Working in Communism

[Servia]

I have a few questions that came to mind after reading the Communist Theory FAQ:

1. If the Big Industry will see an expansion once it is freed from private property, will this mean the government ordering people to do certain jobs?

2. What if someone just stopped working?

3. Do I get to do the occupation I want to in communism? For instance, what if all I wanted to do was teach art or music?

[Antlerfish]

The way I see it, there would be no "government force" when it comes to working. People will be able to do whatever work seems fit to them. If you want to teach art or play music, you will probably need a secondary job as well, one that actually provides for the society.

If anyone simply stopped working, there would be nothing anyone could do about it but verbally express their disapproval with that person, and if the work-stoppage continues those who don't work won't be provided with anything other than basic needs.

[RedWorker]

1. If the Big Industry will see an expansion once it is freed from private property, will this mean the government ordering people to do certain jobs?

No.

2. What if someone just stopped working?

Who cares about someone stopping working? But if enough people stopped working (would never happen), then it could be done so non-basic goods are only given out to people who work.

3. Do I get to do the occupation I want to in communism? For instance, what if all I wanted to do was teach art or music?

You can do whatever you want.

[Creative Destruction]

I have a few questions that came to mind after reading the Communist Theory FAQ:

1. If the Big Industry will see an expansion once it is freed from private property, will this mean the government ordering people to do certain jobs?

No.

2. What if someone just stopped working?

There's a basic level of things that would be available to people, through social consumption (housing, medical care, education and, food (I imagine (but that's up for debate, I suppose.))) Beyond that, the things we can't produce for free access already will have to be rationed out, with the means of rationing being a labor chit system, where you draw from the social product what you put in, in proportional measure. So, unless you're good with living with bare necessities, then you'll have to work if you want to take part in what society produces, until everything can be provided for in a situation of free access.

But beyond that, you have to look at why someone would "just stop working." Humans like work. They don't like toiling shit for meager compensation; but we all enjoy some kind of work. It's hard for me to imagine -- unless you're undergoing a depressive episode or some kind of mental disorder (in which case, you can't work and you'd be provided the appropriate medical care you need without the expectation of working) -- that people would just "stop working."

3. Do I get to do the occupation I want to in communism? For instance, what if all I wanted to do was teach art or music?

Then teach art or music.

[Servia]

I guess where my main questioning stems from is how are basic need goods and non-basic goods distributed? And who/how determines it?

[Creative Destruction]

I guess where my main questioning stems from is how are basic need goods and non-basic goods distributed? And who/how determines it?

The people who need it determine it.

[tuwix]

I guess where my main questioning stems from is how are basic need goods and non-basic goods distributed? And who/how determines it?

We talk about that what Marx called a higher phase of communism. And it can only happen, when there is great abundance of products and services due to automation allowing no to work to more than 95% of people. Then it's obvious that machines will distribute all. And your question about jobs will be irrelevant.

[Blake's Baby]

We can only have more things if fewer people work? That makes no sense. If 5% of people working + super-automation = free access society, then why not 100% of people working + current automation = free access society?

And when Servia asks 'how are things distributed?' I don't think the question means 'how are things moved?'. I think the question Servia is asking is, 'how are decisions made about who-gets-what?'

So, Servia, like everyone else here, I'm speculating, but...

At least at first we will continue to live in fairly close proximity to each other (as time goe on who can tell what will happen?) and therefore we need some sort of area-based decision making. I assume we will have some sort of community or neighbourhood assembly to make decisions.

We will also do various productive activities - 'jobs' - and there will, I suppose, be some form of workplace assembly.

My version of how this will work best, is that the community assemblies will set the 'what' and the workplace assemblies will set the 'how'. In other words, members of the community decide collectively what is needed, and the workers in their workplaces set how these needs will be fulfilled in practice.

Though there are certain problems with the term 'work' that will inevitably come up in this discussion. This is not alienated labour here, what I'm referencing is purposeful and productive human activity.

[human strike]

Communism is the movement against work - it means the abolition of work.

[Tim Cornelis]

Communism is the movement against work - it means the abolition of work.

Maybe you can elaborate on that. I don't think this is really helpful to the OP. I also don't agree with it. I've seen some claim 'labour' is inherently bad, others say 'work' is, and therefore it needs to be abolished. It seems that, rather than abolish 'labour' or 'work' these communists advocate the abolition of words to describe labour and work -- not really meaningful.

[Servia]

My version of how this will work best, is that the community assemblies will set the 'what' and the workplace assemblies will set the 'how'. In other words, members of the community decide collectively what is needed, and the workers in their workplaces set how these needs will be fulfilled in practice

If a needed good is a ways away, would the community send someone/people to go get it from the community producing it?

And what about non-basic good distribution?

[RedWorker]

Maybe you can elaborate on that. I don't think this is really helpful to the OP. I also don't agree with it. I've seen some claim 'labour' is inherently bad, others say 'work' is, and therefore it needs to be abolished. It seems that, rather than abolish 'labour' or 'work' these communists advocate the abolition of words to describe labour and work -- not really meaningful.

Maybe s/he means that 'work' will become unable to be distinguished from regular life?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The way I see it, there would be no "government force" when it comes to working. People will be able to do whatever work seems fit to them. If you want to teach art or play music, you will probably need a secondary job as well, one that actually provides for the society.

If anyone simply stopped working, there would be nothing anyone could do about it but verbally express their disapproval with that person, and if the work-stoppage continues those who don't work won't be provided with anything other than basic needs.

did you honestly just say that teaching doesnt "provide for the community"?

[Antlerfish]

did you honestly just say that teaching doesnt "provide for the community"?

I meant that more so for the music playing aspect. Of course teaching is necessary and extremely valuable. I just worded that wrong.

[Tim Cornelis]

Maybe s/he means that 'work' will become unable to be distinguished from regular life?

I'm familiar with the argument, it's just not a very good one.

[Comrade #138672]

I have a few questions that came to mind after reading the Communist Theory FAQ:

1. If the Big Industry will see an expansion once it is freed from private property, will this mean the government ordering people to do certain jobs?

In communism? No. Since there will be no government. But I suspect that you are talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the transition to communism. With a raised class consciousness, which was necessary to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, most workers will do what needs to be done because they want to contribute.

2. What if someone just stopped working?

It depends.

3. Do I get to do the occupation I want to in communism? For instance, what if all I wanted to do was teach art or music?

I do not see why you could not restrict your activities, but in communism, people will generally be doing lots of different things, because they can do that in a communist society, as opposed to a capitalist society.

[Servia]

In communism? No. Since there will be no government. But I suspect that you are talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the transition to communism. With a raised class consciousness, which was necessary to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, most workers will do what needs to be done because they want to contribute.

How can we be sure of that?

[Slavic]

How can we be sure of that?

You can't. If people want TVs but not enough people are producing them either two things happen. You decide to start helping build more TVs because you want one, or you decide that TVs just aren't that important any more and commit yourself else where.

[Blake's Baby]

So there you go. I post this -

...
Though there are certain problems with the term 'work' that will inevitably come up in this discussion. This is not alienated labour here, what I'm referencing is purposeful and productive human activity.

and the very next post human strike posts this:

Communism is the movement against work - it means the abolition of work.

There I am trying to flag up the prolematisation of the concept of 'work' and how we need to define what we're talking about and the next poster produces a categoric use of the term without any attempt to explain what they mean.

It's almost like people don't pay any attention to what other people have written.

So human strike, do you believe that communism will abolish "purposeful and productive human activity"? Will we all sit like potatoes in the cold dark, dreaming dreams of how capitalism used to have food and clothes and electricity and the internet?

[ckaihatsu]

I have a few questions that came to mind after reading the Communist Theory FAQ:

1. If the Big Industry will see an expansion once it is freed from private property, will this mean the government ordering people to do certain jobs?

I'll parse this as 'How would a workers' society coordinate liberated labor so that necessary industrial production work roles are filled, especially when people probably would want the *benefits* of industrial mass production but probably no one would want to be a part of working *in* industrial-type roles.'

I think the answer to this is that many innovations would have to take place, and quickly, to shift the way society makes use of large-scale industrial-type processes. Obviously the connotation of 'industry' is 'dirty, dehumanizing, drab, monotonous, etc.', so much would have to be collectively addressed regarding the materials that society uses, and how such could be provided with a minimum of (industrial-type) work effort, or perhaps with the mass production of *different* materials altogether so as to obviate the conventional distasteful industries that we think of in this context.

If the *processes* employed are less distasteful then there would be far fewer qualms from any given person when it comes to a reasonable participation for it. A post-capitalist workers society would have a collective interest not only in *automating* all mass-production workflows -- as is regularly pointed out -- but also in *humanizing* all work roles and supply-chain workflows, or work itself, basically.

(Offhand I tend to think of a highly nonlinear, asynchronous, complex network of production points that may or may not complement one another -- certainly many routes among these points *would* turn out to be linear, as perhaps fiber sourcing to cloth-making, for example, but, initially, highly ordered top-down centralized planning wouldn't be nearly as important as bottom-up self-organized liberated labor collective decision-making and individual self-direction, since that's probably why people wanted the revolution in the first place. Greater scales of orderly mass production, even to a global level, could emerge over time from bottom-up processes of organization, if it didn't already exist as a result of the proletarian's political efforts that overthrew the bourgeoisie.)

2. What if someone just stopped working?

I'll parse *this* to mean 'Why should *one* individual enjoy the privilege of doing what they like when it could very well be the case that *everyone else* is toiling away in a collective, cooperative effort at the blast furnaces, in order to fulfill a collectively decided quota for steel production -- ?'

Again, I'll note that conventional processes for the production of critical materials would almost certainly not continue to exist after a proletarian revolution -- hopefully standards of quality would *not* be sacrificed, but even if material qualities *did* have to be compromised to some degree for the sake of a humane collectivity, that would be an acceptable trade-off (in the short- to mid-term), until new innovations could be implemented, long-term.

So if a full-cooperation collective effort *was* the order of the day -- say to recover from a drawn-out, decades-long global battle with the military forces of capital -- there *could* very well be strong social pressure for everyone to pitch in for the collective good, with work quotas or whatever. Such wouldn't necessarily have to be command-based or top-down in any way, though, since a successful worldwide revolution *would*, by definition, implement a genuinely fair, even-handed collective decision-making process for any such work-project labor policy (consider if RevLeft was fully used for the same).

Since the social context would be one of a collectivized political economy, one would be doing nothing less than being *political* with the individual decisions one made, as over one's contribution of work effort to the common good, or not.

3. Do I get to do the occupation I want to in communism? For instance, what if all I wanted to do was teach art or music?

I'll interpret this to be 'What if everyone only did what they really wanted to do, like teach art and music, and there was no one left to grow food or run the machines -- ?'

The quick, simple answer to this is that, just going by the numbers (demographics), there *would* be a sufficient number of people with the uncoerced self-motivation to grow food and run the machines, for the benefit of everyone else. Full automation would only assist in this direction. The term for this is 'gift economy', and would require just a critical mass of voluntarist efforts (with full access to the fruits of production, of course), to make a basic humane social production possible for everyone, barring no one.

If certain distasteful and/or outright hazardous roles went unfulfilled and yet happened to be critical for a healthy society -- say, something related to sanitation -- there *would* have to be a mass-conscious emergent organization around such an issue, or else there would be a political crisis, by definition, and a weakening of the revolution-based social fabric. (See my blog entry for a more detailed treatment of this kind of scenario.)

I guess where my main questioning stems from is how are basic need goods and non-basic goods distributed? And who/how determines it?

As long as there's an *abundance* of production there's no real issue at-hand -- for the sake of illustration, what if capitalism was able to produce everything that everyone needed and wanted, and everyone had enough money to buy whatever they needed and wanted, without hesitation -- ?

Of course capitalism *doesn't* provide everyone with such money / access, so that's why it needs to be replaced with a system of collective mass production that *can* provide greater access, since productivity itself is *not* a constraint whatsoever (capitalism tends to a state of *overproduction*, and waste).

For whatever geographic point(s) of production one can imagine, it would simply be a matter of people finding their way to those points, to pick up whatever they want from the abundance, for whatever reasons, and/or making arrangements with others for the same.

For any shortfalls relative to organic demand the rule of thumb would be to *increase production*, and this is where the workers' collective self-organization would decidedly be called into action.

Communism is the movement against work - it means the abolition of work.

Right -- social productive conditions would be mass-consciously altered to the point where people's individual uninfluenced volitions would also happen to be socially productive, or at least socially unnecessary. (If there was a hypothetical 100% full automation, *no one's* labor would be socially necessary, so people could do whatever they liked without the least amount of social obligation being involved.)

If a needed good is a ways away, would the community send someone/people to go get it from the community producing it?

And what about non-basic good distribution?

I tend to think of the 'last mile' question as one that should / would ultimately be the responsibility of the individual, since there's nothing about collectivist production that *guarantees* door-to-door delivery for everyone, nor should it be *obliged* to. Certainly a post-capitalist humane social order would be able to resolve this issue for everyone, and most likely in group-oriented collective ways, especially for the most commonly used goods. Perhaps the last mile of delivery transportation would be fully automated, running off of solar energy, since that's not far off anyway.

*Non-basic* goods economy is a much more complex topic -- one that I've taken to addressing comprehensively -- and I'll again point you to my blog entry regarding it.