A comrade over at Anarchist Black Cat forum wrote the following in her response to someone who was saying that communism couldn't work because people are greedy, will overconsume, and won't work. She describes three versions of a communist system and makes the case that indeed communism is capable of functioning well.
What she describes (in the first two versions) at first to me seemed not to be communism, intuitively, because I had it in my mind that communism meant take as much as you want without any measurement of what you take and without any limit. The concept of limits on consumption through credits, and measurement through "prices", seemed alien to communism. But the more I thought about it, the more it was clear that, as long as credits are distributed according to need, this is consistent with from each according to their ability and to each according to their need. There's nothing in that quote about "to each without limit!"
That being said, there's still a part of me that doubts whether this is communism. Not for any logical reason but because of how ingrained my early impressions/misconceptions of communism are. So I'm posting what she wrote here to see what others think.
What's your opinion? Is this communism?
(Note: Comrade RedHughes raises the point that communism means that "scarcity as a social phenomenon" is overcome -- by that they mean that "society, our collective activity, will redefine needs so that our existence will no longer be dominated by scarcity. [...] If you instead have a society where people get satisfaction from each other directly, through hanging out, collective play, rituals, self-improvement, whatever, then you can have a society of abundance without any increase in the physical, material means of production." I think this is a good point. But the answer to the question of how to distribute goods/services remains.)
there are basically two types of communist systems that use credits.
1 = everyone gets an equal number of credits as an allowance.
2 = credits are distributed according to need... there is an "average" level that most people get, but those with special needs get more.goods and services then have "prices" which are based on the amount of labor time it took to produce it and its environmental impact, likely with seperate numbers rather than collapsing this information into one number (so the apple will be X labor time points, Y water usage points, Z carbon emissions points, etc.). and as jacobian has taught me in another thread (thanks, j.!), "prices" will need to "float" so that if a good/service approaches scarcity its price rises. (for why this is necessary, see: Question about Rationing Scarce Items in an Anarchist-Communist Society, http://www.anarchistblackcat.org/index.php/topic,9046.0.html)
if you run out of credits, then too bad. learn to budget better. well... i imagine we won't let people starve. people who use all their credits too quickly should be allowed to get an "advance" on their next month's credit allowance... this is different from a loan because there will be no interest and no lender, except if you recognize that the entire world is the lender. the debt is "paid" back by subtracting from next month's allowance. the same thing can be done if people need/want to make a major "purchase" in a certain month that is inconsistent with their usual consumption patterns.
or, another option is that those who run out of credits, or want to go overlimit, make a request of the community to do so... and if the community's total consumption in terms of labor time and environmental impact can spare it (because they are below their quota limit), then it will be approved, within reason. if request is approved, no need to "pay" it back by consuming less in the future... if it's rejected, then you get the advance still but must pay it back.
as you can see, not every conception of communism is just grab as much as you want without any limits. i don't think people who have seriously thought through communism imagine it this way. i think most people who reject communism do so because this is what they imagine it to be, as i once did.
i don't call these credits money though because in my view, an essential aspect of money is that it circulates, but communist (and socialist) economic models that use credits stress the need for the credits to be non-circulating. if currency circulates this means that producers of goods/services get paid for what they sell. if producers get paid for what they sell this implies that they have a right to do so because what they made is their own, which implies they own the means of production they used to make it. but the means of production belong to the world, and thus no one, so selling what you produce is unjust and a violation of communism (or socialism). circulation will also lead to wealth inequalities and economic competition between workplaces. therefore, currency must not circulate.
there is another possibility for communism which does not use credits/currency but still uses "prices." in this version, instead of each person having a certain number of credits, there is no fixed limit on the quantity they consume (in terms of labor time or environmental impact). however, there are recommended limits/averages that will be decided by society, and the consumption levels of individuals are tracked so that (1) individuals can monitor their own consumption and limit it within acceptable boundaries, and (2) community members can know if any of their neighbors is overconsuming, and can then use social pressure to discourage them.
communities will (we hope and expect) have tolerance for those who consume above average because of legitimate needs, recognizing that everyone's needs are not equal. but glutonous overconsumers will earn the wrath of their peers. in anarchism, overconsumption amounts to theft... and since all is owned by all it is theft from the entire community/world, so overconsumers make a victim of everyone. they won't get away with it without consequence, whether that be formal or informal consequences.
in a twist on the above version, chronic over-consumers who do not respond to social pressure can have more concrete consequences imposed on them by the community if their behavior doesn't stop. what those consequences will be all depends on what the community decides through democratic vote. something light might be mandatory out-patient therapy (because it takes a sick fucker to steal from the community like that). something more coercive might be putting the person (temporarily) in a locked up institution where they are rehabilitated. basically jail. as anarchists and/or prison abolitionists we might not like this last harsh option to deal with overconsumers but since communities are democratic they can decide to do that if they want. i'm also just making the point that options are available.
i think greedy overconsumers would be rare, but if/when they popped up, the community would put a stop to it one way or another.
same with people CAPABLE of working a full amount but who refused to work or slacked off. their coworkers could have a vote to fire them. people who kept getting fired over and over would have a hard time finding a workers collective to hire them, as their reputation built. what to do with these chronic slackers? as with everything else, the community will decide. maybe they will be mandated to get therapy (is there some unresolved trauma causing them to act like an ass?). maybe they will have their consumption restricted. many options limited only by the community's imagination and human rights "laws."
Can comment on articles and discussions
I would answer "Yes!", ultraviolet.
The solution to the 'free rider' problem is simple.
"Ability" and "Need" are socially-determined, by democratic methods.
There won't be any 'individuals' deciding their 'ability' to only sit on their arse all day, yet deciding on their 'need' for a top-of-the-range Porsche.
Every 'each' has a vote. You get outvoted? That's your 'abilities' and 'needs' re-defined by your fellow Communists.
We have to bring together production and consumption, and that is a social task, not individual taste.