.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

maybe the commune's assembly would decided to cut them off from many goods; only leaving necesarry things like food, water, etc.
This is a fine idea. I remember somewhere someone called it "basic communism" which you get for being a human being. It entails the necessities of life. Anything else requires work.

Of course there could be other motives besides laziness for someone's refusal to work, and these could be dealt with in a sensible and flexible manner. There's always the offer to allow somebody self-employment if they don't yearn for communal living.

[RGacky3]

I don't think it should be in issue if you define Socialism as the people enjoying the fruits of their labor, either individually, or collectivly as a workplace. If someones not working he's not producing anything, if he's in a workplace and he does'nt work they probably won't keep him around. I am split about if I believe in the each according to his ability and to each according to his nead idea, I think perhaps collectives and individuals working, and contributing and trading is the way things should be done. But I think its VERY VERY rare, that someone who can work (the majority of the people) and are expected to work, just won't work, most people want to work and contribute. In Capitalistic Societies the unemployed usually are that way because they cannot find a job, either because of disabilities, hard times, drugs or whatever. In a Anarchistic Society everyone will have a job, because if all the work is shared, and people are encouraged to work, if someone can't work, he'll be encouraged to do what he can but still be taken care of.

In an Anarchistic Society I really don't see free riding as a problem, and in the rare case it does I don't think its a collectives (meaning a workplace, be it a farm, a factory or whatever)'s job to take care of him.

[Floyce White]

You don't hear criticism. You don't listen to yourselves with a critical ear.

What kind of "anti-state" theory poses the need for groups to check up on the activities of others? To enforce a social code of mandatory labor in exchange for necessities? To stigmatize and punish those who don't obey, or who resist or sabotage the checking-up and enforcement?

What kind of "anti-property" theory poses the need for money or money-in-kind (coupons, vouchers, or scrip)? Pushes the concept of a national territory or homeland from which offenders should be exiled? Seeks to account for gross national product so that charity/welfare can be closely monitored and cut back whenever more cheap labor is needed?

What kind of "anti-wage-labor" theory poses the possiblity of self-employment along with employment, rather than opposing all employment?

What kind of theory? Pro-capitalist theory. Pushed by wannabe rulers.

Since we don't live under an anarchist regime, the here-and-now effect of this propaganda is to scapegoat the underemployed, seasonal labor, migrant labor, workers on strike or locked out, youth, the old and sick, pregnant women and new mothers, and anyone who quits or got laid off or fired.

"What have you done for me lately?" That's the motto of anarchist bosses.

[apathy maybe]

If you don't mind me asking (actually, fuck it, even if you do mind), what the fuck has that go to do with the topic at hand?

OK, I'll reply to the bits that seem to be relevant.

What kind of "anti-state" theory poses the need for groups to check up on the activities of others? To enforce a social code of mandatory labor in exchange for necessities? To stigmatize and punish those who don't obey, or who resist or sabotage the checking-up and enforcement?This is a discussion (or is meant to be) about whether people who don't contribute will get benefits from the community. What has it got to do with being "anti-state"? No one is saying force people to work ("mandatory labor"), I ruled that out as being non-anarchistic.

In a communist anarchist society, if no body works, nothing gets done, the society collapses, but nobodies rights have been infringed. In an individualist anarchist society, if no body works, people sit around doing nothing, nobodies right are infringed. The difference? In one, you can theoretically sit around and expect to receive something. We aren't forcing anyone to do anything, just saying that if they do nothing, we aren't forced to provide for them.


What kind of "anti-property" theory poses the need for money or money-in-kind (coupons, vouchers, or scrip)? Pushes the concept of a national territory or homeland from which offenders should be exiled? Seeks to account for gross national product so that charity/welfare can be closely monitored and cut back whenever more cheap labor is needed?Communism can be anti-property to different levels. Some say no property, including personal property. Some say no property with regards the means of production.
Anarchism is not inherently anti-property as such (though if you follow through the basic principles, you do get (at least to some extent) an anti-property line). Talking about "money" is therefore not anti-anarchist.


What kind of "anti-wage-labor" theory poses the possiblity of self-employment along with employment, rather than opposing all employment?Since when has anarchism been anti-labour? But anyway, as with the rest of your comments, I think you show a distinct lack of understanding about anarchist ideas and the different strands of anarchism.

You aren't contributing to an important discussion for any communist society (what to do if nobody works?). Can a communist society survive nobody working? Some people above seem to indicate no, but that doesn't stop the society from being anarchistic.

[LebaneseCommunistParty]

just think about the native americans..and how they did it...they didn't have any money or currency....they didn't have any incentive to work...except contributing to the utility of all in the society...

it is possible but because of the evils of capitalism, we are so accustomed to the evils of human nature.

[Floyce White]

After the revolution, the former workers will be pretty busy setting things right. Part of that will be doing extremely violent repression against the former capitalists who said "we surrender," but turned around and tried to collect rent, tried to buy and sell things, tried to hire others, or said one peep against the new society.

With such open admissions that anarchists will talk up money, will try to claim properties and control how others use things, etcetera, little wonder they occasionally rant that "the communists want to kill us." The anarchists' deep-seated fear is the mirror image of their own greed and hatred.

Whether there are many or few who, in your limited knowledge of what happens, seem to "sit around and do nothing," is completely meaningless. You and I and everybody else have the responsibility to care for others. All others--not just the able and talented. Not everybody understands this. Not everybody is capable of understanding this. Not everybody can live up to what they understand. Tough. That doesn't release me or you from our obligations and responsibilites to them. So grow up and stop whining about how you don't want to.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 02, 2007 07:16 am
"the communists want to kill us." The anarchists' deep-seated fear is the mirror image of their own greed and hatred.
Too bad your "too Communist" than all the other other Communists on here, and you don't like or even understand Anarchism either. You are your own Communist movement, the Floyce Whitist-- the one man distributor of his own PDFs.

And that muttering about getting killed by Communists, those were historical accounts from Spain, Ukraine, USSR, China.
Deaths because of Marxist-Leninist movements, of which are too bourgeois for you, but now your identifying with them.

[Enragé]

If people do not contribute to society to their ability (so if they cant well no problem), then why should society provide them with one god damn thing?

If they dont want to share the burden of keeping society running, then let them get the fuck out of this society, go live on the bottom of the ocean for all i care, but to remain in society and leech off of society is nothing different than what the bourgeoisie does when they exploit the working class.

This has nothing to do with imposing any sort of authority over someone, on the contrary it is simply preventing any potential "freerider" from doing so, because by freeriding you FORCE other people to produce more, work more than they would actually have to do if you werent a freerider.

so there :)

[Phalanx]

Free riding is the process of an individual taking benefits from a group, without participating or adding to the group.

I don't see why benefits couldn't be handed out to workers displaying a great work ethic. If there is a motivation to add more to the community, more workers would get involved. Free riders obviously wouldn't be rewarded, but they'd still be looked after in the community.

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by Floyce White
an anarchist regime
I'm sorry, but your already borderline ranting posts have lost all of the little validity that they once had after that statement.


With such open admissions that anarchists will talk up money, will try to claim properties and control how others use things, etcetera
When the fuck have anarchists ever tried to control how others use things?



You and I and everybody else have the responsibility to care for others.
We don't have the responsibility to care for those that do not contribute to society to their full, or at least semi-potential.


All others--not just the able and talented.
No, not all others, but only those who contribute to society as much as they possibly can, even if they can't contribute at all.


That doesn't release me or you from our obligations and responsibilites to them.
I, and nobody else, have no responsibility to help people who force others to work harder for them because they do no work themselves when they are able to.



So grow up and stop whining
:lol:


Good post NKOS ;) .

[Herman]

One of the things which people assume (or at least as I see it) is that communes would be like the Zendik farms or something, forgetting that technology will have advanced considerably. One comment which I believe would solve the problem of Free-riding entirely was this:


Let everyone be free-riding as much as possible, and let machines do the work.

I think this is the best idea.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I don't want to derail this thread.

So heres my two cents, though, I'm probably just repeating everyones thoughts in an Anarchist or Council-Communist society (to me both societies are one in the same, just difference in semantics), I think it would be very hard for people to free-ride, because if the majority wanted this revolution, they know it means they put responsibilty within their own hands. Most likely the way of thinking is that most people want to contribute otherwise society can descend into barbarism. Those who wish to not contribute may be critized by their peers, and they will alienate themselves, and they may end up isolating themselves. A person can only take so much negative feelings towards them, in one way or another they will break.

Either they express what they feel is wrong, and if the community agrees-- some changes can be made. If not, the person can find somewhere else to live.

The "free-rider" most likely will be questioned by communities members, so its not like there a problem of people raiming invisable to free-ride.

[Floyce White]

It's like you never heard of unemployment, which is a social illness and not a personal choice.

It's like you never heard of depression, which is a mental illness and not a personal choice.

It's like you don't know the hardships of life break the body and spirit and leave people confused and troubled, and temporarily not up to their best potential.

You have no heart. You sound like cops who tell the homeless to "get out of here." To where? "Keep moving, keep moving."

For me, it is my honor and privilege to do anything that might be useful to others. For me, I have a duty to protect living things. If you don't feel that way, you're not kidding anybody by pretending you care about only some certain types. Your greed and hatred is obvious even to you.

[Raúl Duke]

Nobody is telling anyone to "get out of here"

We are just posing a question: "Can a communist society sustain a large amount of "free riders" and if not, what is to be done?" We are only thinking in theoretical terms; thoeretical situations and theoretical solutions. No one here is kicking any one out or what ever you are implying.

You might be a very altruistic person (at least if the last part of your post is true or not...) yet I don't expect everyone in society to be as compassionate as you.

Whats with all the greed and hatred shit anyway? Can't you post something like explaining that "free riders" wouldn't be a problem in communism because x and y reason? These rants don't have any real substance, they are just filled with personality attacks (claiming that we don't know that depression is a mental illness or not, our alledged greed, etc) instead of justifications of your position (which ever it may exactly be; I think you might be posting here only to spread secterianism and most likely derail real discussion of the topic, yet I might be wrong since its only an opinion.).

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 03, 2007 04:41 am
It's like you never heard of unemployment, which is a social illness and not a personal choice.

It's like you never heard of depression, which is a mental illness and not a personal choice.

It's like you don't know the hardships of life break the body and spirit and leave people confused and troubled, and temporarily not up to their best potential.

You have no heart. You sound like cops who tell the homeless to "get out of here." To where? "Keep moving, keep moving."

For me, it is my honor and privilege to do anything that might be useful to others. For me, I have a duty to protect living things. If you don't feel that way, you're not kidding anybody by pretending you care about only some certain types. Your greed and hatred is obvious even to you.
Who the hell is this guy and why does he speak in freaking proverbs? Instead of actually talking about the subject?

[Enragé]

It's like you never heard of unemployment, which is a social illness and not a personal choice.


free-riding is making the choice to do nothing.
Not to mention, in communism/anarchism there will be NO unemployment.


It's like you never heard of depression, which is a mental illness and not a personal choice.

if someone's ill, he cannot work
thats not free-riding.


You have no heart. You sound like cops who tell the homeless to "get out of here." To where? "Keep moving, keep moving."

Nonsense, the free-rider has no heart because he makes others work for them whilst not contributing himself, he is a leech, a parasite, he does the same as the bourgeois do in this society.
Why accept that?
After the revolution, when we have rid ourselves of the parasite class which is the bourgoeisie, we should then accept other parasites in their stead?
hell no.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Theres a difference between ppl who can't contribute and ppl who don't want to.

It's not my fault if the parasite doesn't have any friends. No one is physically forcing them to leave, but if they stay it won't be a pleasant expirence.

I can't care about anyone who doesn't care about anyone else.

[rouchambeau]

Yeah, how can we fix this problem that hasn't yet, and might not ever happen?

[Fawkes]

It is a hypothetical question. I think it's actually a good one because people often use these types of questions against me in debates.

[apathy maybe]

So ... just to clarify ...

My definition does lack that aspect of choice, I won't bother modifying the first post. But I did intended for that to be obvious.


Anyway, it seems clear that a lot of people don't think that free riders deserve anything. And that they are likely to be ejected from the community.

But, might any community that ejected a large part of itself run the risk of collapsing? I think this is a danger that should be recognised.

Anyway, in any anarchist society, with so many social experiments going on at once, I'm sure a optimal solution would be found and quickly adopted.

Fun!

[Guerrilla22]

Any kind of socialism, anarchism or communism will require people to be of a higher consiousness. It is the same consiousness that will be required for a revolution to take place in the first place..

[Enragé]

But, might any community that ejected a large part of itself run the risk of collapsing? I think this is a danger that should be recognised.

its unlikely, very unlikely that it will be a large part of society free-riding, simply because they realise the consequences for themselves, as well as society (which includes friends, family)

[Floyce White]

Just on a public health angle, people who aren't fed and aren't kept warm and dry do get sick and do spread disease.

The whole concept of scapegoating is false. It produces false lines of argumentation and false conclusions. There are so many ways to beat it--it's funny that anyone would persist.

Who are you that others should report to you? I'm not fighting for a society where I report to you. Really, after the revolution, if I saw a bunch of flag-waving zealots trying to harass somebody for not doing what they think he or she should be doing, I'd shoot those left-wing nuts on sight and not think twice about it.

Property is violence. The only reason to apply violence is to defend claims of possession or to suppress them. So we all know the score. Attacking somebody who doesn't claim/promote possession is a counterrevolutionary act. Wrapping it in radical slogans won't shield its doers from hot lead pellets.

[RGacky3]

Floyce: Do you think Free Riding will be a problem? When I say Free riding I don't mean those that are sick, or cannot work, or are elderly or whatever, I mean those who are perfectly capable, but because of their personality and laziness simply don't want to do any work. Do you think that wil happen?

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 01, 2007 08:25 am
If you don't mind me asking (actually, fuck it, even if you do mind), what the fuck has that go to do with the topic at hand?

OK, I'll reply to the bits that seem to be relevant.

What kind of "anti-state" theory poses the need for groups to check up on the activities of others? To enforce a social code of mandatory labor in exchange for necessities? To stigmatize and punish those who don't obey, or who resist or sabotage the checking-up and enforcement?This is a discussion (or is meant to be) about whether people who don't contribute will get benefits from the community. What has it got to do with being "anti-state"? No one is saying force people to work ("mandatory labor"), I ruled that out as being non-anarchistic.

In a communist anarchist society, if no body works, nothing gets done, the society collapses, but nobodies rights have been infringed. In an individualist anarchist society, if no body works, people sit around doing nothing, nobodies right are infringed. The difference? In one, you can theoretically sit around and expect to receive something. We aren't forcing anyone to do anything, just saying that if they do nothing, we aren't forced to provide for them.


What kind of "anti-property" theory poses the need for money or money-in-kind (coupons, vouchers, or scrip)? Pushes the concept of a national territory or homeland from which offenders should be exiled? Seeks to account for gross national product so that charity/welfare can be closely monitored and cut back whenever more cheap labor is needed?Communism can be anti-property to different levels. Some say no property, including personal property. Some say no property with regards the means of production.
Anarchism is not inherently anti-property as such (though if you follow through the basic principles, you do get (at least to some extent) an anti-property line). Talking about "money" is therefore not anti-anarchist.


What kind of "anti-wage-labor" theory poses the possiblity of self-employment along with employment, rather than opposing all employment?Since when has anarchism been anti-labour? But anyway, as with the rest of your comments, I think you show a distinct lack of understanding about anarchist ideas and the different strands of anarchism.

You aren't contributing to an important discussion for any communist society (what to do if nobody works?). Can a communist society survive nobody working? Some people above seem to indicate no, but that doesn't stop the society from being anarchistic.
I think he brings up a good point though. He didn't say anarchism was anti--labor but anti-wage labor. There is a difference there. I really don't think we can apply the capitalist mindset of bums and free riders to an anarchist community. If our anarchist society comes about what is the motivation our comrades not to help their comrades? What is the motivation for someone to become a "bum"? If they see that the society is providing for everyone and that we are living in peace what is their motivation for not helping to keep the society going?

I can see the motivation of a sqatter or a free rider in capitalism but I can't see what their motivation would be in anarchism. I really don't think there can be an answer for a problem that doesn't exist. Until anarchism comes about we can't be sure that there will be "free-riders" and even if there were who are you(not necessarily you) to deny your comrade the essentials of life? What kind of anarchist sets quotas?

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 06, 2007 06:47 am
Just on a public health angle, people who aren't fed and aren't kept warm and dry do get sick and do spread disease.

The whole concept of scapegoating is false. It produces false lines of argumentation and false conclusions. There are so many ways to beat it--it's funny that anyone would persist.

Who are you that others should report to you? I'm not fighting for a society where I report to you. Really, after the revolution, if I saw a bunch of flag-waving zealots trying to harass somebody for not doing what they think he or she should be doing, I'd shoot those left-wing nuts on sight and not think twice about it.

Property is violence. The only reason to apply violence is to defend claims of possession or to suppress them. So we all know the score. Attacking somebody who doesn't claim/promote possession is a counterrevolutionary act. Wrapping it in radical slogans won't shield its doers from hot lead pellets.
for the last fucking time we're not applying violence

If someone does not work for society while being perfectly capable of doing so, fine, but then society will not work for him/her, i.e you dont get jack shit from society.

[Floyce White]

Really NKOS? Well then, just exactly how are you--you personally, not some abstract "somebody somewhere"--how are you going to prevent me from sharing with whomever I please? Today or any other day? You're not going to do a thing. So save your cursing for your own image in the mirror.

Learn the difference between "sharing" and "exchange" before spamming ignorance in thousands more posts.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 07, 2007 05:06 am
Really NKOS? Well then, just exactly how are you--you personally, not some abstract "somebody somewhere"--how are you going to prevent me from sharing with whomever I please? Today or any other day? You're not going to do a thing. So save your cursing for your own image in the mirror.

Learn the difference between "sharing" and "exchange" before spamming ignorance in thousands more posts.
No one will prevent you or anyone else from sharing, I don't think anyone ever said that. What he's saying is that you arn't going to force others who may not want to share with those who don't contribute, but by all means you can, if you are willing too.

You did'nt answer my first question, whether or not you think it will be a problem at all. Also I have another one to add, what, in practical terms is the difference between sharing and exchange in the context of things that require human labor to be produced.

in other words if people all work together to make a boat, and then they all use the boat collectively, is that sharing? Or exchanging labor for Use.

[Herman]

Really NKOS? Well then, just exactly how are you--you personally, not some abstract "somebody somewhere"--how are you going to prevent me from sharing with whomever I please? Today or any other day? You're not going to do a thing. So save your cursing for your own image in the mirror.

Learn the difference between "sharing" and "exchange" before spamming ignorance in thousands more posts.

Hahahaha.... I like how you write. It's almost like poetry (mind you, not the content but the style).

[apathy maybe]

Floyce: I don't know why I am bothering to respond. Perhaps it is to prevent others from falling foul of the same stupidity. Please note, we are talking about people who are capable of working, but refuse to. Not sick or elderly.

Would you think it is a good idea in a community of two (you and I), for you to work hard all day, and for me to do nothing and simply take half of the product of your labour?

In the reverse situation, I would tell you to fuck off.

Now, what about in a community of 100, where there is one person not working. As I stated in the first post in the thread, society can cope with this one person not working. There is sufficient surplus for this person to be supported. So, in a communist society, they probably would be supported. (In other sorts of anarchist societies or communities, maybe not.)

Now, how about that same community but with 10 people not working. In a technologically advanced community, again, there would probably be sufficient surplus for this not to matter.

But if you had 50 people (50%) not working ..., while there may well be sufficient surplus to support 100 people with only half working, it would be the same as in the first example. One person working for two. And, I would tell the not working people to fuck off.

In the first example (and this can be extrapolated to the others), for you too force me to work would not be anarchistic. But if you refused to give me the result of your labour, I could not force you to, and remain anarchistic.
If you want to or are happy to support me (perhaps you think that I am doing something else equally worthwhile, "owning" people in a computer game for example), then that is OK, but if you don't want to... Something has to happen. Either I start working, or you stop supporting me. Or else the community stops being anarchistic.

Understand the problem now?

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by RGacky3+March 06, 2007 09:51 pm--> (RGacky3 @ March 06, 2007 09:51 pm)
Floyce [email protected] 07, 2007 05:06 am
Really NKOS? Well then, just exactly how are you--you personally, not some abstract "somebody somewhere"--how are you going to prevent me from sharing with whomever I please? Today or any other day? You're not going to do a thing. So save your cursing for your own image in the mirror.

Learn the difference between "sharing" and "exchange" before spamming ignorance in thousands more posts.
No one will prevent you or anyone else from sharing, I don't think anyone ever said that. What he's saying is that you arn't going to force others who may not want to share with those who don't contribute, but by all means you can, if you are willing too.

You did'nt answer my first question, whether or not you think it will be a problem at all. Also I have another one to add, what, in practical terms is the difference between sharing and exchange in the context of things that require human labor to be produced.

in other words if people all work together to make a boat, and then they all use the boat collectively, is that sharing? Or exchanging labor for Use. [/b]
Well exchange would be making someone work to get in the boat and sharing would be allowing someone into the boat without an agreement or contract that they would work for it. What we are talking about when we say free riders and banning them from the communes is one of the differences of socialism and communism. In socialism we would share with them according to the deeds that they have done. Or we would share with them in a market using exchange or money as a token of their deeds. Now in a communist society we would be sharing without the proof of deeds done. It would now be according to their needs as humans and not their deeds as entities in a market.

So pretty much what we are defining vaguely is a socialist market or a communist equal society. And if you want to go with enforcing deeds who would then be in that place to judge? Wouldn't judging people, whether it be by communal vote or a dictators heavy hand, be against what anarchists fight for? Having some foreign power declare over you.

Like I already said I don't think we can apply the "bum" mentality to a society that would be very different when it comes around. I am not saying that anarchism would take away all problems magically but to get there the minds and hearts of people would have to be along the same lines. So by the time we get to the communes most people should be ready to help their comrades.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 07, 2007 01:47 am
.....but if you don't want to... Something has to happen. Either I start working, or you stop supporting me. Or else the community stops being anarchistic.

Understand the problem now?
So in your society of "equality" people would be forced into work brigades or else be forced to exile? Seems a little harsh for a society based on equality and fraternity.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Chicano Shamrock+March 07, 2007 11:11 am--> (Chicano Shamrock @ March 07, 2007 11:11 am)
apathy [email protected] 07, 2007 01:47 am
.....but if you don't want to... Something has to happen. Either I start working, or you stop supporting me. Or else the community stops being anarchistic.

Understand the problem now?
So in your society of "equality" people would be forced into work brigades or else be forced to exile? Seems a little harsh for a society based on equality and fraternity. [/b]
A society where half the population does not work, but rather subsists of the work of others is not an equal society. In fact, it reminds me a little of capitalist society, the bosses do little work, instead taking the product of those who do. Which is why we want a revolution in the first place.

Anyway, as I have said ... It only becomes a problem where there are large quantities of people doing it.

And no, I would not want anyone to be forced to work. That would sort of defeat the purpose of anarchism (voluntarism is an essential part). Equally, I would not force anyone to support another. I can't make you work, you can't make me work, simply hey.

And exile is not the only option, simply not supporting the non-workers is also an option. I wanted to raise the question of options, which is why I started this thread in the first place.

[KC]

This thread is blatant speculation and has absolutely no theoretical substance to it. It belongs in chit-chat.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 07, 2007 05:06 am
Really NKOS? Well then, just exactly how are you--you personally, not some abstract "somebody somewhere"--how are you going to prevent me from sharing with whomever I please? Today or any other day? You're not going to do a thing.
Did i ever say that?

you can share with people who dont do jack shit
but that would be very stupid, now wouldnt it.
you would be giving shit to people who choose to sit on their ass all day, while you work your ass off to provide for them.

hmm... isnt that picture a bit familiar? Oh right! Thats what the proletariate is forced to for the bourgeoisie!
oh silly me for being opposed to that :rolleyes:


This thread is blatant speculation and has absolutely no theoretical substance to it. It belongs in chit-chat.

anything relating to post-revolutionary society is blatant speculation.

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 07, 2007 12:04 pm
This thread is blatant speculation and has absolutely no theoretical substance to it. It belongs in chit-chat.
No, it belongs in Learning.

[Floyce White]

RGacky3, Apathy Maybe, I already answered your question several different ways. Please try to keep up with the thread.

A person who does not reciprocate is not a problem for a society based on sharing--where nobody reciprocates. It's only a problem for a society based on exchange--where everybody reciprocates.

Apathy Maybe, the way you set up the issue implies that anarchism can only be a society of property ownership and exchange. Posters further added that forms of property are components of anarchism, or are not incompatible with anarchism. I agree. The error is to suggest that exchange could be compatible with sharing.

Property or the lack thereof, exchange or sharing: these are ways of treating other people. They are social relations not physical relations. They have nothing to do with the disposition of material.

From the point of view of bread, it matters not if 60 million people eat or if 59 million people eat. From the point of view of people, it matters a great deal if everyone gets 59/60th of needed calories or if one million people starve outright.

Another false premise of the thread is that the majority of people work and/or are capable of doing work. This is false and has always been false. Until recent decades, about half the population was children. Children work far less and produce geometrically less than adults. Until recently, people got old at a much earlier age and suffered from chronic illnesses that are quickly cured today. In fact, a far smaller portion of the population worked than today, and they worked far fewer years. Much of the labor was in agriculture--an industry with very long off-seasons. The society of low wages creates a cultural bias that makes poor people falsely believe that there is very little ability for society to support non-workers.

Another false premise of the thread is that some people willingly "do nothing." In fact, catatonia is extremely rare. Society is social. People interact. Virtually no one does "nothing" all day. It is a lie to make a blanket statement that many activities and behaviors are "nothing." Many people with severe, debilitating illnesses still make contributions to the well-being and emotional stability of their families and friendship circles.

Finally, the capitalists have no problem with mass murder, concentration camps, and death marches. They kill their rivals and take claim of their possessions, and vice versa. That's how they believe everybody thinks. If they have any reason to think we're planning to take revenge on "parasites," they'll never surrender. And I'd rather the capitalists sit on their hands than on arms caches. If feeding the former capitalists is the price to pay for the end of class society, that's the best bargain of all time.

BTW, will comrades please desist from moving and splitting threads that have content associated with the forum and topic?

[RGacky3]

What I'm kind of getting from your post is that people do not have a right to what they produce, so what is produced and who produces it are completely unrelated. Am I reading you correctly?


Another false premise of the thread is that some people willingly "do nothing." In fact, catatonia is extremely rare. Society is social. People interact. Virtually no one does "nothing" all day. It is a lie to make a blanket statement that many activities and behaviors are "nothing." Many people with severe, debilitating illnesses still make contributions to the well-being and emotional stability of their families and friendship circles.

I agree, the fact is that people, their innate self, has a desire to contribute and a desire to help others, especially if other help them.


Another false premise of the thread is that the majority of people work and/or are capable of doing work. This is false and has always been false. Until recent decades, about half the population was children. Children work far less and produce geometrically less than adults. Until recently, people got old at a much earlier age and suffered from chronic illnesses that are quickly cured today. In fact, a far smaller portion of the population worked than today, and they worked far fewer years. Much of the labor was in agriculture--an industry with very long off-seasons. The society of low wages creates a cultural bias that makes poor people falsely believe that there is very little ability for society to support non-workers.

First of all we are not at ALL talking about children, the elderly, or the ill, and I think that has been made clear, I'm talking about those who are absolutely capable, but refuse, the sole basis being they don't want too. I know you said before no one does "Nothing" all day, but its fully possible that someone does "nothing" to help society. Now if that would be an issue in an Anarchist system is another story, but we are talking about if it did happen, a hypothetical, from what I get your saying that because everything is shared, they would be provided for, even if they flatly refuse simply because they don't want to.


Finally, the capitalists have no problem with mass murder, concentration camps, and death marches. They kill their rivals and take claim of their possessions, and vice versa. That's how they believe everybody thinks. If they have any reason to think we're planning to take revenge on "parasites," they'll never surrender. And I'd rather the capitalists sit on their hands than on arms caches. If feeding the former capitalists is the price to pay for the end of class society, that's the best bargain of all time.

I don't think they'd every surrender. I also don't think the (former) Capitalists given a socialistic revolution would refuse to work, infact a lot of Capitalists are hard working people in their own way (Manegement, Business and the such), nor is this topic about revenge at all, its about if the former Capitalists, or whoever, flatly refuses to work, a worker can do this just as much as a Capitalist.

The basic question this comes down to is do people have any right to what they produce? If the answer is no, then there goes a HUGE argument against wage labor.

[Floyce White]

I wouldn't put it in terms of "rights" or necessarily even abilities, and I'll explain why.

As I say, the only thing that has any importance or meaning in life is what you can do to help others. People make boats because they have good reason to believe that other people need boats. People make shoes because they believe other people need shoes.

Able people can always put food in their own mouths. Able people survive to reproduce. That's not a worry. Whether or not able people decide to use boats or shoes is left to them. They are the best ones to decide whether or not they need to use a boat or shoes, and thereby consume some of the available supply. That's part of being able--you're adjudged by others to be competent in all decisions.

Well, part of disabled people being as able as possible, and them also helping others as much as possible, is for everyone to adjudge them to be competent. Everybody needs help from others, and everybody should ask for and receive help when they need it. The difference between disabled and abled does not exist in how you or I should treat others.

What someone else can do or should do has no bearing at all on what you can do or should do. You are responsible for your actions. I am responsible for my actions. The responsibility is the same for both of us: to care for others. Again, no difference due to the disability or indifference or even the willing stupidity of others. No difference due to how others treat you.

(Yes, you correctly surmised: no difference due to the disposition of things you produced.)

When we treat others as if they are competent and capable, they will live up to social expectations and responsibilities to the limit of their understanding and abilities. When we treat others as if they are not competent, and must be told what to do, how to do it, to report it, and why--then they are left no choice by you. They will always seem to be stupid and childish and spiteful because any action they take is in those confines.

I don't expect former servant-class people to suddenly become whole human beings, full of zest for life and a burning desire to help others. I don't expect any former master-class people to do so. That's something we'll have to live with for decades after the revolution. So let's be realistic and expect it. The revolutionaries will have a higher consciousness. The participants in struggle will learn by doing. But many won't participate. As a servant, I don't agree with punishing people for having been servants and not knowing how to be anything else. I won't do it. I'll do everything I can to prevent it.

That's enough from me. So I'll just read what others have to say.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I know this thread is old, but I just wanted to comment on this subject.

The problem with ejecting people from communes is fairly obvious: the free flow of goods. How exactly do you prevent individuals from leaching from stores? Even in communities of 10,000 it's impossible to know everyone, and very undesirable.

We must also take into consideration the jobs that do not involve actually going to a work establishment: artisans, mail-order chefs - I don't need to come up with another frivolous list.

Foremost, experimentations need to be undertaken to see if a communal society could properly function without restrictions like the ones we're talking about. As a socialist I believe this could be sanctioned post-revolution. The workers would be supplied everything they needed and just allowed to be. If that ends up a stunning success, we can start to take down the state.

If it ends up a failure, we can trick up the system some. Maybe work on queues (not listed under a workers' council? No proof of work? You're going in last), or even prevent them from having (good?) housing, cars, and other large consumer "goods" that will likely require some years of waiting.

For the non-commercial jobs like artisan each community could establish a workers' council. Once a week authors go in and show proof that they're working.

This is all highly speculative but I honestly don't see this as a major problem.

[Geronimo Pratt]

I think in an anarchist society, workers would get a return on their labor based on their effort and sacrifice, not to mention contribution to production. Everybody will recieve their basic needs, probably through some sort of agreed "tax" where a cooperative hands over a little portion of their return. Labor would provide for everything else besides the most basic needs of life. It would be cruel and inhumane to allow people to starve just for not working after all. Basically the sick, mentally challenged, the elderly, and all others unable to work can attain their basic needs too plus a little extra. So how I see an anarchist society, free riding would be very difficult.

[INDK]

The 'problem' of free riding in an anarchist society.

Free riding is the process of an individual taking benefits from a group, without participating or adding to the group.

In a communist society you have a community where all goods are held in common.

Most people agree with the slogan, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". I know some people interpret this as meaning that people have to work if they are able, however, I would argue that this interpretation is not anarchistic. At least one Leninist I know and plenty of others, interpret this "ability" to mean desire as well as fitness. So a person must volunteer as well as being fit for the job. So a person who refuses to work, is still looked after by the community.

So, is it a problem if this sort of behavior happens? I would argue that this sort of activity (free riding) on a small scale is not a problem in any large-scale industrialised setting. Where there exists infrastructure and so on, there exists sufficient surplus that a small number of people can be supported by the community and society with out participating or contributing. However, in a setting where there does not exist a surplus, or where there is a large number of free riders, this argument does not hold up. This is where free riding is likely to cause a problem.

So, what should happen in such a scenario? People who are not anarchists are likely to put forward the idea that some level of force should be used to either, force the free riders to contribute, or else prevent them from gaining without contributing. However, as an anarchist, I am opposed to forcing anyone to do anything, and am left with preventing gain without contributions. I don't really like this option, are there any others?

What would you propose to do with free riders, both on a small and a large scale?

I really like the simple economic discussion a Leninist who is around here called Zhou posted in the Political Profiles thread. The idea, he says, is developed by Lenin but my own stance is this is really the only efficient way Communism could use resources and supply to people in the correct fashion.


I discussed... on the Soviet-Empire forums, my economic position. The thread was entitled "Working Communist Society", and in response to the original poster I give the basics:

"Basically, I wish for a workers-up socialist economy based on Lenin's statement "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labour" which is based on the more egalitarian "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" written by Karl Marx himself. While I agree with Marxian economics, I follow the Leninist extension.

I guess it would be necessary to go into detail and analyze the statement at hand. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." This was written by Karl Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Programme (Full Document Here) and the and the idea stressed in documents such as The Communist Manifesto and various other works.

It has also been offered as "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labour," by Vladimir Lenin. Lenin's idea is distinct from the original proposed by Marx, in which things are given to all based on need, arguing that products should be given according to labour, which would also create a spirit of self-sufficiency as well as worker cooperation in-case of a shortage of goods and the allocation of resources in response. Personally, I agree with the Leninist sentiment fully. Here is my further analysis and explanation.

Lenin argues that the worker, as the most useful gear of society (the laborer, the producer, the reason goods are in our societies), should be treated the best. The hardest workers, meaning those who contribute to society most, not necessarily one who gives the most backbreaking labour, should be supplied by themselves and the community mutually, and the hard worker should supply the community and themselves in turn. This would ensure the people rely on themselves as well as the community , because sometimes a complete egalitarianism is dooomed to fail if all rely on each other and not themselves in some way or another. "

The original poster's second question was, "In the communist society, how will the 'need' be distinguished from the 'want'? This is something I've wondered. How do we define someone's need, and how do we regulate that they don't take what they want?" To which I replied:

"The Soviets (don't think of Stalin, it's simply the Leninist term for "Democratic Council") would determine one's economic rations and based on labour. These soviets would be generally federalist in organization, but all in the community would be a member of the Council and possess democracy and democratic power.

Therefore, if there is a member of society who doesn't want to work and wishes for the society to cater to him simply because it is a socialist society, he will not be catered to. That would be unfair to the true contributors of society. "Men love to reap what they have never sown"- Lenin, and he also argues to fix this through the economic rationing determined by Soviets, democracy, and labour. There's a catchphrase among Leninists; labour Shall Rule. "

JWG joins the discussion here. He asks, "What if the person in society can't work? How will he be given a share through his labour?" I replied to this:

"Those unable to work, I believe, would be catered to by the community and not themselves, thusly they would get what they need, but unfortunately no further luxury, because there is just far too many people to supply fully and equally; therefore we need to get resources to those who contribute, are useful; and get enough resources to those who need it.And even though this person cannot physically work, any contribution they can give to profit society (for the meaning of labour to Lenin was not simply performed with nothing more than the hammer, or the sickle) would count them in as a worker. "

He also asks, "Also, how do we determine those who abuse the system, falsely claiming disability or inability to work to leech off the community?" To which I add:

"The Soviets and the fellow, honest workers (as these workers make up the Soviets anyway) would kmow as there would be some sort of emphasis on cooperation in workplaces to ensure leeches do not get their share. These leeches must contribute to others as well as being self-sufficient, or they should not expect society's support. "

He further offers inquiry when replying with, "Once someone leeching of the community was identified, what would the response be in your opinion? Death?"
To which I said:

"Of course not. You have to understand each member of society is getting 50% of their products from the community, and the other 50% from themselves. If they do not contribute to the community, the community does not contribute to them. Therefore, leeches, when exposed and excluded from communal distribution of goods, would be forced to live off of themselves. Therefore, hardworking, honest people, the core of society and its actions, benefit the highest. "

Our conversation ends there with a "Thank you. What you described sounds reasonable and effective."

In conclusion, my economic thought can be summed up in this way: If you are a hardworking, honest person, you will receive the support of society and yourself. If you are not hardworking or honest, you will be left to only receive your own support. If you are will not work, as an able-bodied individual... we can't help ya there, buddy. Peace.


I like how he divides what people are getting into two halves, and how a 'free rider' can be effectively dealt with, by the people as a whole. Supposedly this is of Lenin's design, but if so Lenin pretty much summed up what a Communist economy would have to do in order to function. Simply replace "Soviet" with "Workers' Council" (which are pretty much the same thing) and the idea is pretty much orthodox Communist.

[mykittyhasaboner]

i think the idea of "free riding" as i understand it is impossible because there would be no gain for the individual, doing nothing in a communist or anarchist society is a complete waste of life, if you take that kind of freedom for granted and simply do nothing for the community and take from it is pointless existence.

[Bright Banana Beard]

the worker's council can decides how they live. Those free-rider will realize it is better to work than to do nothing because he will get thing he wants?

[abbielives!]

What would you propose to do with free riders, both on a small and a large scale?


to the maxim "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" i would posit "he who does not work, neither shall he eat"

[Kropotesta]

in a classes free equal society where everyone benefits from the production and maintance etc I find it hard to believe that there will be a of this 'free riding'.
I mean, would you live on handouts from your family and mates if you were just as able as them to partcipate in society? direct handouts that is, not the welfare system that we have currently
plus avoiding work would lead to self ostrization as you wouldn't be able to make friends as easy through lack of communication, no people to become mates with at work as you do no work, also resentment would most likely be felt by others in society towards them. however this resentment would be much more felt by the person not working as it would be a more close knit communistic style of living, opposed the statist capitalism that we live in today.
this point may have already been stated but I ain't read the whole thread.

[INDK]

It's a perfectly logical concern, on the contrary. If society is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" that implies a level of economic equality and therefore it would actually be quite easy, if the problem is not a concern, to freeload off of the economic commons'.

[Awful Reality]

Education; nurture in my opinion would take care of this. Humans have a natural need to work, it is just capitalist education that seems to have tried to remove this. If you can teach people to believe in the commune and collectivism, they will believe strongly enough that they will ideologically want, even need, to work.

If this does, however, become a problem, and re-education does not fix it, I promote JohnnyDarko's idea- to cut them off from necessities.