Getting things in communism

[Binary011]

I have one major question about communism. If society works that way, how would people get basic items? How would people get food like hamburgers? How would someone get a new car if they wrecked it? How would people get things in general? (Note: Not rhetorical questions)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

How would people get food like hamburgers?


You would go to the restaurant of your choice and order the hamburger of your choice.


How would someone get a new car if they wrecked it?

Who is at fault? If new cars can't be produced at a rate that matches demand, the people involved in the wreck will likely pick from old and used cars. Whoever is at fault would probably be moved down the quota line for a new vehicle - which, I imagine, would be about 2-3 years on average. The workers and communities can determine for themselves, though.


How would people get things in general?

Much like people have done for the past two thousand years, only you wouldn't be required to engage in a price system.

[Binary011]

Who would operate the restaurant and how would one go about exchanging items, using money or what?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Who would operate the restaurant

Automated machines mostly, with some workers available for the remaining tasks.


and how would one go about exchanging items, using money or what?

There would be no medium of exchange. Technocratic communists propose energy accounting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Accounting) for keeping the economy efficient, but it wouldn't act as money.

[Post-Something]

Either there are units of energy allocated equally to everyone which you could use in your own way (you can't give them out), or you just go and ask. People would work like 2 hours a day, and there would be plenty of people who would work in restaurants.

EDIT: Yeah, what GeneCosta said, I posted just after his reply.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Either there are units of energy allocated equally to everyone which you could use in your own way (you can't give them out), or you just go and ask. People would work like 2 hours a day, and there would be plenty of people who would work in restaurants.

EDIT: Yeah, what GeneCosta said, I posted just after his reply.

No; you actually brought up a good point. The reduced work hours is something very attractive towards every Leftist, and heavily criticized by opponents. Capitalism has, over time, rarely been a benefactor of working hours. For example, in the 19th century the majority of people were working more than they ever had in history due to laws preventing collective bargaining and the general class relationship. In the United States the average work week has actually gone up from the assured 40 per week.

The projected reduction in working requirements stems from a few things:
1.) Focusing inventions in manufacturing and service rather than war
2.) Making all jobs related to money-handling obsolete
3.) Getting rid of large states
4.) General automation
5.) Employment opportunities. There would be no such thing as unemployment.

[Binary011]

If there is no medium of exchange, people would just give things away?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If there is no medium of exchange, people would just give things away?

No; people would pursue jobs that interest them, or which they find pleasant enough.

Communism is based on association. If someone is not pulling their weight (which, comparatively, is not that bad compared to 50-80 hours a week, for 35 years - technocrats project a 15-18 hour working week, with 20-25 years devoted), they would be cut off from particular consumption.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

If there is no medium of exchange, people would just give things away?Its hard to give a quick answer to questions about the details, as the economy is run democratically so its up to the people involved - and the details will likely vary from area to area.

In the spanish revolution, there was money in some areas, vouchers denoting labour time in others, and in other places people just took what they wanted from the shops.

For practical questions, start here:
www infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html

PM me if there is anything it doesnt cover

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Its hard to give a quick answer to questions about the details, as the economy is run democratically so its up to the people involved - and the details will likely vary from area to area.

In the spanish revolution, there was money in some areas, vouchers denoting labour time in others, and in other places people just took what they wanted from the shops.

For practical questions, start here:
www infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html

PM me if there is anything it doesnt cover

Indeed, but most of "anarchist Spain" wasn't communist, more anarcho-collectivist.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Indeed, but most of "anarchist Spain" wasn't communist, more anarcho-collectivist. Depends how you define communism. If you take the literal definition, the means of production being held in common, then anarcho-collectivism is a type of communism. Having a formal means of exchange for personal possesions (not property) is not incompatable with communism.

[gla22]

You do not necessarily get rid of the medium of exchange and markets. These two things are necessary for function in any society in my opinion. Marx never said the abolishment of currency or the abolishment of markets was necessary. The main difference is that the workers own the means of production, meaning the people making your burger get a % of that and they own the restaurant collectively. The shareholders are replaced with workers.

[Dros]

You do not necessarily get rid of the medium of exchange and markets.

No. You DO get rid of markets.


Marx never said the abolishment of currency or the abolishment of markets was necessary.

Markets presume a mode of commodity exchange. Marx wanted to abolish commodity exchange. Markets are necessarily geared towards profit and they can only serve to exchange goods and services in the form of commodities. They are necessarily and definitionally absent in a Communist society.


The main difference is that the workers own the means of production, meaning the people making your burger get a % of that and they own the restaurant collectively. The shareholders are replaced with workers.

No. You're still assuming that commodities exist. The people working at the restaurant don't "get" anything when you buy a sandwich. It's "free".


Who is at fault? If new cars can't be produced at a rate that matches demand, the people involved in the wreck will likely pick from old and used cars. Whoever is at fault would probably be moved down the quota line for a new vehicle - which, I imagine, would be about 2-3 years on average. The workers and communities can determine for themselves, though.

Obviously it's impossible to say one way or another very specifically, but Communist society can only be achieved after the productive output is increased by further developing and central control over the means of production to the point of productive surplus. So the idea of a line might not make sense. There certainly is no basis for imagining it to be 2-3 years. Again, we can't (and shouldn't) make baseless claims about the nature of a Communist society.

[R_P_A_S]

i personally would like to think that restaurants will be abolished in full developed communist society

[Dean]

All this talk of automation, I feel like I'm in Idiocracy.

Anyways, my point is that I don't think that the food industry will be heavily automated. People take great pride in the creation of foods, and I think this pride would help encourage a huge degree of spontaneous, human labor in this field.

[Plagueround]

i personally would like to think that restaurants will be abolished in full developed communist society

I think, like most things, restaurants as we know them will not exist, but there will probably be public places where one can order food. Although it may seem like this would encourage servitude, some people really enjoy cooking food for others.

[Dros]

i personally would like to think that restaurants will be abolished in full developed communist society

Why?

[gla22]

Marxism is about statelessness and classlessness the abolition of private property and worker control over the means of production. You can still have markets and currency, and you should still have markets and currency.We want a system that works and when you get rid of those two we have economic failure.

[Dros]

Marxism is about statelessness and classlessness the abolition of private property and worker control over the means of production.

None of which can happen in the presence of markets. Markets are defined by profits and the exchange of commodities. Commodities presume relations of production and exchange endemic to capitalism and that can only exist under capitalist production relations. Thus, private ownership over the means of production. The second there's private ownership, you have classes. The second you have classes, you have class struggle. Out of class struggle emerges the need for a tool for the dominant class to enforce it's rule. Now you have a state. Markets=classes and state.


You can still have markets and currency, and you should still have markets and currency.We want a system that works and when you get rid of those two we have economic failure.

Continuing to repeat that mantra without an argument doesn't mean anything except that you haven't figured out a way to reconcile your alleged Marxism with your love of capitalist modes of exchange.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

None of which can happen in the presence of markets. Markets are defined by profits and the exchange of commodities. Commodities presume relations of production and exchange endemic to capitalism and that can only exist under capitalist production relations. Thus, private ownership over the means of production. The second there's private ownership, you have classes. The second you have classes, you have class struggle. Out of class struggle emerges the need for a tool for the dominant class to enforce it's rule. Now you have a state. Markets=classes and state.
Bollocks. There have been markets and commodities for all of recorded history - they existed long before the emergence of the capitalist mode of production.

A society with personal posession, but without private property can easily be concieved. Commodities are to be owned and exchanged, but the means of production are not. How is this impossible?

[Dros]

Bollocks. There have been markets and commodities for all of recorded history - they existed long before the emergence of the capitalist mode of production.

That's obviously true. I did not mean to imply otherwise, although I see how my post could be confusing. Perhaps "endemic" was not the right word. But this is not the crux of the argument and you know it.


A society with personal posession, but without private property can easily be concieved.

Of course it can. It's called Communism!


Commodities are to be owned and exchanged, but the means of production are not. How is this impossible?

Precisely wrong. Commodities are not to exist. Come on people. Marxism 101. Abolishing commodity exchange.

[gla22]

Please explain how communism and markets are unable to work together. The workers own the means of production and there collectives operate within markets. It is simple.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Please explain how communism and markets are unable to work together. The workers own the means of production and there collectives operate within markets. It is simple.
i think what you mean by market is, a meeting place of people to freely exchange items, products etc. which of course is how day to day trade could possible work. but if your referring to a "free market"; then markets cannot work in communism,simply because there cannot be currency in communism. who would distribute the currency in a communist society? the workers? theres no one else, so why would the workers have currency when they can simply have a gift/barter economy?

[gla22]

when I say market , it dosen't refer to free market, it refers to a place where goods and services can be exchanged. It would be regulated of course but supply and demand would still be factors. Yes currency is needed, saying otherwise is primitivist. I don't want to carry around goats when i can carry around paper.

[Binary011]

So then, how would one go about acquiring things he need if everything is free?

Nevermind

[mykittyhasaboner]

when I say market , it dosen't refer to free market, it refers to a place where goods and services can be exchanged. It would be regulated of course but supply and demand would still be factors. Yes currency is needed, saying otherwise is primitivist. I don't want to carry around goats when i can carry around paper.
who would regulate your markets, and impose that everyone conforms to using currency? and i didnt know orthodox marxist theory was primitivist. :rolleyes:
who says youd have to carry around goats? many other things can be traded, or used as "currency" as you suggest, rather than paper. come on money is regulated by the state, in communism there is no state. so for the second time, how do you suppose money would be regulated, implimented in a communist society!?

[gla22]

Currency= a medium of exchange. it is possible that something is used that has real value, (salt was used in past times) or something that is just valuable because of it's value as a currency without much practical use (gold, paper money). Currency is useful because it is so convenient.

I am not a orthodox communist. I would like to see a very weak centralized state for a few reasons. I would still like the local governments in accordance to communist principles to run pretty much everything however lets run through some situations.
1. For large infrastructure projects
2. coordinating national defense (local militias)
3. preventing a larger more powerful community from taking over a smaller one.
4. Money (look how much easier the euro has made moving through Europe)

let say one community want to build a dam to divert water. This could have serious implications such as preventing water access to a community downstream.

Lets say the communities wanted to build a inter-community roadway. This would require some centralization for efficiency's sake.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Please explain how communism and markets are unable to work together. The workers own the means of production and there collectives operate within markets. It is simple.

You're thinking of mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29), or possibly anarcho-collectivism. Communism is not a market-based mode of production anymore than primitive foraging methods were.

Communism is based on post-scarcity economics. Mediums of exchange would hinder progress by limiting the availability of resources.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Precisely wrong. Commodities are not to exist. Come on people. Marxism 101. Abolishing commodity exchange.How are peoples personal posessions not commodities? And what stops people exchanging them?

[Svante]

when I say market , it dosen't refer to free market, it refers to a place where goods and services can be exchanged. It would be regulated of course but supply and demand would still be factors. Yes currency is needed, saying otherwise is primitivist. I don't want to carry around goats when i can carry around paper.


so what will b e currency, the euro? how will people know what currency t o use.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Currency= a medium of exchange. it is possible that something is used that has real value, (salt was used in past times) or something that is just valuable because of it's value as a currency without much practical use (gold, paper money). Currency is useful because it is so convenient.

a medium of exchange, as gene said, can only be used when products are scare. why would you want a medium of exchange when products are abundant enough to be freely taken. sure, a medium of exchange could make sense when products are scare, but it surely would not be paper money, simply because money cannot correctly correlate the value of each product. and you still didnt answer my question of who will regulate and impose paper currency? what would you do about inflation? since paper money is so convenient and all.


4. Money (look how much easier the euro has made moving through Europe)
how? i would say the euro has made it harder for people to by things in europe, when taking into consideration that not all countries are part of the EU.

[trivas7]

Technocratic communists propose energy accounting for keeping the economy efficient, but it wouldn't act as money.


I like the idea of energy accounting. I have two quick questions re it: Is it technically feasible? And is it compatible with PARECON?

[Dros]

How are peoples personal posessions not commodities? And what stops people exchanging them?

Read Das Kapital chapter 1.

Commodities are different from mere goods. Commodities are things that are exchanged in exchange for something else. This mode of exchange is definitionally absent from Communism.

[Dros]

Please explain how communism and markets are unable to work together. The workers own the means of production and there collectives operate within markets. It is simple.

I just explained why this doesn't happen!


None of which can happen in the presence of markets. Markets are defined by profits and the exchange of commodities. Commodities presume relations of production and exchange endemic to capitalism and that can only exist under capitalist production relations. Thus, private ownership over the means of production. The second there's private ownership, you have classes. The second you have classes, you have class struggle. Out of class struggle emerges the need for a tool for the dominant class to enforce it's rule. Now you have a state. Markets=classes and state.


when I say market , it dosen't refer to free market, it refers to a place where goods and services can be exchanged. It would be regulated of course but supply and demand would still be factors. Yes currency is needed, saying otherwise is primitivist. I don't want to carry around goats when i can carry around paper.

Markets necessitate the existence of private property. Because people are exchanging goods for other goods (commodity exchange), they don't own those goods. Collective ownership makes markets irrelevant because everyone own everything already!

[Dros]

Currency= a medium of exchange. it is possible that something is used that has real value, (salt was used in past times) or something that is just valuable because of it's value as a currency without much practical use (gold, paper money). Currency is useful because it is so convenient.

Currency is only necessary in a society with commodity modes of exchange. That is, not a Communist one.


I am not a orthodox communist.

That's simply not true. Orthodox Communists don't go for markets, currency, or states.


I would like to see a very weak centralized state for a few reasons. I would still like the local governments in accordance to communist principles to run pretty much everything however lets run through some situations.

States exist for the sole purpose of enforcing the interest of whatever class is dominant in a society. States become historically outmoded after classes are abolished during Communism.


1. For large infrastructure projects

Can be done by large scale organizing bodies. That aren't states.


2. coordinating national defense (local militias)

Why?! No countries, no nations, no need for defence!


3. preventing a larger more powerful community from taking over a smaller one.

There will be no taking over of anyone by anything because there will be a global community of freely associating human beings. This vision of life sounds more like a utopian libertarian view.


4. Money (look how much easier the euro has made moving through Europe)

The abolition of commodity exchange makes this totally irrelevant.


let say one community want to build a dam to divert water. This could have serious implications such as preventing water access to a community downstream.

Which is why there would be organizations responsible for this kind of planning.


Lets say the communities wanted to build a inter-community roadway. This would require some centralization for efficiency's sake.

There would be centralization. Just not a state.

I suggest you read up on Marxist conceptions of the state.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Read Das Kapital chapter 1.

Commodities are different from mere goods. Commodities are things that are exchanged in exchange for something else. This mode of exchange is definitionally absent from Communism.I am not a marxist. Not all communists are marxists, or use the marxist definition of communism. The literal definition is 'a society where the means of production are held in common' - thats the one I go by.

If, in a society where the means of production are held in common and individuals own their possesions, people want to exchange their possessions, then those possesions become commodities. I see nothing that would prevent this. It is the height of hubris to claim to know in advance that no one would want to do this.

[Dros]

I am not a marxist. Not all communists are marxists, or use the marxist definition of communism.

Only the real Communists.


The literal definition is 'a society where the means of production are held in common' - thats the one I go by.

Okay. In a society where the means of production are held in common, the fruits or production are also held in common. So, there is no commodity exchange, because the fruits of production (goods and services) are already collectively owned.


If, in a society where the means of production are held in common and individuals own their possesions, people want to exchange their possessions, then those possesions become commodities.

No, they become gifts.


I see nothing that would prevent this. It is the height of hubris to claim to know in advance that no one would want to do this.

What is the material basis on which this would occur? What leads you to believe that this could result? And do you not see where this is headed?

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Okay. In a society where the means of production are held in common, the fruits or production are also held in common. So, there is no commodity exchange, because the fruits of production (goods and services) are already collectively owned.
No, not necessarily. I specifically specified the existence of personal possesion. A situation can easily be concieved where the fruits produced from commonly owned means of production become personal possesion. The workers council decides how to divide and allocate them, or people get what they produce by their own labour etc. They could be commonly owned, or tehy could be personal posession. I advocate letting the people involved decide such questions for themselves, rather than specifying in advance.


What is the material basis on which this would occur? What leads you to believe that this could result?
Two mates like some of each others possesions and decide to swap? I could come up with hundreds of examples.


And do you not see where this is headed?Not where you think. The difference between property and possesion is a significant one. Property is theft, possesion is liberty. Individuals own their possesions on the condition that they do not use them to set up heirarchial social relations (ie wage labour) - if they do this, they no longer own those possesions.