Is communism only applicable to post-scarcity?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm more or less looking out for this community's opinion towards communism as an end-goal. In my experience most socialists, even from the individualist branch, see communism as an ideal. Do you think it's only applicable to post-scarcity items? I would argue that air and information already operate under a communist gift economy. With some twists, it could be possible to make most small commodity items communalized as well.

Your thoughts?

[Hyacinth]

I'm more or less looking out for this community's opinion towards communism as an end-goal. In my experience most socialists, even from the individualist branch, see communism as an ideal. Do you think it's only applicable to post-scarcity items? I would argue that air and information already operate under a communist gift economy. With some twists, it could be possible to make most small commodity items communalized as well.

Your thoughts?

You have a very good point that it is already the case that we have an abundance of certain goods, specifically information. As such we can already operate a gift economy with respect to information, and we already have something of the sort in existence with piracy and open-source. Likewise, it is also probable that we have the technical means to effect abundance with regards to others goods as well.

I suspect that the introduction of a gift economy will be something that is gradual, and more and more sectors of the economy will be transferred to a gift economy as our technology advanced.

That being said, I’m not sure to what extent we have to have a gift economy overall in order for a society to qualify as communist.

[Vanguard1917]

In my experience most socialists, even from the individualist branch, see communism as an ideal.

But less often have we come across self-described socialists with an actual Marxist, historical materialist understanding of communist objectives. For much of the 20th century, communism was seen to simply mean nationalisation. Nowadays, you'll find many so-called 'anti-capitalists' calling for a post-capitalist society which actually increases material scarcity by placing greater restraints on industrial activity and growth.

As you correctly suggest, the existence of commodities (which pressuposes the regulation of consumption, by the market mechanism) presupposes material scarcity. From a Marxist perspective, the answer to your question is a straightforward 'no': in order for a stateless, classless society to be a living reality, material scarcity has to have been abolished - through the development of the productive forces of society, which will accelerate under socialism, the lower phase of communism, once the fetters on human productivity imposed by capitalism on makind have been smashed.

[trivas7]

I'm more or less looking out for this community's opinion towards communism as an end-goal. In my experience most socialists, even from the individualist branch, see communism as an ideal. Do you think it's only applicable to post-scarcity items? I would argue that air and information already operate under a communist gift economy. With some twists, it could be possible to make most small commodity items communalized as well.

Your thoughts?

It's a mistake to think of communism as an end-goal, IMO. Marxist philosophy knows no ideals. Even after communism history is still "one damn thing after another." One can think of it as a goal if one understands dialectical materialism -- a scientific way of looking at society and how it develops. But even then communism, the non-exploitative society, has to be built by flesh-and-blood people -- which means mistakes are inevitable -- and will not be "the best of all possible worlds" one wished had fallen out of the sky.

[Dros]

I think late Socialist and Communist production will necessarily end scarcity.

[PRC-UTE]

What V1917 said: because communism doesn't mean a negation of private property, but all property, which is only possible by increasing production.

[BobKKKindle$]

The abolition of capitalism will allow for the rapid development of the productive forces so that scarcity no longer exists - but until material abundance has been achieved, it will be necessary to regulate the consumption of some goods to ensure an equitable distribution.


What V1917 said: because communism doesn't mean a negation of private property, but all property,

What do you mean? Communism will still allow for personal property - the private ownership of products such as computers should be permitted, as these products would not be classified as part of the means of production.

[PRC-UTE]

The abolition of capitalism will allow for the rapid development of the productive forces so that scarcity no longer exists - but until material abundance has been achieved, it will be necessary to regulate the consumption of some goods to ensure an equitable distribution.



What do you mean? Communism will still allow for personal property - the private ownership of products such as computers should be permitted, as these products would not be classified as part of the means of production.

As I understand it, comrade, Marx used common terms like property with completely different meanings than their everyday useage, so that 'personal property' is not what we are talking about at all when we say property. A better term for personal property (your method of transportation, your home, your clothing...) would be means of consumption.*


*however, it's safe to argue that much more personal property, such as transportation will be collectively used in a communist society.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

It's a mistake to think of communism as an end-goal, IMO. Marxist philosophy knows no ideals. Even after communism history is still "one damn thing after another." One can think of it as a goal if one understands dialectical materialism -- a scientific way of looking at society and how it develops. But even then communism, the non-exploitative society, has to be built by flesh-and-blood people -- which means mistakes are inevitable -- and will not be "the best of all possible worlds" one wished had fallen out of the sky.

I agree. I am reminded of Proudhon, who - despite being an anarchist - merely looked to anarchism as the point of direction we should set ourselves on. Even if we never achieved anarchism, the world would still be a better place.

I've been flirting with mutualism being the method of distribution for commodities that haven't achieved abundance. To me ParEcon appears more troublesome than it's worth.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

As I understand it, comrade, Marx used common terms like property with completely different meanings than their everyday useage, so that 'personal property' is not what we are talking about at all when we say property. A better term for personal property (your method of transportation, your home, your clothing...) would be means of consumption.*


*however, it's safe to argue that much more personal property, such as transportation will be collectively used in a communist society.

I highly doubt people will move away from wanting private transport.

[PRC-UTE]

I highly doubt people will move away from wanting private transport.

No more metros?

[gla22]

I'm more or less looking out for this community's opinion towards communism as an end-goal. In my experience most socialists, even from the individualist branch, see communism as an ideal. Do you think it's only applicable to post-scarcity items? I would argue that air and information already operate under a communist gift economy. With some twists, it could be possible to make most small commodity items communalized as well.

Your thoughts?


I think communism should be looked at as the beginning. Marx referred to communism as the beginning of all human history, not the end. Communism when first implemented won't be a utopian society, it will require constant reform and tweaking in accordance to dialectical and scientific process.

[BobKKKindle$]

I highly doubt people will move away from wanting private transport.This is probably a separate topic of discussion, but currently people buy cars not just because they are seen as useful, but also because owning a car is a form of conspicuous consumption, and so people buy cars to gain social status. If conspicuous consumption did not exist, then people would be more willing to use public transport, and the current problems of road congestion and shortage of fossil fuels could be solved.

On the general issue of scarcity: is it actually possible for true scarcity to be eliminated for material goods? There is only a limited amount of raw materials available, and so there will always be a limit on the quantity of goods which can be produced. If everyone in the world wanted to own more than one car, it would not be possible to satisfy the wants of everyone, because there are insufficient reserves of aluminum to produce such a vast quantity - it would therefore be necessary to create a distribution mechanism to decide who should be able to own cars, and some people would be forced to manage without the luxury of a car.

A distinction should be made between the absence of scarcity and a gift economy - the former is not always necessary for the latter to function. Salt is scarce, because there is only a limited quantity of salt available, but it would be possible to distribute salt through a gift economy because people would only take as much as salt as they need, and there is a limit on how much salt is is possible for someone to consume.

[Vanguard1917]

On the general issue of scarcity: is it actually possible for true scarcity to be eliminated for material goods? There is only a limited amount of raw materials available, and so there will always be a limit on the quantity of goods which can be produced. If everyone in the world wanted to own more than one car, it would not be possible to satisfy the wants of everyone, because there are insufficient reserves of aluminum to produce such a vast quantity

We can't talk of 'raw materials' and 'resources' as though they are a pre-given, fixed quantity that exist outside of human beings. Resources acquire meaning through human society, which is subject to historical development. For example, for the majority of societies throughout history, uranium and bauxite weren't considered resources. They became resources at a certain stage of historical and technological development. On the other hand, coal, which was considered a highly valuable resource in the past, is less and less considered as such today. The oceans were seens as an obstacle by early human societies; today, as a result of historical development, they're seen less as a problem and more as a resource. You mention aluminium: before the descovery in the 1880s of the industrial processes to mass produce aluminum, the widespread use of aluminium for construction would have been thought unthinkable.

In other words, it is completely unreasonable to set, in advance, limitations on our future productive potential. We simply cannot predict, from our current position in capitalist society (a society which severely restrains our productive, technological and innovative capabilities), the kinds of developments that will take place in communist society. So why start imagining up future limits to consumption? That's a kind of ahistorical and unscientific pessimism which is characteristic of the ideologues of capitalism - but it's alien to Marxism.

To quote Trotsky: 'Marxism sets out from the development of technique as the fundamental spring of progress, and constructs the communist program upon the dynamic of the productive forces. If you conceive that some cosmic catastrophe is going to destroy our planet in the fairly near future, then you must, of course, reject the communist perspective along with much else. Except for this as yet problematic danger, however, there is not the slightest scientific ground for setting any limit in advance to our technical productive and cultural possibilities. Marxism is saturated with the optimism of progress...' (link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm))



This is probably a separate topic of discussion, but currently people buy cars not just because they are seen as useful, but also because owning a car is a form of conspicuous consumption, and so people buy cars to gain social status. If conspicuous consumption did not exist, then people would be more willing to use public transport, and the current problems of road congestio


On the whole, people buy cars because they need them. Contrary to myths spread by bourgeois snobbery, working class people who purchase cars don't do it to show off to their neighbours. They do it because, in many cases, public transport just isn't suited to their needs.

Of course, we should try to improve public transportation. But we should try to improve individual transportation, too. For example, here in Britain, we desperately need to build more roads. There is a serious lack of investment in road building at the moment, which is a key cause of the kinds of congestion to which you refer.

[rouchambeau]

Absolutely not. As more and more things are produced for consumption, people find more and more liberty in fulfilling the false needs that have been imposed upon them. So, if we believe that capitalism can only end when we have reached "post-scarcity" (assuming we aren't there already), then we resign ourselves and society to the influences of consumerism.

Marcuse makes this case in the first chapter of One-Dimensional Man.

[Vanguard1917]

So, if we believe that capitalism can only end when we have reached "post-scarcity" .

No, Marxists don't say that. We say that a stateless, classless society cannot exist under conditions of scarcity.



then we resign ourselves and society to the influences of consumerism


What does that mean?



Absolutely not. As more and more things are produced for consumption, people find more and more liberty in fulfilling the false needs that have been imposed upon them.

An example of what i refered to in my first post as those ''anti-capitalists' calling for a post-capitalist society which actually increases material scarcity by placing greater restraints on industrial activity and growth.' What's the point of being a revolutionary?

And what are these 'false needs' exactly?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Absolutely not. As more and more things are produced for consumption, people find more and more liberty in fulfilling the false needs that have been imposed upon them. So, if we believe that capitalism can only end when we have reached "post-scarcity" (assuming we aren't there already), then we resign ourselves and society to the influences of consumerism.

Marcuse makes this case in the first chapter of One-Dimensional Man.

Post-capitalism doesn't translate into communism, especially for Marxists who see there being a transition between the two.

[Lamanov]

Aren't we in "post-scarcity" in terms of potentiality? I think we are.

[ckaihatsu]

It's a mistake to think of communism as an end-goal, IMO. Marxist philosophy knows no ideals. Even after communism history is still "one damn thing after another." One can think of it as a goal if one understands dialectical materialism -- a scientific way of looking at society and how it develops. But even then communism, the non-exploitative society, has to be built by flesh-and-blood people -- which means mistakes are inevitable -- and will not be "the best of all possible worlds" one wished had fallen out of the sky.


A global humanity liberated from all hunger and privation *would* be the best of all possible worlds, in the entire record of human history, until further developments past that point came about.

I agree that communism would not be an end-point, but it could very well be the end of history in the sense that we're used to thinking of it. (I'll come back to this point in a moment.)

History only exists where there are substantive changes going on -- we don't keep records of the lives of animals in the wild because there aren't any substantive developments there. (Yes, we can track large-scale evolutionary changes over time, and yes, we could document animals' day-to-day social interactions, if we worked at it, but most animals' lives are pretty much routine over the generations.)

Likewise, gatherer-hunter societies practice primitive communism, so there isn't much variation in their lives through the generations. There may be some oral histories, but then there isn't too much (arguably) for those histories to refer to.

Much of what we think of as history is the history of class conflict, and all of the complexity that results from that interplay.

Once we develop past class conflicts we could very well settle into a sort of high-tech routine communism which would eliminate much of the 'news' that we're used to keeping up with as an ongoing measure of the bourgeois class machinations, and the working class struggles against it.



I think communism should be looked at as the beginning. Marx referred to communism as the beginning of all human history, not the end. Communism when first implemented won't be a utopian society, it will require constant reform and tweaking in accordance to dialectical and scientific process.


Certainly there would be immense social developments, and the new kind of 'news' we would be hearing about would be on the order of constant improvements in the substance and style of daily life, all over the world. Mass problems would receive mass attention, and then mass solutions, probably in quick order.

But at a certain point a new equilibrium would be reached, and most people would probably have settled into very comfortable day-to-day routines that wouldn't require improvements or refinements -- at that point a general communism would have been reached, and history would probably slow to a crawl again, as in primitive communism, excepting further large-scale scientific discoveries and advancements.



On the general issue of scarcity: is it actually possible for true scarcity to be eliminated for material goods? There is only a limited amount of raw materials available, and so there will always be a limit on the quantity of goods which can be produced.


With nanotech on the horizon I think we can begin to think of matter as being generic and infinitely re-definable, like alchemy almost. Could we run out of 'stuff' if we have the entire ball of dirt to re-purpose according to our imaginations?


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[mykittyhasaboner]

i dont think its only applicable to post scarcity. simply because early on, some goods wont be scarce, and some goods will be. (depending on their importance, and the rate of producing these goods) thus some products can be effectively communalized and operate under a gift economy, such as clothing, food, health care products, housing, and other basic living accommodations. as most of these goods would still remain from capitalism.

as for certain goods that will remain scarce, mutualism as Gene suggested earlier seems like a good idea, or to simply ration these goods based on who needs them more, or how much of each good can be used by the community, before going over the rate of consumption that certain community can afford.

[ckaihatsu]

All,

I think this is one of the best issues of discussion I've seen so far on RevLeft. It really deals with the gray area, in terms of real living, between the sclerotic capitalist system as it currently exists, and the future, communist gift-economy as we envision it.

I'd like to address several points here, from the easy to the more difficult:



An example of what i refered to in my first post as those ''anti-capitalists' calling for a post-capitalist society which actually increases material scarcity by placing greater restraints on industrial activity and growth.' What's the point of being a revolutionary?


First, I think it's accurate to say that Marxists are not necessarily anti-consumeristic, the way liberals, greens, and even some radicals and anarchists are. As materialists we are neutral regarding consumerism, though we are cognizant of the limits of the earth's, and people's labor, resources -- and, as humanists we are cognizant of human potential, and how it may be misused or abused by oneself and/or others.

But in general consumerism is a "lifey" issue, and therefore not directly political -- we are concerned with how assets and resources are used in general, but *not* how they are used by this or that individual person -- that would be moralism.


Whatever is not directly used by a person in their individual, day-to-day life should not be *owned* by them -- the problem with capitalism is that it places too much under private management, thereby depriving its use by more people. If a person happens to be very asset-minded, then they really should be in the position of curators of museums or academics of publicly managed collections. It is pointless to have a mansion of one's own with oversight of a private collection that is either at the mercy of personal financial portfolios, or grows dusty hidden from the public, or both.



i dont think its only applicable to post scarcity. simply because early on, some goods wont be scarce, and some goods will be. (depending on their importance, and the rate of producing these goods) thus some products can be effectively communalized and operate under a gift economy, such as clothing, food, health care products, housing, and other basic living accommodations. as most of these goods would still remain from capitalism.

as for certain goods that will remain scarce, mutualism as Gene suggested earlier seems like a good idea, or to simply ration these goods based on who needs them more, or how much of each good can be used by the community, before going over the rate of consumption that certain community can afford.



I've been flirting with mutualism being the method of distribution for commodities that haven't achieved abundance. To me ParEcon appears more troublesome than it's worth.



Perhaps we can agree that a socialist / communist economy is kind of like a paint job -- the point is to get the most critical areas first, probably administered with rationing, and then move onto extra layers once the basics are finished.

To address the main topic, though, we have to ask if the world is currently in a situation that can be described as 'post-scarcity'. Considering the living conditions in places like Sudan, Nigeria, North Korea, Guatemala, Haiti, and so on, we can definitely say that no -- there are obviously outstanding needs on the part of much of humanity.



Aren't we in "post-scarcity" in terms of potentiality? I think we are.


The only way we can even discuss 'post-scarcity' is by qualifying the domain to a portion of humanity, instead of all of humanity. Certainly much of the developed world has long since reached a point of abundance for the basics of human living -- while there is still unemployment and lack of affordable housing, we can speak of regions or economies that could be considered to be 'post-scarcity' and perhaps ready for at least the idea of a limited communism, perhaps as a large-scale communal experiment for the world to see...?

So given that our limited-communism model could begin to be implemented, I have to ask what are our definitions of *communalized*, *mutualism*, and *gift economy* -- especially as they relate to the dominant market-system paradigm?



On the general issue of scarcity: is it actually possible for true scarcity to be eliminated for material goods? There is only a limited amount of raw materials available, and so there will always be a limit on the quantity of goods which can be produced. If everyone in the world wanted to own more than one car, it would not be possible to satisfy the wants of everyone, because there are insufficient reserves of aluminum to produce such a vast quantity - it would therefore be necessary to create a distribution mechanism to decide who should be able to own cars, and some people would be forced to manage without the luxury of a car.

A distinction should be made between the absence of scarcity and a gift economy - the former is not always necessary for the latter to function. Salt is scarce, because there is only a limited quantity of salt available, but it would be possible to distribute salt through a gift economy because people would only take as much as salt as they need, and there is a limit on how much salt is is possible for someone to consume.


Back to the paint-job metaphor, we should consider what basic needs can be provided for, upfront, in a comprehensive manner. Many things, like food, or salt, will have upper limits on consumption -- a finite number can be arrived at which would definitely satisfy the needs of all the people on earth. The use of the term abundance also presumes a mode of distribution to deliver the abundant goods and services to everyone.



In other words, it is completely unreasonable to set, in advance, limitations on our future productive potential. We simply cannot predict, from our current position in capitalist society (a society which severely restrains our productive, technological and innovative capabilities), the kinds of developments that will take place in communist society. So why start imagining up future limits to consumption? That's a kind of ahistorical and unscientific pessimism which is characteristic of the ideologues of capitalism - but it's alien to Marxism.



Of course, we should try to improve public transportation. But we should try to improve individual transportation, too. For example, here in Britain, we desperately need to build more roads. There is a serious lack of investment in road building at the moment, which is a key cause of the kinds of congestion to which you refer.



No more metros?


Transportation is an excellent case study for this model. Can mutualism or a gift economy really address the daily need for transportation? Can cars be successfully communalized, assuming that there's post-scarcity there? Can mutualism do a better job than either the private or public sectors, currently?

I'll submit that in a truly communist society we'd have the means to design and implement transportation solutions that might melt down the barrier between personal and public, perhaps in such a way in which transportation would be entirely personalized in usage while entirely socialized in construction and maintenance -- perhaps public, automated tram cars that are continuously circulating and would respond to your itinerary when submitted to a website.

Until then we're faced with the market system, crumbling though it may be -- would this "post-scarcity" communalism / mutualism extend to the goods and services that come off of the assembly line? If not, then who pays the costs?

Perhaps we could say that many personal goods, like toothbrushes and shampoo, are so inexpensive through the market system that these commodities *could* be communalized -- that is, that a local, grassroots economy would be robust enough to provide other goods and services that would offset the cost of getting these cheap toiletries through the cash economy. But what about other items? Computers? Maybe. Software? Definitely. Carpeting? Probably. Cars? Doubtful.

I will remain open-minded on this subject, but I would really like to hear a convincing case, or scenario, put forth for the feasibility of a nascent communalistic / proto-communistic economy in the present day.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Comrade:

Towards a New Socialism (http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/)
Social Proletocracy: Labour Credit and the Critique of the Gotha Programme Revisited (http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-proletocracy-marx-t80882/index.html)

[Pureheart]

I'm more or less looking out for this community's opinion towards communism as an end-goal. In my experience most socialists, even from the individualist branch, see communism as an ideal. Do you think it's only applicable to post-scarcity items? I would argue that air and information already operate under a communist gift economy. With some twists, it could be possible to make most small commodity items communalized as well.

Your thoughts?


According to our Glorious Leader, Socialism is tool to overcome scarcity by focusing productive forces on exponential growth, thus liberating Man from alienation and subjugation of nature (after destruction of capitalism). Communism according to BOGOVICH is triumph of Man over Nature.

Yours truely
Davyd Martynovich Smertin
KGB Officer
First Librarian
CRIME