A couple questions again...

[Post-Something]

I had a debate with my dad last night, about communism, and a few issues came up. He's still not accepting my arguments, and says Norway is the closest thing to a good government he's seen. Anyway:


1. How can a post-scarcity society exist?

2. How are workers hours reduced?

3. How could a gift economy possibly work?

4. "labor vouchers"?

5. Say we achieve communism before the correct technology is achieved to take away manual work, what happens when we don't have enough people doing things like mining coal etc?

6. How can a stateless society exist? How do people govern themselves? How is it organized?

7. If there are communes, how do they interact?

8. How would organizations work? As in a hierarchy? Who would allow for themselves to be put in a subservient role?

9. What is true socialism and what does it look like?

10. Why not vote for a socialist party and reform capitalism from the inside?

His main concern seems to be that we shouldn't aim for something we have no idea will work. He's saying that it's too simple and that you need a currency system.

[trivas7]

I had a debate with my dad last night, about communism, and a few issues came up. He's still not accepting my arguments, and says Norway is the closest thing to a good government he's seen. Anyway:




These a alot to handle all in one thread, here are my short takes:

1. This is vague, what do you mean by "post-scarcity'? To me it means when people's needs are fulfilled.

2. Works hours are reduced when the means of production reduce the time it takes to produce things in a socialist economy.

3. We don't know yet.

4. pass

5. Clearly, there's got to be incentives for people to do part of the shit jobs.

6. We don't know yet, it's never been done.

7, 8, 9. We don't know.

10. Because class society exists only for the benefit of the ruling class, it (the ruling class) would never allow this to happen.

Good questions, have you done your (Marxist) homework? Your Dad's concerns can only be speculated re at this point, for the Marxist it's more important to understand what happening now under capitalism.

[gla22]

1. It can't completely. Possibly for certain goods.
2. Many jobs that don't produce anything are eliminated. The speculators and the people that live off capital investments must work to contribute to society. The workers are no longer paying for the lifestyles of the capitalists.
3. It won't. Possibly for certain goods.
4. This is the idea people get credit for however long they worked. So if they work 10 hours they can take a good that took 10 hours to produce. Whether this system can work is debatable.
6. Communism believes society progresses to statelessness which is different then anarchism that proposes immediate abolishment of the state. Instead of the state you have community's and syndicates running things as opposed to the state.
7.
8. Most things would be decided by majority or consensus. There is know heirachy. Think the POUM militias where the officers got paid the same as the enlisted men and almost everything was decided by vote.
9. There is a million definitions for socialism.
10. The ruling class would never let someone bent on making real change near the government.

[Kropotesta]

the answers are here for a communist society.
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

[trivas7]

the answers are here for a communist society.
ww.infoshop.org/faq/index.html (http://ww.infoshop.org/faq/index.html)
Object not found!
The requested URL was not found on this server. The link on the referring page seems to be wrong or outdated. Please inform the author of that page about the error.
If you think this is a server error, please contact the webmaster.
Error 404

[Kropotesta]

Object not found!
The requested URL was not found on this server. The link on the referring page seems to be wrong or outdated. Please inform the author of that page about the error.
If you think this is a server error, please contact the webmaster.
Error 404
I've fixed the link.

[Post-Something]

1. It can't completely. Possibly for certain goods.

Ok, well, how do we make sure there will always be a super abundance of material goods?


2. Many jobs that don't produce anything are eliminated. The speculators and the people that live off capital investments must work to contribute to society. The workers are no longer paying for the lifestyles of the capitalists.

Yeah, but I've heard estimates of 2 hours a day. What happens if people don't pull their weight in a particular field of work because it is so uninteresting?


3. It won't. Possibly for certain goods.

So the entire Anarchist argument of a gift economy is just rubbish and couldn't realistically work?


4. This is the idea people get credit for however long they worked. So if they work 10 hours they can take a good that took 10 hours to produce. Whether this system can work is debatable.

Yeah, but some labor is easier than other types. An hour putting lids on toothpaste tubes on a conveyor belt is probably easier than an hour in the coal mine. And an hour making music is probably more enjoyable.


6. Communism believes society progresses to statelessness which is different then anarchism that proposes immediate abolishment of the state. Instead of the state you have community's and syndicates running things as opposed to the state.

Yeah, I'm interested in the leap from Socialism to communism. Why would the state disintegrate? I don't understand how there can't be some sort of body where decisions about society can be made.


8. Most things would be decided by majority or consensus. There is know heirachy. Think the POUM militias where the officers got paid the same as the enlisted men and almost everything was decided by vote.

But you need hierarchy. Most organizations need hierarchy. You need people in different roles, and people overlooking certain roles. Not everything can be done by democracy.


9. There is a million definitions for socialism.

Well, how about this: A state where all things that concern the majority of people directly (like electricity and gas and transport) are nationalized, the petit bourgeoisie are allowed, and direct democracy comes about. Then, little by little the state takes hold of the means of production.


10. The ruling class would never let someone bent on making real change near the government.

So if that's the case, how would a socialist state ever let the state disintegrate?

[Post-Something]

These a alot to handle all in one thread, here are my short takes:

1. This is vague, what do you mean by "post-scarcity'? To me it means when people's needs are fulfilled.

2. Works hours are reduced when the means of production reduce the time it takes to produce things in a socialist economy.

3. We don't know yet.

4. pass

5. Clearly, there's got to be incentives for people to do part of the shit jobs.

6. We don't know yet, it's never been done.

7, 8, 9. We don't know.

10. Because class society exists only for the benefit of the ruling class, it (the ruling class) would never allow this to happen.

Good questions, have you done your (Marxist) homework? Your Dad's concerns can only be speculated re at this point, for the Marxist it's more important to understand what happening now under capitalism.

To be honest, it's all good and well to see how horrible the capitalist system is, but we have to make sure that we have an alternative that is sound. If we don't know how we are going to deal with issues like that, then I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to just plunge into a revolution, you know? Fair enough, an egalitarian society is the only way we'll ever have an equal society, but is an egalitarian society possible?

[trivas7]

[...] is an egalitarian society possible?
Why not?

[punisa]

1. How can a post-scarcity society exist?

It can never exist, at least not in the concept where the world would resemble a fairy tale.
As an example we can point out oil which is limited and MUST become scarcity sooner or later.
But this commodity is not vital or crucial. Innovations and new ideas can eliminate the oil problem overnight, but not in this system.
Solutions for oil already exist, but capitalist system doesn't want to use them (reasons are obvious) until they suck out the last drop of oil.

Nature already provided us the assistance of creating the communist system. Post-scarcity society is the one where no-one lacks fundamental needs (food,roof,work). Food won't run out like fuel.

Reason why so many are starving today is because we let corporations take claim over our fundamental resource - food.
This is like claiming oxygen.


2. How are workers hours reduced?Maybe I'm off here, but I guess you mean to point out how can we reduce the extreme workload of the working class?
Simple - just reduce the working hours ! What are the effects? Everyone will still have the same amount of ready commodities, except for the capitalist elite who will start loosing its wealth.

Work hours are high because the elite needs more profit, not because masses could not sustain themselves otherwise.


3. How could a gift economy possibly work?It tends to get kinda tricky to define gift economy. Some examples of today's gift economies are blood banks. You give something tangible (blood) and take away intangible (pride, self fulfilment).

Would this work on a large scale? Let's just say it's a humble idea which I shall try to elaborate on in your next question.


4. "labor vouchers"?As far as I recall these were introduced by Robert Owen - an interesting character that surely deserves more discussions. The idea was later embraced by Karl Marx himself.

Basically we have the same idea that nobody should lack anything. From this fundamental communist assumption many different theories evolved. One is "labour vouchers", "gift economy" is another one.

"labour vouchers" is the idea that you receive equally to the amount of work you give back to the society. This is a sort of stimulating technique that would encourage people to work in the new system.

"Gift economy" on the other hand lets you work how much you want and take whatever you think you need.
BTW, I think the whole term "Gift economy" is a little clumsy, but never mind.
All in all it relies on people's inner drive to work for common good.

I think that both theories are good, although I would engage them chronologically - something like this : revolution - labour vouchers (or similar economical models) - "Gift economy" (but let at least 300 years go by first)

Why not "Gift economy" immediately? People's nature and the needed time span to accommodate to the communist viewpoints.


5. Say we achieve communism before the correct technology is achieved to take away manual work, what happens when we don't have enough people doing things like mining coal etc?technology that won't need people and provide everything by itself is something that still fits in my realm of science fiction. It might be achieved one day, but if talk about it today we should incorporate topics like UFO, universe exploration and so on. When we invent such technology we could change the name of this forum to lazyleft.org :lol:

As for coal miners, your example is one of the reasons why we should incorporate at least some elements of planned economy. Some anti-left people consider this totalitarianism, which is not true at all.
Planning economy, pulling right moves and focusing on problems is something that every system needs - even communism.

The only thing important is that the coal miner and the economy strategist have the same importance in the society - no more or no less.


6. How can a stateless society exist? How do people govern themselves? How is it organized?Workers govern ( I'm referring to your previous question here ). One that sits in the office and analyses the resource production, points on which to focus and which transport routes to use - is still a worker.
Yes, he will need to finish much higher educational process to be good at what he does compared to the coal miner.
But still, they are both working class -no matter what kind of work they do, as long as they do it for the common good.

Many have really bad ideas what a working class actually is. Thinking that only coal miners, dock workers, chimney sweeps and factory workers present the "working class" is a totally wrong (these occupations were mentioned only to be a part of the descriptive argument, no discrimination meant whatsoever).

Again some words sound wrong. To organize workers - good. To govern workers - bad.


7. If there are communes, how do they interact?I'm really not sure if I understood your question here, but I'll give it a shot.
If you are referring to a situation once imaginable country borders are erased, then I'd say that the communes interact more or less we do today. Meetings, socializing, internet.

Again, I might totally not understood your question here.


8. How would organizations work? As in a hierarchy? Who would allow for themselves to be put in a subservient role?Once the climate reaches a phase were work is praised and respected regardless of the occupation, I believe we would also stop thinking in a way of a hierarchical model.


9. What is true socialism and what does it look like?Uf, this is a hard one :ohmy:
To describe it, I'd have to write an entire book (a fat one) which would probably be entitles "What is true socialism?".

As you know, socialism has multiple sub-ideologies and theories. But all of these share some common basis.
It would again take me too long to name all the common ideas that create entire socialist ideology, so I'm going to answer your question by saying that you'll have to answer it yourself :cool:

I'm not being sarcastic, actually the answer to such question is indeed a personal one. For example, for me socialism is the glorious idea where one has the chance to live his/her earthly life in co-existence with fellow human beings. Not to oppress or being oppressed.
I also see socialism as worth fighting for even if we don't have a chance to fully experience it in the course of our lives. It's a humane idea and knowing that some future generations might live like we once dreamed about is enough to continue such struggle.



10. Why not vote for a socialist party and reform capitalism from the inside?Many socialist parties today are as corrupted as the capitalist ones. This is especially true for ex communist countries where they grab votes on nostalgia.
Review the party, get as much info as you can and then if you feel like it vote for them.


His main concern seems to be that we shouldn't aim for something we have no idea will work. He's saying that it's too simple and that you need a currency system.Hope I gave some more stuff to continue your debate. Remember that talking about a non existent economical/political system when living in a completely different one is very hard. It's actually talking about something that no one has seen yet, many people will thus discard your ideas equally as if you were telling them about some alien cultures in a distant solar system.
Again, this is not an obstacle that would force you to give up.

Keep up the debate Comrade and say hi to your pa for me :)

[trivas7]

This link might help:

http://brightfuture21c.wordpress.com/

[Post-Something]

Ahh! Thank you very much for your response Punisa! It was very helpful!



It can never exist, at least not in the concept where the world would resemble a fairy tale.
As an example we can point out oil which is limited and MUST become scarcity sooner or later.
But this commodity is not vital or crucial. Innovations and new ideas can eliminate the oil problem overnight, but not in this system.
Solutions for oil already exist, but capitalist system doesn't want to use them (reasons are obvious) until they suck out the last drop of oil.

Nature already provided us the assistance of creating the communist system. Post-scarcity society is the one where no-one lacks fundamental needs (food,roof,work). Food won't run out like fuel.

Reason why so many are starving today is because we let corporations take claim over our fundamental resource - food.
This is like claiming oxygen.

I was always under the impression that eliminating scarcity would care for both needs and wants. But I understand the idea now! When people say post-scarcity, I should just take it to mean that everyone will be able to fill their needs comfortably?


Maybe I'm off here, but I guess you mean to point out how can we reduce the extreme workload of the working class?
Simple - just reduce the working hours ! What are the effects? Everyone will still have the same amount of ready commodities, except for the capitalist elite who will start loosing its wealth.

Work hours are high because the elite needs more profit, not because masses could not sustain themselves otherwise.

I understand that, but I've heard claims that even as low as 2 hours a day of work would be sufficient. Are you sure such little work would provide for such a big demand, considering we would be trying to eliminate scarcity?


It tends to get kinda tricky to define gift economy. Some examples of today's gift economies are blood banks. You give something tangible (blood) and take away intangible (pride, self fulfilment).

Would this work on a large scale? Let's just say it's a humble idea which I shall try to elaborate on in your next question.

I still think that you need a transitional period of socialism to iron out greed etc, so I don't think it could work. Labor vouchers on the other hand...


As far as I recall these were introduced by Robert Owen - an interesting character that surely deserves more discussions. The idea was later embraced by Karl Marx himself.

Basically we have the same idea that nobody should lack anything. From this fundamental communist assumption many different theories evolved. One is "labour vouchers", "gift economy" is another one.

"labour vouchers" is the idea that you receive equally to the amount of work you give back to the society. This is a sort of stimulating technique that would encourage people to work in the new system.

"Gift economy" on the other hand lets you work how much you want and take whatever you think you need.
BTW, I think the whole term "Gift economy" is a little clumsy, but never mind.
All in all it relies on people's inner drive to work for common good.

I think that both theories are good, although I would engage them chronologically - something like this : revolution - labour vouchers (or similar economical models) - "Gift economy" (but let at least 300 years go by first)

Why not "Gift economy" immediately? People's nature and the needed time span to accommodate to the communist viewpoints.

Yes, I think I would probably be with you there. But I think I mentioned earlier on, "some labor is easier than other types. An hour putting lids on toothpaste tubes on a conveyor belt is probably easier than an hour in the coal mine. And an hour making music is probably more enjoyable." Could the system still work?


technology that won't need people and provide everything by itself is something that still fits in my realm of science fiction. It might be achieved one day, but if talk about it today we should incorporate topics like UFO, universe exploration and so on. When we invent such technology we could change the name of this forum to lazyleft.org :lol:

As for coal miners, your example is one of the reasons why we should incorporate at least some elements of planned economy. Some anti-left people consider this totalitarianism, which is not true at all.
Planning economy, pulling right moves and focusing on problems is something that every system needs - even communism.

The only thing important is that the coal miner and the economy strategist have the same importance in the society - no more or no less.

Yeah, this is one of the things my dad brought up! I think he said something like, in China the government asked an incredible amount of steel from the workers, or something along those lines. What I don't understand is how this would happen after socialism, when there is no state. Which body or organization does that? How do the people know how much coal or steel to produce then?


Workers govern ( I'm referring to your previous question here ). One that sits in the office and analyses the resource production, points on which to focus and which transport routes to use - is still a worker.
Yes, he will need to finish much higher educational process to be good at what he does compared to the coal miner.
But still, they are both working class -no matter what kind of work they do, as long as they do it for the common good.

Many have really bad ideas what a working class actually is. Thinking that only coal miners, dock workers, chimney sweeps and factory workers present the "working class" is a totally wrong (these occupations were mentioned only to be a part of the descriptive argument, no discrimination meant whatsoever).

Again some words sound wrong. To organize workers - good. To govern workers - bad.

So how exactly would a large scale project, like a census, or project CERN be carried out? Wouldn't it be so much easier with a central body? And how would you eventually discard hierarchy in a system like that? Or even something like a school or university?


I'm really not sure if I understood your question here, but I'll give it a shot.
If you are referring to a situation once imaginable country borders are erased, then I'd say that the communes interact more or less we do today. Meetings, socializing, internet.

Yes, I was referring to when country borders are taken away; how are large scale projects, such as the ones I've listed above, still possible? Also, would we live in some sort of federalism without the authority in both Anarchy and communism? Or dos communism have a different way of doing it?



Once the climate reaches a phase were work is praised and respected regardless of the occupation, I believe we would also stop thinking in a way of a hierarchical model.

I think I found the answer to this on that infoshop website that Kropotesta posted :).


Uf, this is a hard one :ohmy:
To describe it, I'd have to write an entire book (a fat one) which would probably be entitles "What is true socialism?".

As you know, socialism has multiple sub-ideologies and theories. But all of these share some common basis.
It would again take me too long to name all the common ideas that create entire socialist ideology, so I'm going to answer your question by saying that you'll have to answer it yourself :cool:

I'm not being sarcastic, actually the answer to such question is indeed a personal one. For example, for me socialism is the glorious idea where one has the chance to live his/her earthly life in co-existence with fellow human beings. Not to oppress or being oppressed.
I also see socialism as worth fighting for even if we don't have a chance to fully experience it in the course of our lives. It's a humane idea and knowing that some future generations might live like we once dreamed about is enough to continue such struggle.

Many socialist parties today are as corrupted as the capitalist ones. This is especially true for ex communist countries where they grab votes on nostalgia.
Review the party, get as much info as you can and then if you feel like it vote for them.

So what about socialism as a stage between capitalism and communism? Does it not have a specific way of being organized? Does Socialism always necessarily mean that it's goal is to achieve an egalitarian society in the long run?


Hope I gave some more stuff to continue your debate. Remember that talking about a non existent economical/political system when living in a completely different one is very hard. It's actually talking about something that no one has seen yet, many people will thus discard your ideas equally as if you were telling them about some alien cultures in a distant solar system.
Again, this is not an obstacle that would force you to give up.

Keep up the debate Comrade and say hi to your pa for me :)

Thank you so much, your post was very helpful! You cleared up a lot of things as well, and I think I'm sort of getting to grips with th way it would be organized. Thank you!

[Niccolò Rossi]

Ok, well, how do we make sure there will always be a super abundance of material goods?

It could be argued that even today the capacity exists for the satisfaction of all human needs, a super-abundance. This super-abundance in production is the product of the use of advanced technology and productive social labour.


Yeah, but I've heard estimates of 2 hours a day. What happens if people don't pull their weight in a particular field of work because it is so uninteresting?

That's the thing, people in a communist society will pull their weight regardless. Labour, in a communist society is transformed from an alienating and fulfilling task as in capitalism, into a self-fulfilling and truly human activity. When people feel human and fulfilled in their labour activity they see work not as a task which has to be performed, but rather as a one that they enjoy taking part in.


So the entire Anarchist argument of a gift economy is just rubbish and couldn't realistically work?

That's a matter of opinion, but I can say, Anarchism and Marxism are separated by a lot less that most people think.


Yeah, but some labor is easier than other types. An hour putting lids on toothpaste tubes on a conveyor belt is probably easier than an hour in the coal mine. And an hour making music is probably more enjoyable.

It's not just a matter of hours worked. 4 hours of hard labour is more productive than 4 hours of inefficient labour.

A labour-time voucher is used to compensate a certain number of socially necessary labour hours performed. With such a voucher I can then use so as to receive back in another form (consumer goods), the labour I provided to society.

It is important to note though, if I perform 4 hours of inefficient labour, I do not receive 4 hours of Labour-time vouchers. This is because the labour-time voucher indicates socially necessary labour, where I performed labour which is below what is socially necessary, I receive back goods which are likewise below what is socially necessary.

Take another example, let's say as a doctor I perform labour which is more socially necessary than say that performed by a janitor (this is only an example), I aught to receive from society a number of labour vouchers (and thus a number of consumer goods) greater than the janitor. At this point a lot of people may be raising their eyes brows at this seemingly elitist statement, but do not fret. It is also important to note the (where posible) elimination of the division of labour between different professions in a socialist/communist society.

In a socialist/communist society, the social division of labour must be abolished, however, there will still exist a technical division of labour which is a material necessity. The abolition of the social division of labour between the different sectors will allow all people to engage in certain more or less socially productive activity and ensure a variety of productive activity which individuals may perform.


Yeah, I'm interested in the leap from Socialism to communism. Why would the state disintegrate? I don't understand how there can't be some sort of body where decisions about society can be made.

The state in the Marxist definition is not a body for the making of decisions as you believe. Rather the state in the Marxist sense of the word, is merely the means of class rule, which acts to mediate the class struggle in it's favour.

It is important to understand the difference between and proletarian and bourgeois state. Marx made the call in his Civil War in France that:


But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.
The centralized state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature — organs wrought after the plan of a systematic and hierarchic division of labor — originates from the days of absolute monarchy, serving nascent middle class society as a mighty weapon in its struggle against feudalism.

It is thus vital that we do not capture the capitalist state machinery and use it to achieve communism, but rather we must smash the capitalist state, constructing a proletarian state from the ruins. However, it is important to remember that this state is not a state in the bourgeois sense of the word, that being a centralised body of organised violence, rather it is a decentralised body for the use of violence. The organs of the proletarian state are vastly different from those of the capitalist state (eg. a democratic peoples militia vs. the standing army, soviets and workers councils vs. parliaments).

The reason why the state disappears is a result of its very definition. The state exists only so long as their is a class struggle which needs to be mediated, when this class struggle ceases, so does the states existence. The proletarian state is born dying and can do nothing but, it's burial however, can only be achieved with the destruction of the bourgeois class, a task undertaken only by the use of organised violence, a state.


But you need hierarchy. Most organizations need hierarchy. You need people in different roles, and people overlooking certain roles. Not everything can be done by democracy.

You are right in regard to the technical division of labour. Hierarchy will exist in a communist society not in the form of a social division of labour, the division into classes, but only in the most basic manner which is physically necessary. Even then this hierarchy will be neutered by direct and delegated democracy.


Well, how about this: A state where all things that concern the majority of people directly (like electricity and gas and transport) are nationalized, the petit bourgeoisie are allowed, and direct democracy comes about. Then, little by little the state takes hold of the means of production.

Socialism is not a matter of the state holding the means of production, it is about their collective ownership by the whole working class and their direct control by the relevant producers.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You can't "achieve communism before [we're] ready" anymore than a highly developed capitalist economy can develop from a feudalist system without interest and trade.

[Dros]

1. How can a post-scarcity society exist?

By developing and expanding the means of production, by eliminating anarchic production and unemployment, by halting production of luxury items, and through technological developments.


2. How are workers hours reduced?

By increasing efficiency.


3. How could a gift economy possibly work?

Everyone owns the means of production collectively so everyone owns the products of production.


4. "labor vouchers"?

During socialism.


5. Say we achieve communism before the correct technology is achieved to take away manual work, what happens when we don't have enough people doing things like mining coal etc?

Not likely to happen. Even so, I think that correct application of contemporary technology might be sufficient.


6. How can a stateless society exist? How do people govern themselves? How is it organized?

Through democratically elected committees at broader levels and through direct democracy, etc.


7. If there are communes, how do they interact?

Through large scale organizations based on the Commune governments.


8. How would organizations work? As in a hierarchy? Who would allow for themselves to be put in a subservient role?

democratically?


9. What is true socialism and what does it look like?

The GPCR.


10. Why not vote for a socialist party and reform capitalism from the inside?

Not viable. The Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie is not a democracy in any meaningful sense.

[punisa]

Ahh! Thank you very much for your response Punisa! It was very helpful!

I was always under the impression that eliminating scarcity would care for both needs and wants. But I understand the idea now! When people say post-scarcity, I should just take it to mean that everyone will be able to fill their needs comfortably?

Such a society can be achieved, the sole process of achieving it is probably the simplest step. The problem here is not the physical lack of resources, its the poisoned state of mind.
Let's say a working man gets a job which requires him to travel every day, and let's say public transportation is not an option in his case, so he has a need and the want to have a car.
His need is fulfilled once he gets a car, but the problem arises if he wants a Porsche instead!

Needs and wants have to be inside a reasonable context. Today's problem is exactly that - many people have started to think that having a Porsche (or a yacht boat, or an 8 room apartment, or 3000$ shoes) is their god-given need. Such thinking makes them hardcore-capitalists.

Again, communist post-scarcity climate is not living in a shack and eating prison meals (something that anti communist will tell you), on the contrary - life needs to be comfortable and fulfilling.



I understand that, but I've heard claims that even as low as 2 hours a day of work would be sufficient. Are you sure such little work would provide for such a big demand, considering we would be trying to eliminate scarcity?Like Comrade Zeitgeist perfectly pointed out:

It's not just a matter of hours worked. 4 hours of hard labour is more productive than 4 hours of inefficient labour.

Again, imagine work as an activity you do because you like it, you are not forced into a job that you dislike.
If you like baking bread, there is no need to run home after your 2 hours.
Communism must be governed and kept alive by the people. It can't truly exist until individuals have a high sense of working for common good.

If you just came home now from some crummy job, try and imagine an occupation that you would enjoy doing. Would 2 hours be enough for you? Hell no, you'd probably try to get better at what you do and increase your output.
Working class must feed on the pride they receive from their work (something that is very absent today). I'd even go so far and compare to religion, the sense of self fulfilment religious people have after hours of kneeling and praying.


I still think that you need a transitional period of socialism to iron out greed etc, so I don't think it could work. Labor vouchers on the other hand...To better understand the first phases of communism (socialism) I would recommend learning as much as you can about the socialist governments that existed in 20th century - especially USSR and Yugoslavia.

Unfortunately I don't have experience with USSR (join the conversation if you do), but I can speak of Yugoslavia. Greed was indeed being ironed out, any ex Yugoslav can back up my statement.
But 50 years was not enough to completely drive out greed, corruption, nationalism and similar. Of course, many mistakes were also made, as well as foreign influences, which contributed to the collapse of a great socialist system-to-be.

This was indeed transitional system built around Marxist ideology while having many capitalist elements. Problem was that instead of getting closer to Marxist ideology, as years have gone by it was getting closer to the capitalist ones.
Such tendencies resulted in huge student demonstrations all across Yugoslavia in 1968. Young were demanding Marxist promises to be enforced (the ones we discus about) as 20 years have already gone by since the socialist establishment of Yugoslavia. Unfortunately students were tricked ones again.

In the end this socialist transitional example collapsed entirely and ended in a bloody inhuman war led by the nationalists and the right wingers.



Yes, I think I would probably be with you there. But I think I mentioned earlier on, "some labor is easier than other types. An hour putting lids on toothpaste tubes on a conveyor belt is probably easier than an hour in the coal mine. And an hour making music is probably more enjoyable." Could the system still work?Yes it can. In the capitalist system when you finally manage to get a job, let's say in your twenties, you'll probably do it until retirement. The communist system should be much more flexible and enable one to switch occupations many times during a life. This also goes for the place of living.

The need for assembling toothpastes will be taken care of by people that realize "someone's gotta do it". Which again does not mean you'll have to do it until the day you do die. Why not try some coal mining for a change?

In fact I have a great story about the conveyor belt. I remember my mom telling me about working in a milk factory when she was a student back in the days of Yugoslavia.
Job was to assemble milk bottles, same as crummy toothpaste example, but as she always keeps saying: "these were the best days of our lives".

You're probably going, what the hell? Putting together a milk bottle for hours - fun? No way !
In fact it was. There were many students working there, they were mostly singing and having fun working together. They all got to know each other and work brake was usually spent in the melody of a guitar someone brought to work.
This kind of productive environment capitalists have tried to emulate by enforcing every strategy imaginable, but will never succeed.



Yeah, this is one of the things my dad brought up! I think he said something like, in China the government asked an incredible amount of steel from the workers, or something along those lines. What I don't understand is how this would happen after socialism, when there is no state. Which body or organization does that? How do the people know how much coal or steel to produce then?There will always be a need for people who analyse the production. To think that a coal worker knows how much coal is needed for the society is just crazy.
Somebody's job needs to be to monitor the weather season and forecasts in order to determine what kind of food should be grown.
Somebody's job has to be the inspection of railroads - how many more kilometres we need to build this year, where should the route go.

Again, these decisions are made to benefit the whole society. They are public, transparent and available to everyone.
These people or decision makers are not the body or organization - these are "working class planing for working class".

If one educates himself to monitor wheat crops then his job is to acknowledge how much, where and when should be produced. This is help to the wheat growers, not the command.

Again let's compare this to today's example: a decision is made to build a highway, although this is for common good, many malversations and corruption occur - building a road from taxes, while hiding a part that ends up in someone's pocket. Buying of nearby properties knowing the prices will jump high.



So how exactly would a large scale project, like a census, or project CERN be carried out? Wouldn't it be so much easier with a central body? And how would you eventually discard hierarchy in a system like that? Or even something like a school or university?A large project would have a large organization - organized to complete it. Just like a factory has.
Some elements do not need to get rid of hierarchy, like projects you mentioned. In such situations hierarchy is good and provides numerous advantages.

Hierarchy must not exist as an oppressing power, but as a vital need to accomplish certain projects.
Like universities, you can not have a science apprentice write a book on WW2, he still lacks knowledge and information. This is were more experienced members (and thus in the higher hierarchy) help out.
In the scientific circles this is absolutely normal and does not need to change. Same would go for let's say lawyers.



Yes, I was referring to when country borders are taken away; how are large scale projects, such as the ones I've listed above, still possible? Also, would we live in some sort of federalism without the authority in both Anarchy and communism? Or dos communism have a different way of doing it?Taking away the borders have a much greater purpose - to eliminate nationalism. Once that's taken care of, there is no objection in dividing the planet inside the certain zones or sectors. The main mission is to make these only for the purpose of organizing, not to make people glorify their sector - then we would have another crap to deal with - sectorism :rolleyes:




I think I found the answer to this on that infoshop website that Kropotesta posted :).I love that site :)


So what about socialism as a stage between capitalism and communism? Does it not have a specific way of being organized? Does Socialism always necessarily mean that it's goal is to achieve an egalitarian society in the long run?Again, take a peak in former USSR and Yugoslavia to find out more about socialism. Although be sure that you will not find a universal definition of socialism there, on the contrary. I am pointing these out solely to give an example which is closely related to your question.



Thank you so much, your post was very helpful! You cleared up a lot of things as well, and I think I'm sort of getting to grips with th way it would be organized. Thank you!Good luck comrade, glad I could help. :) Again these are just some of my observations on your questions and are probably not entirely backed up by Marxist studies. I'm sure that as you "dig" deeper you'll discover much more detailed theories that will answer your current and future questions.

[gla22]

The term scarcity refers to needs and wants unless Marx gave it a different definition. If scarcity applies only to needs, yes it is able to be eliminated. If it refers to all wants then, no.

[Post-Something]

I'm sorry for such a late reply, I had exams to study for, so it's been pretty hectic. Even right now I'm stuck for time, so I'll just say thanks to everyone, and most of these issues are pretty much cleared up.

Apart from this:


Through large scale organizations based on the Commune governments.

from Drosera.


First of all, how is a government different from a state? And what does it mean to have an organization based on communes?

Also, Marx argued that when class inequalities were gotten rid of, and an egalitarian society was finally achieved, that the state would wither away, how exactly can this be proven, considering the state has only ever been given more power when a revolution is under way?

[trivas7]

Also, Marx argued that when class inequalities were gotten rid of, and an egalitarian society was finally achieved, that the state would wither away, how exactly can this be proven, considering the state has only ever been given more power when a revolution is under way?
The state is the power to enforce the will of the ruling class. When communism has been established there exist no classes and therefore no need for one class to enforce its will on another. Will there be conflicts between people? Of course. What "withers away" is the ability of one class to oppress another.

[Die Neue Zeit]

4. "labor vouchers"?
During socialism.

That even drosera99 himself agrees with the fourth concept of social proletocracy, as opposed to Lenin's Second-International conception of proletocratic "state socialism," is quite something! :thumbup1: