Opting out of communism?

Yes. Robbo and I both agree on that. But Robbo also seems to think that one can do nothing and still 'qualify'.

Im not 100% sure what you are asking here. People will voluntarily contribute to the production process in whatever capacity they chose according to their ability. Most likely people will chose to engage in a wide variety of different kinds of work and why not ? Variety is the spice of life

What they as individuals draw from the community pot is not affected by what work they may have done. As I said there is no quid pro quo set up. The link between production and consumption at the level of individuals is thus severed in a socialist society.

It is a different matter entirely when we are looking at society as a whole. At the social level, production and consumption will obviously continue to be closely linked. Society as a whole cannot consume more than what society as a whole has produced. Productive effort will be guided consumer demand as expressed particularly via a self regulating system of stock control - a key insititution of socialism in my iopinion. Individuals will be able to see for themselves where work is needed and volunteer themsleves accordingly as they see fit with prpduction units no doubt making known to the public their labour requirements on a contunually updated basis

In other words, the individual's capacity to chose whatever work he or she wants to do will be within a social framework in which production will be constrained by the overall pattern of demand . People are both consumers and producers and will have an interest in seeing that what is produced in general is tailored to consumer demand in general.

Yes, 'being a member of society', ie by contributing to society. Not 'being alive'. Not 'not contributing to society'.


No, it's you who thinks capitalism will always be with us, because you want everyone to be enlightened before the conditions for enlightenment exist. So what you advocate is a socialist pedagogy that has fewer adherents than when it was founded 109 years ago.

Conditions (the conditions that capitalism creates) compel the working class to resist. It is in resistance (not reading the Socialist Standard) that workers come to revolutionary consciousness. So yes, if you have an utterly static view of class consciousness, as you do, then I can see it would be hard to visualise how things could change But, you know what? Consciousness is dynamic because it's a relection of a dynamic situation. It's not just filling the empty heads of workers one-by-one with your 'Socialist Brand Ideology (TM)'.


The difference between the transformation to socialist society and the transformation to all previous societies was that the working class is not an exploiting class. The bourgeoisie was perfectly able to develop its own ideological forms because it was an exploiting class; they had plenty of time on their hands even when the aristocracy was in control. But capitalism built itself inside feudalism; socialism doesn't build itself in capitalism.By the time of the political revolutions that overthrew the feudal order, the bourgeoisie had already built its economic power over several hundred years. That isn't going to happen to the working class.


I can argue against it because a) what you're saying is not what Marx is saying and b) whatever Marx might say (and I don't actually care what Marx says, he's not Mohammed), what you say is not true. Marx doesn't say that the alteration of consciousness must take place before the transformation., and even if he did, it can't happen. Marx, rightly, says that the transformation 'can only take place in a practical movement'. It is creating socialism that creates socialists. The succesful completion of the process relies on socialists being created - but not the begining of the process. again, your lack of a dynamical understanding of class consciousness leads you to a static conception which is unable to graasp the process of transformation.

The process will begin through resistance; and those that begin it will likely have no idea where it's going. Events have logic, even when people don't.


That is no more than saying that the transformation of society (the 'social revolution, 'revolution 2') can't happen until after the working class attains political power (the political revolution, 'revolution 1'). I agree.




As opposed to those that think that revolutionary education is the way forward? You must think things are getting better, if you believe thye ideology you're proclaiming. In 1904, there were hardly any 'enlightened socialists'. Now, 109 years later there must be loads of them, if you're right and all it takes is learning the right socialist theory.

Only, you're not right, and there are fewer 'enlightened socialists' than there were back then. Whereas the working class does fight back against capitalism. Certainly capitalism can win. Socialism isn't inevitable, no matter how bad things get. But without the working class fighting back against capitalism, there is no 'communist movement'. And without a 'communist movement' there is no communist society. It certainly doesn't come from the brains of enlightened intellectuals.


EDIT: it occurs to me that we're now quite a way from the subject of this thread ('opting out of communism') but I think this is a discussion worth continuing. Please, make a thread in 'Theory' called something like 'Socialist consciousness and revolutionary process' or something and I'll contribute to it happily.

You are contradicting yourself yet again. First you tell us that only if people work will they be able to get access to goods. Then you tell us that people 'qualify' to take goods from society by virtue of joining society. and being part of society. Now its back to the "no work, no goods" line of approach.


I would argue that treating access to goods as an unconditional right, even if you have done sod all, is by far the best approach. Why are you so worried about the prospect of a few free riders? They will be the ones who will be losing out, in my opinion by not participating in creative and satisfying work and by depriving themselves of the camaraderie of work colleagues. Besides, as Ive said before, there are other ways of making known to free riders the feelings of the community without going down the road of denying them access to the goods they need. We are social animals and one of the most powerful weapons we have to combat anti social behaviour is shame. In a socialist society , far more than in a capitalist society, people will recognise their mutal interdependence and develop an ethics of cooperation that will be much more transperent and potent for that


But that aside, once you go down the road of denying people access to goods if they do not work you have to follow though with this consistently and thoroughly or it simply wont work. That means comprehensively monitoring and recording everyone's labour contributions, pricing all goods in terms of labour time units and creating a vast sprawling bureaucracy to manage and oversee this whole business.

Its just not worth the effort. Whatever advantages your approach may have are vastly outweighed by the disadvantages

Again; being No, it's just that you're not actually reading my posts.

Again: 'being part of society' is not the same as 'bering alive', and nor is it the same as 'not being part of society'. 'Being part of society' means contributing to society.

Ok- so people will be free to work wherever they want, whenever they want, howver they want. Provided that their freely made choices fit within the framework as established by society, and tailored to what consumers want produced.

Ok- so people will be free to work wherever they want, whenever they want, howver they want. Provided that their freely made choices fit within the framework as established by society, and tailored to what consumers want produced.

Yes. Thats quite a good summary I would say

How does the socialist community insure that where and how workers freely wish to productivelly labor correlates with what other people need and want produced?

OK, so now it seems you've definitely settled on the line that "being a member of society" means "contributing to society" i.e. working. So people who dont contribute - like the infirm and the aged and the lackadaisical - are not strictly members of society - yes? No doubt you will react with your usual faux indignation to that remark but think on. In your workerist-obsessed interpretation of what being a "member of society" entails, have you considered that there are other ways in which people can contribute to society than through rolling up their sleeves and doing their stuff down on the assembly line? I can think of several ways in which individuals can enrich our lives and so contribute to society without necessarily "working" Cant you?

That apart, I note that you have studiously avoided discussing the arguments I raised against making making access to goods dependent on your work contribution. I think your fear of free riders is unwarranted. Its the kind of argument put up by people who think socialism is impossible becuase of something called human nature. Anyways, if there are a few freeriders we can carry them. Its their loss, frankly, if they deny themselves the opportunity to socially interact with others in the creative process of work. Even under capitalism there a huge amount of unpaid purely voluntary work that people do.

Basically when it comes down to it you are an exponent of the labour voucher scheme or something akin to it. In my opinion this scheme is deeply flawed . It will prove to be fundamentally socially divisive for the reasons I gave as well as massively wasteful given the enormous bureaucracy it will necessistate. As I said , if you are going to make work contribution the criterion upon which access to goods depends that means you are going to have monitor and measure everyone's work contributiuon - without exception. Have you thought through the implications of this?


You are rather fond of caricaturing other people's position arent you? I think if you calmed down a little instead of coming across as so rattled and huffy you might have seen for yourself that what you are attributing to me is not my position


No I dont think capitalism will always be with us, because "I want everyone to be enlightened before the conditions for enlightenment exist" Thats a silly argument and also a very unmarxist argument if I might say so. The "conditions for enlightment" already exist in the form of the class struggle, the greatest teacher of all. Of course political education and socialist propaganda helps but I have never ever suggested that only through such propaganda can socialism be achieved. Where did you get this ridiculous idea from?

My position is that the material conditions of class struggle throws up socialist ideas and socialist ideas reciprocally act upon the class struggle itself to aid and sharpen it . As I said before (though you obviously missed this in your haste to condemn) its not a one way thing. The relationship between ideas and material conditions is, to use a phrase, a dialectical one. This is a totally different position to the nonsense you attrribute to me. And incidentally while Im not a member of the SPGB - and have several criticisms of the SPGB - the SPGB would also reject your characterisation of them out of hand. If you dont believe go ahead and ask them.

The main point Ive been making which you constantly seem to shy away from is that you cannot have socialism without a conscious socialist majority. Short of that you will be stuck with capitalism. So how do you see a socialist majority coming about? As I see it you have boxed your into a corner by asserting that workers cannot become socialists under capitalism because according to you, capitalism does not offer the "conditions for enlightnement". So how then are these so called "conditions for enlightenment" going to come about? Through a revolution? Fine. But a revolution is something that happens while we still live in a capitalist society and the impulse to bring about a revolution arises from our experience of living in capitalism as you constantly remind us - which system you strangely assert cannot provide those mysterious "conditions for enlightenment" you talk of. I think frankly youve tied yourself up in knots here




This doesnt explain anything. The fact that the bourgeosie was also an exploiting class does not explain why the bourgeoisie were allowed to function in a feudal society if, according to you, the ruling ideas of the ruling class - in this case the feudal ruling class - are so powerful as to prevent any other ideas ever taking root and spreading. You dont actually have to live in a socialist society in order to become a socialist do you. You have managed to overcome capitalist conditioning to become a socialist. So whats so special about you or me or anyone else who claims to be a socialist. If we can do it so can others. Or do you think we socialists are a cut above the rest of our fellow workers. I certainly dont think so


Actually Marx is saying exactly what I said he is saying if you care to read it again and this time more carefully. But never mind Marx - he's not Mohammed, as you say. Im more concerned with your giveaway remark "It is creating socialism that creates socialists". Are you seriously trying to tell me that the establishiment of a socialist society can precede the attainment of a socialist majority? I think it is important that you explain yourself here - since I dont want to put words in your mouth - because you dont seem to be very clear in your thinking or way of expressing yourself.

For example, you also say the "succesful completion of the process relies on socialists being created - but not the begining of the process". This sounds very much like you are saying that a socialist majority creates (precedes) socialism - socialism being the succcesful completion of the process you refer to. That flatly contradicts what you earlier said about socialism creating socialists. Socialism as you have reminded us , cannot be built inside capitalism. So, according to you, there is no question of socialism being gradually built up in the sense of a process. It must be the outcome of a process of workers increasingly becoming socialists.


The other claim you make is that I lack a "dynamical understanding of class consciousness" and this me leads me to a "static conception which is unable to graasp the process of transformation." The process , you say, "will begin through resistance; and those that begin it will likely have no idea where it's going. Events have logic, even when people don't"


Little do you seem to know but that actually IS my conception of the "transformation" which you in your hastiness and lack of attention to detail, have ignored. In fact, this is precisely the argument I make against those who have a voluntaristic notion of class struggle as something you can enter into , and opt out of or abtain from, as a matter of choice. Those left wing romantic idealists who think the class struggle is something you can switch on or off, and freely move into or out of at will, are the same idealists who ignorantly accuse organisations like the SPGB of "abstaining from the class struggle". As if that were possible. As if we are not all of us engaged in the class struggle whether we know it or not. Class struggle is not confined to going on strike and waving our Socialist Worker placards on the latest demo

We dont have to initiate the class strugggle. What we have to do is clarify it in the course of participating in it. I come back again to the point about the dialectical relationship between ideas and material conditions . Of course the transformation , "will begin through resistance; and those that begin it will likely have no idea where it's going". The point is precisely to develop an idea where it is or ought to be going and that is where the role of propaganda comes in. It is part of the process of change and a very necessary part at that.

People who ignorantly pooh-pooh the active spreading of socialist ideas on the silly grounds that this is "idealist", frankly havent got a clue about the dynamics of social change. It is ideas that mediate and penetrate everything we do; they are part of the material conditions we live under and the way in which we frame our understanding of the world. These pseudo-materialists who strut their stuff and declare that we are no more that the product of our material circumstances are ironically the quintessential idealists of our time . This utterly mechanistic conception of materialism was brilliantly critiqued by Cornelius Catordiadis in a little pamphlet called History as Creation. Check it out here

http://eagainst.com/articles/corneli...eation-part-i/


Ironically such people - armchair "materialists" to a man or woman - will be found populating internet forums such as this busily intent upon spreading their big idea that ideas dont count. Its enough to make you weep

Because the information about what other perople need and want is made transperent, amongst other things, via the self regulkating system of stock control. Stores automatically signal to suppliers what they need and the suppliers - the various production units - are able to signal to the community at large what their labour needs are. Who knows? - there might even be something equivalent to todays job centres except that you wouldnt be going there to look for employment but rather what work opportunities are available which you might you wish to volunteer for.

Still not the place. Take it to 'Theory', I'll talk to you there.

The idea is that labour will became a natural want. People will want to work, to do things.

1000 people like to make shoes. 1000 people make shoes. Everybody has shoes.
Problem solved?
200 people like to make dresses. 200 people make dresses. There aren't enough dresses.
Now what? A job center? What does that have to do with anything? The problem is not enough people like making dresses. Hence, not enough people making dresses. Hence, a shortage of dresses.

Yes but in this example you are referring to a problem of motivation. Your original question, as I understood it, had to do wth the mechanism or means by which labour contributions adapted to fluctuations in the pattern of consumer demand. I offered an explanation. In this case, if there are not enough dresses being made to meet the consumer demand for dresses then clearly the production units producing dresses will be communicating this information thick and fast to the communist "job centres" or online community noticeboards: "More volunteeers urgently needed to make dresses"

If that still doesnt do the trick and not enough volunteers are forthcoming then we have a problem obviously. But here's the difference between today and a communist society. In the later we will fully appreciate our nurtual interdependence. There will be no "us" and "them". There will be only us. You dont have to passively await the decision of dressmakers to step up production. becuase you are not employed by the manufacturer. Insofar as a shoirtage of dresses is a problem there is nothing to stop you doing something about it and the bigger the problem as you experience it, the more likely will you want to do something about it. So by a process of reductio ad absurdum the problem will get solved

You cant force others to make dresses in a voluntaristic society, after all. Knowing that, the tendency in a communist society will be to "lead by example". Such a society will be one most conducive to a sense of self response and commuhnal solidarity rather thah looking to the nanny state or big business as the solution to our problems. We ourselves will be the solution to these problems, not some entity outside of us

Presumably, those potential volunteers will already have been selflessly working, producing other needed and wanted goods. You are not explaining why they would wish to leave and volunteer elsrwear. They already had been leading by example.

We are talking about a hypothetical example and Im not in possession of a crystal ball to provide you with a complete and satisfactory answer to every question you ask. It is always possible to speculate and raise "what if" type questions in response to solutions offered

However your point kind of presupposes a number of things which I would question. For example, you seem to assume that people would work only for selfless altruistic reasons which in turn suggests that work would be something onerous and to be avoided which is what bourgeois economists call the "disutility of labour" argument. I dont accept either of these things. While altruistic motives will undoubtedly play an important role in a communist society, this does not preclude enlightened self interest. The reason for working in a communist society would as much to do with enlightened self interest as it is to do with altruism - if not more

No doubt there will be some work that will remain unpleasant and onerous and if it cannot be mechanised or automated then this will be a problem that will simply have to be confronted . If the work is not being done then one can only presume that the population dont see it as a problem sufficiently grave to be dealt with.

If, on the the other hand, they do see it as grave then one way or another it will get done. Its called the "bugger it!" syndrome. We all have our own toleration threshold. Its like living in a home. If the washing up is not getting done someone, sooner or later, is gonna say "Bugger it! I cant stand this anymore. Im just going to have to do the washing up myself.


So by a reducio ad absurdum argument such work will get done and particularly so in a communist society where the voluntaristic nature of work means no can be actually forced to do work. People will fully understand this and that is precisely why I believe they will behave much more responsibly in a communiost society. In effect, the whole ethics of cooperation will be much more strongly grounded in such a society for that reason. That is to say, moral compulsion and the institution of shame will play a much great role and carry far greater force than is the case today

But here we are talking about work that is inherently unpleasant. In my view the great bulk of work will become intrinsically satisfying. This is what motivates volunteers today in capitalism - the intrinsic rewards one gets from it. Work becomes its own reward. Thats what Marx meant when he talked about labour becoming lifes prime want in a communist society. In fact that there have several large scale studies that have conclusively shown that if you start remunerating people for doing work - paying them cash or giving them tax breaks - this has a demotivating effect. It sullies their whole attitude to work. They come to see it as simply a means to an end. Thats is why the best workers are very often volunteer workers

In communism it is not just the work itself that matters but the conditions under which you would work. Not having a boss breathing down your neck or having to comply with authoritarian management decrees and schedues will surely radically change your whole attitude to work. You will be in complete control of your own work contribution and that makes a huge difference attitude wise Even the very physical environment of the workplace will be greatly improved because the people who work there will have an interest in having a pleasant work environment and wont be prevented by financial costs from improving that environment

One other thing worth mentioning about work in a communist society. Becuase it will be based on voluntary labour what that means is that you will be able to experiment with a wide variety of different kinds of jobs. In other words, for any particular job there will be a huge reservoir of labour to cover any temporary shortfall of volunteers. This advanatage of having an in-depth reserve of labour for all kinds of work is something that communism has over capitalism. In capitalism, if there is a shortage of dresses - to use your example - you cant just leave your job and do a stint at manufactuing dresses. In communism you can,

Not only that, in communism a vast array of work that is done today, that doesnt produce anything useful at all but merely serves to keep the capitalist system ticking over, will simply dsappear and will no loger be required. What use is the banking sector, for example, to the production of useful things that people need. None at all. The need for banks only arise in a system where production for exchange exists. Financial capital exists only to oil the wheels of commerce

Think of the massive amount of labour that the banking sector absorbs - not just directly but indirectly too such as through the construction of buildings that house banks, the telecommunications systems that serve banks and so on and so forth.

The banking sector is just one example of a large number of occupations that will no longer be needed in a communist society. Establishing a communist society will more or less immediately release an enormous amount of labour and resources currently tied up in sociallly useless production , for socially useful production and that might be one further way of going about answering your hypothetical question about a shortfall of workers to manufacture dresses in a communist sopciety

You seem to think that the comment of mine reflects some rare, escoteric, happenstance that the socialist community will figure out somehow.
But it isn't. Its the daily grind of any economy, repeated thousands upon thousands of times per day.

"enlightened" how?

OK-- so when there are not enough brain surgeons floating around, one can eagerly await the local taxidermist saying "bugger it"...


Yet again, the nature and need of work is not to give somebody something to do during the day. It is to provide a needed service or product. If the community is not able to provide that service or product, it cannot be said to be an improvement.
You seem to think that the "bugger it" plan is somehow going to solve everything, without actually explaining how.
But there are no magic wands in the world.

OK-- so now you wish to enforce "bugger it" by instilling peer pressure.
Aside from the fact that peer pressure is far more coercive than hierarchial organization, you still need to describe the focus of cooperation and the proofs used to demonstrate that that cooperation is in fact successful.
How might the communist community use "shame" to direct people to "cooperate"?


However, one will have peer pressure-- shame--- draped around the throat.
Again- the same problem: the purpose of that work is to provide needed goods and services to other people. That is its entire purpose. Saying that a worker can decide what to contribute in such an environment simply means that the production of those goods is based upon the needs of that worker, as opposed to the consumer of those goods. Such production is an absurdity and can in no way lead, automatically, to distribution occurring at the point of production.

OK-- so in the communist community will, there will be large armies of people sitting around not doing much of anything, but can be deployed to wherever there is a need for increased labor.
That's nice.
In capitalism, such a state of affairs is called "unemployment" and socialists are supposedly much opposed to it. In the capitalist system, such "unemployment" performs the same function-- allows for fluidity of labor to go where it is needed ahead of where it is not needed.
A socialist system relying upon the structural existence of unemployment to solve problems of socialist production? Not a ringing endorsement.

BTW-- why would workers leave a job making shoes to make dresses in the communist society? I mean, people need shoes also, that shoeworker is performing a valuable service that he, by definition, must already enjoy. And just because labor is needed for dresses doesn't mean dresses are more needed at that time than shoes.

In the capitalist community, of course, the capitalist would raise wages to entice the shoeworker to make dresses instead.
All the socialist community relies upon, it seems, is a wing and a prayer.


Going to need somebody to help induce that feeling of "shame" in the populace...

But the thing about unemployment in capitalism, as we have discussed many times before, is that people do not have their needs met. In socialism we would. It's the difference between being thrown out of work and being on holiday.

Two different issues.

The caricature of unemployment in the capitalist world by the socialists is that it exists so as to provide themselves cheap labor so as to increase their profits.
But as agreed, unemployment as an institution is useful in any economy as way to have labor willing and able to work in areas where their labor is required. So unemployment in the capitalist world is rational and reasonable, and not created by themselves for nefarious purposes.

So the real question is whether unemployment, as an institution, is more rational in the socialist world than in the capitalist one. That is to say, as it needs to exist, the community receives greater benefits from it occurring in the capitalist or socialist community.

It would seem the former would be true, since in the socialist community, it is readily admitted that labor does not need to work in areas in which the community more urgently needs that labor.