Question for Anarcho Communists.

[#FF0000]

(Another question from Baconator, who's still having trouble posting)

Suppose the entire world was liberated of states and we exist in a society of anarchy. Suppose we have anarcho-communism. Now suppose I am part of my commune and I don't feel like playing communist anymore. I no longer wish to labor for the commune or be involved with the participatory democracy in the commune?

What happens to me? May I choose to take my own path in life or must I stay in the commune?

[Baconator]

Yep . Its my post. Roscharch was nice enough to help a guy out. Once again , thanks man.

[RGacky3]

What happens to me? May I choose to take my own path in life or must I stay in the commune?

You can do whatever you want. You don't have to work with the commune if you don't want to, you can go to another commune, or you can stay in the commune but do your own work, (whatever that may be, if you just wnat to provide for yourself then fine, if you want to contribute then fine too.) Also theres a difference between a community i.e. group of people living together, and a collective i.e. group of people working together. But either one you can choose to live with, or not live with, or work with or not work with.

[Kropotesta]

you can leave a commune if you like. The commune would provide materials to get you started on living alone or something and then you can go it alone. However you would always be free to return if you wanted.

[F9]

As correctly comrade's above said,if you dont like the way that a commune "works" the only thing you have to do is to go to another one that fills of what you want!You can freely go everywhere you desire!

Fuserg9:star:

[IcarusAngel]

It's interesting anarcho-tyrants openly attack the concept of the state, rather than using the concept of government. A government could exist without our idea of the modern state. For example, Max Weber claimed that a government is any entity which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physics force.

By that definition, the landlord system anarcho-tyrants like some capitalists on the internet advocate is actually a government system, composed of many private tyrannies.

[Baconator]

Icarus? Why so bitter? Just answer the topic question. K? :D

Thanks to everyone for their replies. I'll let the thread sizzle a bit more for answers and then I have some follow up questions.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

If you have basic questions about anarchism, 'an anarchist FAQ' is a good resource. Will likely give much more in depth answers than a forum:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

The essence of your particular question:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI5.html#seci57

[Bud Struggle]

Icarus? Why so bitter? Just answer the topic question. K? :D


Loads O' Teen Aged Agnst around here.:rolleyes:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What happens to me? May I choose to take my own path in life or must I stay in the commune?
You may leave the commune any time you like. However, you may not take any of the commune's property with you when you leave, and your leaving means that the commune is no longer obliged to provide you with anything or even defend you if you get randomly attacked.

So yeah, if you think you can survive alone with no collective organization to protect you, go right ahead and walk away. We don't mind as long as you're not trying to take away any of our collective property.

[RGacky3]

You may leave the commune any time you like. However, you may not take any of the commune's property with you when you leave, and your leaving means that the commune is no longer obliged to provide you with anything or even defend you if you get randomly attacked.

So yeah, if you think you can survive alone with no collective organization to protect you, go right ahead and walk away. We don't mind as long as you're not trying to take away any of our collective property.

There is no property, what would the need be for property? Its not as if he'd be taking anything more than what he needs, why would he? Remember, with no property, there's no wealth, with no wealth, there would be no need for greed and the such.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that he can't say "ok, I'm leaving the commune now - oh, and you know that big factory over there? Yeah, I claim it as my private property."

[Kropotesta]

I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that he can't say "ok, I'm leaving the commune now - oh, and you know that big factory over there? Yeah, I claim it as my private property."
That's ridiculous, how could anyone claim a factory in a commune anyway.

[IcarusAngel]

Loads O' Teen Aged Agnst around here.:rolleyes:

Now TomK has lowered himself to the level of age discrimination, or agiesm.

This would actually be more offensive if I actually was a teen, as it assumes teens cannot be so rational and are just speaking from "angst."

[Kwisatz Haderach]

That's ridiculous, how could anyone claim a factory in a commune anyway.
I bet that's exactly what Baconator would like to do.

[Kropotesta]

I bet that's exactly what Baconator would like to do.
That maybe so, but the idea of trying to do something like that is so outlandishly ridiculous that they couldn't possibly presume that they would be given a factory to own.

[Malakangga]

:confused::confused::confused: up to you

[Killfacer]

Edric, what the hell? So if someone decides to leave the commune, you refuse to help them in any way what so ever, dont protect any of their rights and just let them die. Great way to sell communism as something for everybody. Thats vile and uncharitable.

[Kropotesta]

Edric, what the hell? So if someone decides to leave the commune, you refuse to help them in any way what so ever, dont protect any of their rights and just let them die. Great way to sell communism as something for everybody. Thats vile and uncharitable.
Great way to show communism, yes. It's voluntary association. If you choose to leave the commune then that is up to you and you know what you are getting into. However, why would anyone want to leave a commune in the first place?

[Jazzratt]

Now suppose I am part of my commune and I don't feel like playing communist anymore. I no longer wish to labor for the commune or be involved with the participatory democracy in the commune?

What happens to me? May I choose to take my own path in life or must I stay in the commune?

You're allowed, nay encouraged to piss off elsewhere. As others have mentioned though, if you refuse to work to support everyone else, everyone else will refuse to work to support you.

[Dean]

Amazing baconator is still dwelling on the most basic of issues. You'd think he'd get it at this point...

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Edric, what the hell? So if someone decides to leave the commune, you refuse to help them in any way what so ever, dont protect any of their rights and just let them die. Great way to sell communism as something for everybody. Thats vile and uncharitable.
No it's not. They can always rejoin the commune if they want.

If they leave the commune that means they abandon all their responsibilities to the collective. That's fine, but if they have no responsibilities they will not get any rights either.

You can take communism, or you can leave it. But you can't take only the parts you like and leave the rest.

[Bud Struggle]

You can take communism, or you can leave it. But you can't take only the parts you like and leave the rest.

Unlike Capitalism.

You can be Socialist or retro or whatever--as long as you're Capitalist. Christian, athiest--who cares?

No such option with Communism--and therein rests it's down fall.

[Killfacer]

thats clearly immoral. Refusing to help someone to make a political point is clearly wrong. If a capitalist was starving but refused to rejoin the commune would you simply leave him to die? As soon as someone disagrees with you, you wash your hands of your responsibility to help them? Clearly your christianity doesnt run very deep through your communism. At least in a country such as the UK, even if you despise the political system and hate it, it will not wash its hands of you, free healthcare will be available even if you want to blow up parliament.

[Bud Struggle]

thats clearly immoral.

"Dont give us your Bourgeoise morality!"

Or something of the sort. :rolleyes:

[Jazzratt]

Refusing to help someone to make a political point is clearly wrong.

What and leeching off the hard work of others whilst working directly against their interests (like the bosses do now, in fact) is absolutely dandy?


If a capitalist was starving but refused to rejoin the commune would you simply leave him to die?

1) Why would there be a capitalist[private owner of the means of production] in a classless society?

2) Why is she starving? Did she leave the commune without a plan to feed herself? How fucking dense are we talking here?

3) Speaking of dense, why the hell isn't she part of the commune?


As soon as someone disagrees with you, you wash your hands of your responsibility to help them?

No. As soon as they stop helping everyone else, everyone else is no longer responsible for them. Being your brother's keeper only works if your brother is keeping you too. Disagreeing with us is immaterial, as long as they don't stop being part of our society in an attempt to destroy it (as Baconator is clumsily alluding to).


At least in a country such as the UK, even if you despise the political system and hate it, it will not wash its hands of you, free healthcare will be available even if you want to blow up parliament.

Despise the system and hate it? Redundant much?

I don't reckon that the UK government would be quite so caring toward someone who went beyond simply disagreeing and wanting to blow them up and decided that they were going to exist without money, steal everything they wanted and then actually blow up Parliament. I can bet you that when they catch the raving loony his first port of call won't be an NHS clinic to make sure he hasn't sustained any lasting damage as a result of his lifestyle.

[Wake Up]

Unlike Capitalism.

You can be Socialist or retro or whatever--as long as you're Capitalist. Christian, athiest--who cares?

No such option with Communism--and therein rests it's down fall.

However in capitalism if you make one mistake then you are blackmarked for life. Drugs, criminal record, firing etc etc


If someone wants to leave the commune then they are free to go. They would most likely recieve help from the commune to get themselves started out on their own. If they decide to return then they would be excepted back into the commune.


If however someone wants to take control of private property and exploit others who work on it (capitalism) then they would be stopped from doing so, with force if necessary. You see this instance of someone trying to set up capitalism is an instance of them trying to exploit others. So we are not exactly stopping people with a different view here you understand.

[Killfacer]

no jazzratt, nobody claimed it is okay to leech. But nobody is talking about leeching, simply leaving the commune.

I think you new what i meant when i said capitalist, but to clarify i was reffering to someone who disagrees with the commune. Not a counter revolutionary (so you cant just shoot him!) simply someone who disagrees and decides to leave.

The question is a simple one, that you dodged, would the commune refuse to help someone who wasnt a member of the commune, someone who had denounced the commune as stupid and communism as a failure?

Once again youv failed to take my point. I do not deny that there is a difference between disagreeing with a government and blowing it up. Im sure if someone tried to blow up a commune they would be immediatly executed. The point is, according to Edric, if you just disagree with the commune you would be refused any help.

[Jazzratt]

no jazzratt, nobody claimed it is okay to leech. But nobody is talking about leeching, simply leaving the commune.

This hypothetical person who contributes nothing to the commune and/or does nothing socially useful is now demanding resources and human investment from the commune. What is happening here that isn't being a leech?


I think you new what i meant when i said capitalist, but to clarify i was reffering to someone who disagrees with the commune. Not a counter revolutionary (so you cant just shoot him!) simply someone who disagrees and decides to leave.

Disagreeing is fine, it's the fact that they do fuck all for the commune, in fact acting to its detriment and yet expect something back.


The question is a simple one, that you dodged, would the commune refuse to help someone who wasnt a member of the commune, someone who had denounced the commune as stupid and communism as a failure?

No. They would help members of other communes (even those denouncing the communes as stupid) but these self-made exiles would be pariahs - and justly so.


Once again youv failed to take my point. I do not deny that there is a difference between disagreeing with a government and blowing it up. Im sure if someone tried to blow up a commune they would be immediatly executed. The point is, according to Edric, if you just disagree with the commune you would be refused any help.

What about attempting to destroy the commune through inaction or, if these people are trying to destroy it through the route I think baconator is going to propose (inventing and using private property outside the commune and starting a "black market" of cheese or whatever it is cappies lead up to with this question), action? They are making themselves dead-weights on the commune if they leave and expect its help.

[Dean]

Unlike Capitalism.

You can be Socialist or retro or whatever--as long as you're Capitalist. Christian, athiest--who cares?

No such option with Communism--and therein rests it's down fall.

You are mistaken. Communism is a whole restructuring of society.

I may be alone in saying this, but atheists, christians, Jews, buddhists - they can all be communists. As JAzzrat points out, capitalists are fine in society (so long as that is just a political platform rather than a practice).

And this is somewhat true in capitalism too. You can be a non-practicing communist, but I guarantee that you'd have problems trying to remove the centralization of economic power inherant to capitalism. And if christians truly decided to take up the fight and attack usury, possessiveness, idol worship.... we'd have 80% of our population in jail.

Face it, all the major religions oppose the narrow minded, calculated, anti-humanist system that capitalism is based on intrinsically. As a catholic, you should be actively fighting the system, Tom. Even through all the eveil the Vatican has been responsible for, they have maintained a charitable existence in regards to indigents and have always tried to help the poor. I look back on my Episcopalian past and what I have learned about the church and I wonder how the fuck it can be so prevalent in Virginia, and the sermons really are extremely liberal and leftist, and somehow the people don't get it at all.

Fuck, I remember as a kid that I literally believed that god was a term used to describe the universe. And I tell this to people nowadays and they act like I'm crazy. But that's basically what the preacher was saying. I think most people get their religious beliefs from social and media purveyors, and I find that scary. Nevermind that, its terrifying, and perhaps more so that people here, "revolutionary leftists," blame the preachers for our evil society. We live in a society where the Golden Calf and Moloch are supreme beings, masquerading as the Christian God and this goes totally against the church, let alone the humanistic tendancies in our society. People just don't see it, and we need to.

Sorry for the rant, I've been drinking.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The question is a simple one, that you dodged, would the commune refuse to help someone who wasnt a member of the commune, someone who had denounced the commune as stupid and communism as a failure?
That's not what "not being a member of the commune" means. Not being a member of the commune means refusing to help people in the commune and refusing to abide by the rules of the commune.

The proper comparison is not with a man who criticizes the government, but with a man who refuses to obey the law. Surely you would not suggest that a man who refuses to abide by any laws of the state should be provided with health care (for example) by the state?


The point is, according to Edric, if you just disagree with the commune you would be refused any help.
I said no such thing! You can disagree with the commune and still be a member of it - presumably lots of people will be in this situation whenever something is decided by a simple majority vote.

I said you should be refused help if you leave the commune. That means breaking the social contract; it means saying that none of the commune's rules and decisions apply to you. Then - and only then - does the commune no longer have any obligations towards you, because you refuse to have any obligations towards the commune.

[Killfacer]

hang on, youv missed the question again. You said those within the commune would help those of other communes and that people who left would be pariahs. Do you help pariahs if they are in trouble? or is any responsibility to help others despite political beleif simply wavered? Because, even if someone is a leech, in a life threatening situation, i would feel intervention was extremely important.

[Kropotesta]

hang on, youv missed the question again. You said those within the commune would help those of other communes and that people who left would be pariahs. Do you help pariahs if they are in trouble? or is any responsibility to help others despite political beleif simply wavered? Because, even if someone is a leech, in a life threatening situation, i would feel intervention was extremely important.
If a commune could prevent harm to any person I'd say yes, we would help them. Political allegiance would rarely, if ever, come into the equation. I for one am not only nice to other anarchists, so therefore why would I let harm come to someone, that I could prevent, based on a difference of opinions?
Does that answer your question?

[Killfacer]

yes it does, but it would seem your veiws were not held by others. I have to point out that im not criticising anarchy or communism here, simply pointing out that washing your hands of someone because of their political alleigances is clearly wrong.

[Kropotesta]

yes it does, but it would seem your veiws were not held by others. I have to point out that im not criticising anarchy or communism here, simply pointing out that washing your hands of someone because of their political alleigances is clearly wrong.
It's not the commune merely washing its hands though, it is the individual whom washes their hands of the commune. It is they who choose to leave the commune and live elsewhere. So this is a rational descion made by the individual, not of th commune itself.

[Bud Struggle]

You are mistaken. Communism is a whole restructuring of society.

I may be alone in saying this, but atheists, christians, Jews, buddhists - they can all be communists. As JAzzrat points out, capitalists are fine in society (so long as that is just a political platform rather than a practice).

And this is somewhat true in capitalism too. You can be a non-practicing communist, but I guarantee that you'd have problems trying to remove the centralization of economic power inherant to capitalism. And if christians truly decided to take up the fight and attack usury, possessiveness, idol worship.... we'd have 80% of our population in jail.

Face it, all the major religions oppose the narrow minded, calculated, anti-humanist system that capitalism is based on intrinsically. As a catholic, you should be actively fighting the system, Tom. Even through all the eveil the Vatican has been responsible for, they have maintained a charitable existence in regards to indigents and have always tried to help the poor. I look back on my Episcopalian past and what I have learned about the church and I wonder how the fuck it can be so prevalent in Virginia, and the sermons really are extremely liberal and leftist, and somehow the people don't get it at all.

Fuck, I remember as a kid that I literally believed that god was a term used to describe the universe. And I tell this to people nowadays and they act like I'm crazy. But that's basically what the preacher was saying. I think most people get their religious beliefs from social and media purveyors, and I find that scary. Nevermind that, its terrifying, and perhaps more so that people here, "revolutionary leftists," blame the preachers for our evil society.


Excellent post, Dean. You are right there's little to no difference between being a Capitalist in a Communist society and being a Communist in a Capitalist society--once the structure is set--there's lillt an individual coukd do but work within the system in place.


We live in a society where the Golden Calf and Moloch are supreme beings, masquerading as the Christian God and this goes totally against the church, let alone the humanistic tendancies in our society. People just don't see it, and we need to.

Sorry for the rant, I've been drinking.


If that's what it takes for you to keep writing stuff like that--keep drinking. :)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

hang on, youv missed the question again. You said those within the commune would help those of other communes and that people who left would be pariahs. Do you help pariahs if they are in trouble? or is any responsibility to help others despite political beleif simply wavered? Because, even if someone is a leech, in a life threatening situation, i would feel intervention was extremely important.
You can help pariahs if you personally want to, but the commune has no responsibility to help them.

Helping pariahs would be like giving aid to foreign countries. Certainly possible, and I'm sure many communes will do it, but they won't have any responsibility to do it - they will always be able to reduce or cut off the aid if they want to (i.e. if a majority of the commune members vote to do so).

[Killfacer]

i seem to remember you saying they had no rights either Edric. This is very much like what happens between jehovas witnesses. In the church of jehova (or whatever its called) You are not forced to be part of the church, but if you leave the church then they refuse to help you in any way what so ever, they wash their hands of you. In your commune, nobody will ever leave because they know if they do leave they will loose all their rights and nobody will help them.

[Kropotesta]

i seem to remember you saying they had no rights either Edric. This is very much like what happens between jehovas witnesses. In the church of jehova (or whatever its called) You are not forced to be part of the church, but if you leave the church then they refuse to help you in any way what so ever, they wash their hands of you. In your commune, nobody will ever leave because they know if they do leave they will loose all their rights and nobody will help them.
You still haven't taken the obvious into account, if a person leaves a commune that is becasue they want to wash there hands of it and does not want to participate. So why would anyone want to leave a commune and once they have, why wouldn't they have organised how they want to live?

[Dean]

You can help pariahs if you personally want to, but the commune has no responsibility to help them.

Helping pariahs would be like giving aid to foreign countries. Certainly possible, and I'm sure many communes will do it, but they won't have any responsibility to do it - they will always be able to reduce or cut off the aid if they want to (i.e. if a majority of the commune members vote to do so).

I disagree. A communal system is about concerning our social activity with the befit of all. I don't see how we can disassociate a social problem - that is pariahs - from our social being, and instead decide that it is a purely private act. That seems like the antithesis to communism.


If that's what it takes for you to keep writing stuff like that--keep drinking.
Thanks :)

[RGacky3]

Let me ask you, why would anyone leech and be idle in a society where work and society is free? That would get really really boring would'nt.

[MadMoney]

RGacky3, let me ask you...

Why would anyone work/work hard in a society where they receive the same outcome no matter what?

Hell, I'd rather spend all my days playing golf, fishing, and writing.

[Dean]

RGacky3, let me ask you...

Why would anyone work/work hard in a society where they receive the same outcome no matter what?

Hell, I'd rather spend all my days playing golf, fishing, and writing.

First off, your labor affects you, as does your lack thereof.

Secondly, the myth that human beings are driven only by personal gain - and as such would not work under conditions where they don't have to pay for commoditis and services - is ludicrous and is really shown to be very false given how our currnet social organization relies on taht myth and yet people are extremely lazy.

If that were accurate, capitalism and competition in general would generate an extreme level of human labor. Contrarily, we only see excessive labour when human's livelihood is threatened, and we see incredibly high levels of laziness where labor starts to become superfluos compared to the threats. So our society has become bipolar - we work extremely hard, but when the day is over we don't evne want to make food for ourselves.

A communist society's goal is to harness human labor by freeing man from the social mechanisms which chain his labor to external interests, and recreate human activity as a spontaneous exression of our own interests rather than a toiling which primarily serves the interests of others.

[MadMoney]

That still doesn't explain why if I will apparently have everything that I want, I wouldn't choose to spend my time doing non-work things. Wouldn't we all choose to live simply as a homo ludens? I know I would. If you have no idea what I am talking about (as this is an obscure referrence) check out Michael Oakeshott and his essay, "Work and Play." He was kind of a big deal in 20th century England. Not many of us Yankees are fortunate enough to know or remember him...

[Kropotesta]

That still doesn't explain why if I will apparently have everything that I want, I wouldn't choose to spend my time doing non-work things. Wouldn't we all choose to live simply as a homo ludens? I know I would. If you have no idea what I am talking about (as this is an obscure referrence) check out Michael Oakeshott and his essay, "Work and Play." He was kind of a big deal in 20th century England. Not many of us Yankees are fortunate enough to know or remember him...
An anarchist communist society would be closer than that of now, so therefore they'd be a more comradery spirit another the community. Also after the revolution everyone will need to come together to rebuild and form the new society. During the revolution people will be brought together, class conciousness, so people are more likely to be willing to work as equals producing something that benefits you and your mates. Also no one likes spongers so measures would probably been taken. Plus the work will take considerably less time in comparison to now and would be more important to the commune that the work is done.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

That still doesn't explain why if I will apparently have everything that I want, I wouldn't choose to spend my time doing non-work things. Wouldn't we all choose to live simply as a homo ludens? I know I would. If you have no idea what I am talking about (as this is an obscure referrence) check out Michael Oakeshott and his essay, "Work and Play." He was kind of a big deal in 20th century England. Not many of us Yankees are fortunate enough to know or remember him...
The point of a communist society is that people who do not work are shunned and looked down upon in social situations. So yes, you could spend all your time playing, but then no one would want to play with you or be seen as your friend. You would be playing golf and fishing alone.

If you can live like that, no problem. But most people can't, so they would work.

[pusher robot]

The point of a communist society is that people who do not work are shunned and looked down upon in social situations. So yes, you could spend all your time playing, but then no one would want to play with you or be seen as your friend. You would be playing golf and fishing alone.

If you can live like that, no problem. But most people can't, so they would work.

It won't work. People who don't want to work will simply make up an excuse for their malingering, and who could argue with them? Furthermore, your kind of social conditioning requires an unusually cohesive and homogenous community. Like it or not, many of us (perhaps most, in the U.S.) do not live in such a community. Without that near-unanimous ostracization, your system would fail. This makes it far weaker and more unstable than the status quo, where people choose to work for the carrots, not out of fear of the stick.

[Kropotesta]

It won't work. People who don't want to work will simply make up an excuse for their malingering, and who could argue with them? Furthermore, your kind of social conditioning requires an unusually cohesive and homogenous community. Like it or not, many of us (perhaps most, in the U.S.) do not live in such a community. Without that near-unanimous ostracization, your system would fail. This makes it far weaker and more unstable than the status quo, where people choose to work for the carrots, not out of fear of the stick.
No, you still don't grasp the concept do you? If a person doesn't contribute but potenially can, I think the time would come that the commune wouldn't sustain their needs to such a fulfilling extent.


Like it or not, many of us (perhaps most, in the U.S.) do not live in such a community.
Erm that's the point isn't it? To bring about serlf-governing communities. Therefore what the hell are you on about?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

It won't work. People who don't want to work will simply make up an excuse for their malingering, and who could argue with them?
Sure, there are lots of reasons why one might not be able to work for a while. But good luck coming up with a reason why you can never work but are somehow able to play golf and go fishing.


Furthermore, your kind of social conditioning requires an unusually cohesive and homogenous community. Like it or not, many of us (perhaps most, in the U.S.) do not live in such a community. Without that near-unanimous ostracization, your system would fail.
Right. Which is why I am not an anarcho-communist and I make no claim that such a communist system could be implemented in the near future. I support socialism as an immediate goal, and communism as a more distant one.

Once socialism has been achieved, we Marxists (and progressive people in general) should turn our efforts towards creating a system of incentives that will generate the kind of social attitudes towards work which are necessary for a communist society to function. It will not be simple, and naturally there will be opposition. I expect at least two political camps in socialist society - the "socialists" who wish to maintain the status quo and the "communists" who want to do what I described above.


This makes it far weaker and more unstable than the status quo, where people choose to work for the carrots, not out of fear of the stick.
They do? Really? There I was thinking that they work out of fear of losing their homes and livelihoods. I think it's reasonable to say that, in the world in general, most people work in order to fend off starvation.

Only the well-off can afford to think more of the carrot than of the stick.

[Kropotesta]

Right. Which is why I am not an anarcho-communist and I make no claim that such a communist system could be implemented in the near future. I support socialism as an immediate goal, and communism as a more distant one.
What? We also don't say that communism can be put in place over night.

[pusher robot]

They do? Really? There I was thinking that they work out of fear of losing their homes and livelihoods. I think it's reasonable to say that, in the world in general, most people work in order to fend off starvation.

No, I don't think that's correct. It doesn't fit the facts. The fact is that most people earnmore - often much more - than they need simply to survive. This means that they could work less, or at a less demanding job, yet they do not. Therefore, they must be pursuing something beyond mere survival. Thus it is plainly those marginal pursuits that motivate people to do what they actually do.

EDIT: I realized you did specify "in the world in general" which may make your point more valid, as huge numbers of people do struggle simply to survive in the shitholes of the world. But my point is, I think, more applicable to the situation being discussed unless you envision the quality of life in a communist society to be more like the third world than the first.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

No, I don't think that's correct. It doesn't fit the facts. The fact is that most people earnmore - often much more - than they need simply to survive. This means that they could work less, or at a less demanding job, yet they do not. Therefore, they must be pursuing something beyond mere survival. Thus it is plainly those marginal pursuits that motivate people to do what they actually do.
You overestimate the number of job options that people actually have. Your premise that people could work less is, I believe, false for a large proportion of the population.

Take me for example. I don't want to give any details about my real life, but I can tell you that I would choose to work in a job that took less of my time, and paid less money, than my current job. However, to my knowledge, no such job exists. There are jobs that pay less and require less training. But I have no use for a job that requires less training. I would like a job that took less of my time. Once I have achieved a certain level of material comfort (which I do currently have), time is just about the only thing I am interested in. I really don't want more money than I have now - but I would love more free time. However, I cannot decide the number of hours I work per week, and neither can most people.

Then there is the issue of skill. Training is not a simple linear value. People with more training aren't necessarily good at jobs that require less training. Being a doctor requires far more training than being a construction worker, but that doesn't mean a doctor would necessarily be any good as a construction worker. Medicine might be the only thing this person is good at; thus he went into medicine not for the additional pay but because he could not be successful in any other field.

Again, I give myself as an example. I went into higher education not because I wanted a better paying job, but for two reasons only: (a) I like education, and (b) I am extremely clumsy and I suck at any kind of physical labour.

[pusher robot]

Well to be honest I think you are an unusual case. You must do something fairly strange if there are no part-time jobs in your field, only full-time.

[Killfacer]

thats a load of rubbish, im gonna start work in asda fulltime (walmart for you yanks). yet if i wanted i could work say as a waiter or bar staff, part time. Your obviously either picky or havent looked hard.