Working and consumption under anarchism?

Submitted by explainthingstome on June 24, 2019

Should an able-bodied adult have to work before said person is allowed to consume the products of anarchist society? Why/why not?

I've always argued for free access no matter if you work or not when discussing the issue with anti-socialists. But I haven't been completely sold on the idea that a big majority of people would work without any punishments on consumption.

Maybe everyone's fed up about the question d but it's not a a easy topic to search for. I haven't found any article about the subject on Libcom so far

R Totale

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by R Totale on June 24, 2019

There'll definitely be stuff about it somewhere, last time I started a similarish thread someone recommended Malatesta's Anarchy which I found really helpful: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy#toc7
Maybe some communisationy stuff as well? https://libcom.org/library/z-communisation-gilles-dauv%C3%A9
This might also be the sort of thing Kropotkin is good on, I have to admit I'm not a Kropotkin expert.
I guess the questions are, when you say there's a system other than free access and people have to work first: how much do they have to work? What kind of work? Who measures and who decides? And so on.
I always think that sort of informal social compulsion would play a fairly big role here (probably heresey to some people), like you can have free access to resources but respect has to be earned, that sort of thing. Maybe? I guess it'd be interesting to look at why people work now - obviously the whole "being dispossessed and needing money to live" thing is pretty central, but I think if you asked people they'd give a lot of other reasons as well.

Noah Fence

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Noah Fence on June 24, 2019

It is a difficult idea for regular political folk to swallow but personally I feel very confident that labour requirements would be fulfilled and that whilst it may be annoying to some, a few people not working needn’t be a problem. I’ve come to these conclusions without reading or hearing anything that explicitly addresses the potential problem(at least I don’t think I have).
I’m re-reading Conquest of Bread at the moment but I wouldn’t say Kropotkin is a particularly good thinker to explore for this sort of question - he’s so damned enthusiastic and positive about everything! I love it but it’s a little unrealistic and somewhat exhausting.
It’s been put to me that people choosing not to work would lead to a problematic level of resentment. Maybe that’s the case but it only makes sense if labour requirements aren’t met, or they are only being met by people having to work long hours. I think I’d be happy enough to continue to work whether or not there were some slackers around, as has been suggested, people work for more reasons than just money, and in an anarchist society work will hopefully be organised in such a way as to make it enjoyable, or at least not spirit crushing as it often is under capitalism.

jef costello

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jef costello on June 24, 2019

I think all of our basic needs would be met, but if someone didn't participate then I don't think they would necessarily have access to other things. But I don't think it would really be a problem, because the amount of work would be much lower and we would actually feel satisfaction. For example if I felt that my job was helping people to communicate across language barriers and access culture, literature and knowledge I would like my job more, rather then doing it because the goernment thinks giving everyone english qualifications is making a 21st century workforce.

And there would be societal pressure, it wouldn't need to be formal or organised, people would just see that others were putting in a few hours a week to make things run and would want to help too.

adri

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by adri on June 25, 2019

explainthingstome

Should an able-bodied adult have to work before said person is allowed to consume the products of anarchist society? Why/why not?

I've always argued for free access no matter if you work or not when discussing the issue with anti-socialists. But I haven't been completely sold on the idea that a big majority of people would work without any punishments on consumption.

Maybe everyone's fed up about the question d but it's not a a easy topic to search for. I haven't found any article about the subject on Libcom so far

With technology we have today we can easily satisfy people's needs with few people having to work. This was something dealt with by Kropotkin, in CoB e.g., as well as Berkman in his book-intro to anarcho-communism, and I think we've developed even more since then, so it really shouldn't be a problem.

Berkman

Our progress in mechanics is so great and continually advancing that most of the hard toil could be eliminated by the use of modern machinery and labor saving devices. In many industries, as in coal mining, for instance, new safety and sanitary appliances are not introduced because of the masters’ indifference to the welfare of their employees and on account of the expenditure involved. But in a non-profit system technical science would work exclusively with the aim of making labor safer, healthier, lighter, and more pleasant.

https://libcom.org/library/what-is-anarchism-alexander-berkman

Kropotkin

And if in manufactures as in agriculture, and as indeed through our whole social system, the labour, the discoveries, and the inventions of our ancestors profit chiefly the few, it is none the less certain that mankind in general, aided by the creatures of steel and iron which it already possesses, could already procure an existence of wealth and ease for every one of its members.

Truly, we are rich, far richer than we think; rich in what we already possess, richer still in the possibilities of production of our actual mechanical outfit; richest of all in what we might win from our soil, from our manufactures, from our science, from our technical knowledge, were they but applied to bringing about the well-being of all.

https://libcom.org/library/the-conquest-of-bread-peter-kropotkin

Auld-bod

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Auld-bod on June 25, 2019

Explainthingstome #1:

‘But I haven't been completely sold on the idea that a big majority of people would work without any punishments on consumption.’

Free access assumes that the basics for living a human life are freely available. It does not mean everyone gets what they want when they want it. Free communism requires collective decision making, and the only ‘punishment’ is having to persuade others to want what you want.

What will constitute ‘work’ post revolution is an open question. To live ‘the good life’ people have to feel they are being useful. Much of what is considered ‘work’ today in future will be totally redundant. In practice, it will become difficult to differentiate work and what we call ‘play/leisure activities’.

ajjohnstone

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by ajjohnstone on June 25, 2019

Has anybody got a source for just how many people work in superfluous jobs that would free them up for more socially useful labour within a money-free society?

If not, what is the guesstimate of such socially useless occupations. Half the jobs under capitalism? Threequarters?

I imagine that some that initially appear only useful under capitalism, can be redeployed...for instance, the insurance actuaries, being skilled in statistics could still have a role in planning projects.

Mike Harman

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Mike Harman on June 25, 2019

This is a good intro with some examples: https://libcom.org/blog/intro-communism-through-camping-trip-12072018

Mike Harman

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Mike Harman on June 25, 2019

explainthingstome

Should an able-bodied adult have to work before said person is allowed to consume the products of anarchist society? Why/why not?

How far does this extend?

1. If you live in a house until you're 18, do you get evicted on your 18th birthday unless you start to put some work in? Who's going to do the evictions?

2. How do you stop people making use of roads, public parks, drinking fountains, bicycle pools etc. these all require work to maintain but they're not individual goods for consumption.

3. How are you going to record the entitlement to consume? Does this mean everywhere that goods are available to take there needs to be someone making a record of who took them? A central database of who's eligible to take them or not? Do people have to carry around a time card that proves they did some work?

Parecon tried to answer these questions, and we did an exchange with them about a decade ago here: http://libcom.org/library/participatory-society-or-libertarian-communism

I just don't see how you can restrict stuff like this without building a whole coercive/surveillance apparatus which would require more work than not restricting things. There might be particular events or distributions that someone who's well known for never contributing to anything might get some funny looks at if they turned up, but that's similar to crashing a party or similar now.

A Wotsit

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by A Wotsit on June 25, 2019

I agree with many points made.

I think it's not necessary to worry that much about how to compel people to do useful work under anarchism, & that consumption would be based on need and not productivity.

It wouldn't be productive to monitor individuals and police their consumption / work. It would be wasted effort, and create a hierarchy, and likely some oppressive force to go with it.

If we were free of the burden of the unnecessary work that only exists for capitalist profit / other pointless shit, a huge chunk of time that's freed up will inevitably be spent on more productive stuff.

I think people will (and do) want to be part of a cooperative effort to be productive, and be useful to each other as individuals, because it makes sense to do. Capitalism is characterised by freeloading off the work of others (by capitalists), but under anarchism freeloading wouldn't make much sense.

There will be more to enjoy from being someone who is helpful, and gives according to their ability to supporting communal wellbeing, rather than being an unpopular freeloader for the sake of it.

I think the social cost of not helping out just wouldn't be worth it, even without a set of rules to penalise freeloading - there are a huge number of productive things that can be fun or rewarding to do and I think people will find the tasks that suit them, and those that take on the difficult / dirty jobs will benefit from the gratitude of others, and satisfaction of helping out.

Consumption and production will be organised so differently, they would look very very different to what we know, and we probably can't really properly grasp how awesome living in a properly free communist world would be, work basically wouldn't exist, just doing useful stuff for each other.

Noah Fence

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Noah Fence on June 26, 2019

Howdy Wotsit, good to ‘see’ you! Great post as usual.

I think people will (and do) want to be part of a cooperative effort to be productive, and be useful to each other as individuals, because it makes sense to do

Indeed, I don’t necessarily have to do things around the house but I’m happy to wash the dishes or decorate the bathroom just because these things need to be done for everyone’s benefit and doing them(and a thousand other things) just isn’t a big deal. If I didn’t do these things my partner would but a combination of a sense of responsibility and the desire not be to be selfish asshole or be thought of as one is more than enough motivation to carry out even the jobs I particularly dislike such as the aforementioned painting!

and those that take on the difficult / dirty jobs will benefit from the gratitude of others, and satisfaction of helping out

True, but also, for the most part what are considered difficult/dirty jobs is highly subjective - as an example, my absolute dream job is to be a street sweeper! I fantasise about this regularly and have even invented(in my head) two special tools that would enable me to make my patch spectacularly clean and tidy! Worryingly, I’m unemployed atm but my usual work is creative, well paid and pretty enjoyable, but it lacks true satisfaction because mostly my efforts are put to no practical use on account of the fact that the architectural timber work that I install or restore mostly resides in the rooms of mansions that are never used by their millionaire owners, which means they have no communal value.
To keep the streets of the small country town near where I live on the other hand would be of value to the whole community which would be good for everyone in general and for my sense of purpose and self worth in particular and would also give me the opportunity to interact with a variety of people.
Unfortunately, due to past difficulties and debts accrued I simply couldn’t live on the wages this type of work would afford me so I’m kind of stuck, at least for now, in my current profession.
Anyways, the point I’m making is that I’m sure that positions considered unpleasant will always be filled by people that don’t really recognise that unpleasantness. I think it’s also true that jobs that are currently considered lowly - street sweeping is often used as an example of a person without much social standing - will be elevated in their social status whereas currently prestigious jobs will be demoted or very often eliminated.

explainthingstome

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by explainthingstome on June 27, 2019

Thanks for all the replies everyone
The articles that Mike linked have some things I would like to respond to. I'll start with that.

"The first problem is that ‘effort and sacrifice’ aren’t valid measures for reward on account of people's different abilities - women being pregnant possibly, disabled people (nearly 10 million in the UK), ill people or temporarily injured people, etc. Not to mention normal stuff like some being stronger, taller, quick with numbers, etc."

The issue of people being stronger, taller and quicker with numbers seems like a small issue because there are different types of work that needs to be done.
It's unlikely that a coal mine under communism would have 50% tall, strong people and 50% weak, short people with broken arms. Short and weak people would probably prefer work that were more "intellectual" or physically easy.

"Now parecon attempts to address this by peer-effort ratings, everyone filling out a form of some kind on their workmates, rating how much effort people have put in despite their natural talents or disabilities. Aside from the fact this could make for an atmosphere of suspicion rather than solidarity, this introduces further problems of its own."

I don't understand why it would create an atmosphere of suspicion.

"For instance how does one distinguish between a gifted slacker and a slightly dim grafter?"
I don't understand what this question means.

"People could also get more pay for less work by saying they are dyslexic for example, or dyspraxic. But how would you know if it was true? Do you give everyone mandatory medicals and psychological examinations? Psychometric testing?"

I think the problem of people lying about these sorts of conditions would be easy to see if they became common. If you have a workplace where 40% of people claim to have a disablity, then it's pretty easy to discover that some people are lying. These could then be tested.
If only 4% of the workplace claims to have a disablity, then who cares? It's not really a big deal.
Here are my spontaneous answers to Mikes questions:

"1. If you live in a house until you're 18, do you get evicted on your 18th birthday unless you start to put some work in? Who's going to do the evictions?"

If an eviction would happen, it could be just a group of members of society. But I don't think people should be evicted for not working.
I think maybe there should be a communist equivalent to the reformist idea of the universal basic income (*insert anarchist laugh track*). Basically, a non-working person is given coupons for food and a place to live etc, and is allowed to use roads and stuff (i.e. those things mentioned in question 2) but is not allowed to consume much else.

"3. How are you going to record the entitlement to consume? Does this mean everywhere that goods are available to take there needs to be someone making a record of who took them? A central database of who's eligible to take them or not? Do people have to carry around a time card that proves they did some work?"

I think time cards might be enough. You go into a storage facility and a cashier looks at your card and sees how much it's worth.

"I just don't see how you can restrict stuff like this without building a whole coercive/surveillance apparatus which would require more work than not restricting things."

But coercion isn't by necessity wrong. If most people want to put restrictions on consumption based on whether or not people make a work effort, then we should.
Not restricting things could lead to things running out fast because a lot of able-bodied people won't do the amount of labour that society needs.

Moving on, here are some answers to some ideas that are floating around in this thread.

"There would be less work under communism because a lot of work activities would dissappear." [Paraphrasing]

But how do we know that? While some types of work would dissappear, new types of work would surely also be created?

"Work and leisure will be hard to separate under communism."

I doubt that this would be the case for most people. I don't think I or most people would have a hard time between deciding which activity is more enjoyable: cleaning a toilet or doing anything that we today would call a leisure activity.
Even more likeable activities such as teaching would still feel like work, because that what it is. It means keeping discipline in the classroom, correcting tests etc. Not that work can't lead to satisfaction. But it's still work.

"I guess the questions are, when you say there's a system other than free access and people have to work first: how much do they have to work? What kind of work? Who measures and who decides? And so on."

The quantity of work people would have to perform depends on how much products people in society want. Are most people okay with their present consumption level? If not, what is it that they're missing? More corn? A new type of shoe? We'll need more people working in corn, anybody willing to sign on for that? If yes, great. If no, then screw it, we can't produce more corn.
The decision making could be made by a city council consisting of a sample of the population. Said council is replaced every week or month.

"There will be more to enjoy from being someone who is helpful, and gives according to their ability to supporting communal wellbeing, rather than being an unpopular freeloader for the sake of it."

What more would they enjoy than a freeloader? The sense of accomplishment? The respect of others? I think that would personally motivate me, but I've known several people, especially in school, who simply didn't give a crap what other people thought of them not doing any work in an assignment for example. And whenever I walk out I see trash on the pavement, thrown there by people who don't seem to care about how their behaviour affects others.

"Anyways, the point I’m making is that I’m sure that positions considered unpleasant will always be filled by people that don’t really recognise that unpleasantness."

That kind of implies that most of the people working in fields that are considered to be unpleasant enjoy their work. I don't believe that's the case. It sounds likely that most do it either because of the pay or because of a lack of options.
If the reply to that is "well, they don't like it under capitalism, but under communism people will no longer be alienated", my reply is that I think that's a bit of a weak answer. There isn't much proof that this is the case as far as I know.

adri

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by adri on June 26, 2019

explainthingstome

Thanks for all the replies everyone
The articles that Mike linked has some things I would like to respond to. I'll start with that.

"The first problem is that ‘effort and sacrifice’ aren’t valid measures for reward on account of people's different abilities - women being pregnant possibly, disabled people (nearly 10 million in the UK), ill people or temporarily injured people, etc. Not to mention normal stuff like some being stronger, taller, quick with numbers, etc."

The issue of people being stronger, taller and quicker with numbers seems like a small issue because there are different types of work that needs to be done.
It's unlikely that a coal mine under communism would have 50% tall, strong people and 50% weak, short people with broken arms. Short and weak people would probably prefer work that were more "intellectual" or physically easy.

The fact that differences in individual skills/abilities disappear when you group enough people together (and you then get an average skill etc.) is kind of beside the point. Work should be something one chooses to do and not something hated by them that they only do because they need a wage, or piece of paper saying they worked, in order to survive. Also, if all that's left is technical work, of maintaining machines or other specialized tasks, that doesn't really leave much room for employment of the mass of people who have no interest in that (or who can't do that), which I hope doesn't mean they don't get to consume stuff.

"Work and leisure will be hard to separate under communism."

I doubt that this would be the case for most people. I don't think I or most people would have a hard time between deciding which activity is more enjoyable: cleaning a toilet or doing anything that we today would call a leisure activity.
Even more likeable activities such as teaching would still feel like work, because that what it is. It means keeping discipline in the classroom, correcting tests etc. Not that work can't lead to satisfaction. But it's still work.

I think people using, say, community toilets would see that it's in their interests to keep them clean and sanitary (assuming we don't just use cleaning robots, etc.) if they're going to continue using them; much like how people see that it's in their interests to brush their teeth if they want to continue using them.

Sike

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Sike on June 26, 2019

If you make consumption dependant upon ability your going to have a society that is compelled to keep tabs on people to judge whether or not they are doing their fair share in the work of production. Certainly, this is impossible to do accurately because any attempt to do this will inevitably be based upon conclusions which cannot hope to accurately compensate for the subjective attributes and circumstances of each and every individual.

So just how would anarchist society decide what constitutes ability and need, and is it possible to to so while upholding the anarchist principal of negative freedom? While I could see an anarchist society appointing delegates to the administrative task of gather and collating statistical data necessary to maintain production based upon the projected needs of society, I have a much harder time imagining an anarchist society that is also going to appoint delegates to investigate suspected shirkers to discover whether or not their individual right to partake the products of society should be curtailed. Seen in this light, the refrain "to each according to their ability, to each according to their need" appears not only as a plea for rationing, but also as a plea for the bureaucratic control of production through the formation of an agency that is at the very least tasked with the regulation of distribution and the structural persecution of non-producers.

So, in conclusion, I think that as long as someone does not deliberately sabotage, or attempt to sabotage, the institutions of a society based upon libertarian-communist principals that they should then be entitled to partake of the products of society with the only limitation being that they don't in turn attempt to hoard or marketize those products.

ajjohnstone

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by ajjohnstone on June 27, 2019

Free Access

explainthingstome

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by explainthingstome on June 27, 2019

"Work should be something one chooses to do and not something hated by them that they only do because they need a wage, or piece of paper saying they worked, in order to survive."

But let's say there a universal basic income which means that everyone, including able-bodied people who refuse to work, gets to consume the basic necessities for survival like water, food and shelter.
Do you still find it unreasonable that in order to get access to more products, they would have to work?

"Also, if all that's left is technical work, of maintaining machines or other specialized tasks, that doesn't really leave much room for employment of the mass of people who have no interest in that (or who can't do that)"

Cleaning, nursing and teaching are all going to remain important types of work, and I wouldn't call them "technical".
I think even if all work that would be left would be technical work or other specialized tasks, I wouldn't argue for a situation where many able-bodied people wouldn't work.
If there's less work to be done, said work should be divided, which would decrease the work day for each individual.

"I think people using, say, community toilets would see that it's in their interests to keep them clean and sanitary (assuming we don't just use cleaning robots, etc.) if they're going to continue using them; much like how people see that it's in their interests to brush their teeth if they want to continue using them."

But my teeth is not public property. Therefore, I know that nobody else is going to clean my teeth but me.
In a situation where twenty people use a bathroom, I believe there's a high risk that most people will go "somebody else will clean it, besides I wasn't the one making a mess in there". And those that do clean it might eventually feel angry about doing all the work and just think "screw this, I'm not your mom, I'm not even getting compensated for this crap".

"If you make consumption dependant upon ability your going to have a society that is compelled to keep tabs on people to judge whether or not they are doing their fair share in the work of production. Certainly, this is impossible to do accurately because any attempt to do this will inevitably be based upon conclusions which cannot hope to accurately compensate for the subjective attributes and circumstances of each and every individual."

What if there's a minimum level, based on the work that the least effective able-bodied person does? Working more than the minimum level does not increase consumption privileges.

"While I could see an anarchist society appointing delegates to the administrative task of gather and collating statistical data necessary to maintain production based upon the projected needs of society, I have a much harder time imagining an anarchist society that is also going to appoint delegates to investigate suspected shirkers to discover whether or not their individual right to partake the products of society should be curtailed."

Wouldn't it be pretty noticeable if there was a high number of "shirkers"?
Why not just have a computer system at workplaces where you stamp in and stamp out when you start working and stop working?

"[B]ureaucratic control of production through the formation of an agency that is at the very least tasked with the regulation of distribution and the structural persecution of non-producers."

Persecution is a loaded term. If someone was stopped by force from hoarding the products of society, you wouldn't say that said person was being persecuted.
I wouldn't call someone who gets the basic necessities and is not imprisoned or physically harmed "persecuted".

Lucky Black Cat

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lucky Black Cat on June 27, 2019

I'm for a free-access system, or as it's sometimes called, "full communism." :D

Others have brought up the concern that monitoring how much labor people are contributing, in order to restrict the consumption of those not adequately contributing, will itself require a considerable amount of labor.

This is surely true.

They also suggest that the labor lost in doing this would be greater than the labor saved as a result of restricting their consumption, and labor gained as a result of pressuring these people to work.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I also think we can't just assume this to be the case. It's an empirical question, and not one that we can be certain of before the fact.

I'm still for free access, though. I believe this will create a much better social environment for humanity. This is what we should be aiming for.

But still, I'm not certain that, immediately after workers seize the means of production, we can immediately begin free access, without it resulting in shortages. Perhaps we can, and I like to believe that we can, but I know that I can't be certain.

So I'm open minded to a possible transition period where we have either non-transferable labor vouchers or perhaps, as you (Explainthingstome) suggest, a universal basic income, so long as the vouchers were non-transferable (this is necessary to prevent the re-emergence of a market, profit, etc.).

To be clear, I'm not prescribing this transition as a necessity, either. I'm just saying I'm not ruling it out.

If we did have such a transition period, though, it would have its dangers, such as those pointed out by others in this thread (i.e. having people whose job it is to monitor people and place restrictions on them), so we'd want to try to move past it quickly.

Auld-bod

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Auld-bod on June 27, 2019

Explainthingstome #12:
(a)
‘Basically, a non-working person is given coupons for food and a place to live etc., and is allowed to use roads and stuff (i.e. those things mentioned in question 2) but is not allowed to consume much else.’

So everyone has to be means tested and is given the heads up or down. Would the ‘testers’ qualify for special rations?

(b)
‘I think time cards might be enough. You go into a storage facility and a cashier looks at your card and sees how much it's worth.’

The free society requires cashiers to make sure we all get our just deserts. Perhaps as an incentive the cashiers could be awarded any leftover goodies.

(c)
‘But coercion isn't by necessity wrong. If most people want to put restrictions on consumption based on whether or not people make a work effort, then we should.’

Yes, and if anyone is caught cheating the system then righteous coercion would fall upon their heads. Can I use a pointed stick?

(d)
‘Not restricting things could lead to things running out fast because a lot of able-bodied people won't do the amount of labour that society needs.’

Not sure I understand the logic of this statement.

Next on many jobs becoming redundant:
(e)
‘But how do we know that? While some types of work would disappear, new types of work would surely also be created?’

All the enterprises relating to finance disappear. Capitalism creates work only if it generates profit. If we were creating things because they were needed, the drive to endless creation of commodities solely for profit/consumption would wind down. Think of all the clever creative people involved in advertising crap, who would be free to do other things.

(f)
‘I don't think I or most people would have a hard time between deciding which activity is more enjoyable: cleaning a toilet or doing anything that we today would call a leisure activity.’

The point being made is that today there are jobs we do that are useful and necessary (like cleaning the toilet), jobs we do only to earn money to keep us alive (and most/many hate), and things we do purely for pleasure. With the end of wage slavery, the drudgery of everyday life shrinks. People are free to pursue new or deferred activities.

(g)
‘Even more likeable activities such as teaching would still feel like work, because that what it is. It means keeping discipline in the classroom, correcting tests etc. Not that work can't lead to satisfaction. But it's still work.’

Not everyone who teaches likes the job. I believe key to creating the new free world is to rethink education:

‘Many students, especially those who are poor, intuitively know what the schools do for them. They school them to confuse process and substance. Once these become blurred, a new logic is assumed: the more treatment there is, the better are the results; or, escalation leads to success. The pupil is thereby ‘schooled’ to confuse teaching with learning, grade advancement with education, a diploma with competence, and fluency with the ability to say something new. His imagination is ‘schooled’ to accept service in place of value. Medical treatment is mistaken for health care, social work for the improvement of community life, police protection for safety, military poise for national security, the rat race for productive work. Health, learning, dignity, independence, and creative endeavour are defined as little more than the performance of the institutions which claim to serve these ends, and their improvement is made to depend on allocating more resources to the management of hospitals, schools, and other agencies in question.’
Ivan Illich Deschooling Society

(h)
‘What more would they enjoy than a freeloader? The sense of accomplishment? The respect of others? I think that would personally motivate me, but I've known several people, especially in school, who simply didn't give a crap what other people thought of them not doing any work in an assignment for example. And whenever I walk out I see trash on the pavement, thrown there by people who don't seem to care about how their behaviour affects others.’

You appear to be suggesting that the present situation of uncaring individualism, would be replicated in a libertarian communist world. We want to end capitalism not mend it. It will mean springing the yoke of scarcity off of humanities back and ending centuries of barbarism. If so, human behaviour will reflect this revolution.

adri

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by adri on June 28, 2019

explainthingstome

Cleaning, nursing and teaching are all going to remain important types of work, and I wouldn't call them "technical".
I think even if all work that would be left would be technical work or other specialized tasks, I wouldn't argue for a situation where many able-bodied people wouldn't work.
If there's less work to be done, said work should be divided, which would decrease the work day for each individual.

Of course not all work can or should be mechanized. Most cleaning-type work can however, and I don't imagine a lot of people would object to that. These discussions about "who will scrub the toilets" or "who will do the dishes" are pretty out of touch imo, considering we have restaurants today that are fully automated, automated commercial vacuum cleaners, automated "lights out" factories, and so on. It really seems like child's play to create a self-cleaning restroom (could maybe take inspiration from Sanisettes which I'm just now reading about), or to create a robot to do that, in a money-less, needs-meeting communist society, where as Kropotkin noted science could be applied to its fullest to make people's lives easier. But assuming we don't just mechanize restrooms, people can just take turns doing chores like cleaning toilets, or do it collectively, or people can clean up after themselves (assisting those who can't) etc. As mentioned a transformation of capitalist society to libertarian communist society also involves a transformation in people's thinking, so we'll have a society based more on co-operation and mutual aid instead of individualism and competition and so on.

AnythingForProximity

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by AnythingForProximity on June 28, 2019

Many of these questions are akin to an ancient Egyptian asking who, if there are to be no more slaves, will be building temples to the sun god. The premise of the question is fundamentally flawed; building temples for solar deities was one aspect of the same society of which slavery was another aspect, and if you abolish one, the other will disappear with it.

explainthingstome

Even more likeable activities such as teaching would still feel like work, because that what it is. It means keeping discipline in the classroom, correcting tests etc. Not that work can't lead to satisfaction. But it's still work.

"Teaching", to the extent that it will exist in communism, will definitely not involve classrooms (let alone "keeping discipline" therein) or tests – things that very clearly exist only to prepare a large part of the population for a life of wage labor. The assumption that these things could somehow persist in communist society is even stranger if we consider that in some places they have been partially abolished already – that is to say, within capitalism, through the efforts of capitalist reformers. The communist society of the future will likely go further than that, and abolish the distinction between learning and doing, just as the general abolition of the division of labor will spell the end of the "teacher" as a profession.

explainthingstome

But my teeth is not public property. Therefore, I know that nobody else is going to clean my teeth but me.
In a situation where twenty people use a bathroom, I believe there's a high risk that most people will go "somebody else will clean it, besides I wasn't the one making a mess in there".

That is the mentality of the private proprietor – a socially and historically conditioned response to the existence and continued reproduction of private property. A society that knows nothing of property (private or otherwise) will engender different mentalities. It is not improbable that the members of communist society will see their their bodies (or parts thereof, given that the example involved teeth) in the same way as the public utilities they will use (such as bathrooms) – namely as their usufruct; something that has been entrusted to their care, for the sake of the human species present and future.

explainthingstome

What more would they enjoy than a freeloader? The sense of accomplishment? The respect of others? I think that would personally motivate me, but I've known several people, especially in school, who simply didn't give a crap what other people thought of them not doing any work in an assignment for example.

And it was an understandable response on their part to their activity being alienated from them. In capitalism, wage laborers alienate their living, creative activity in the form of commodity-producing labor – because they have to, in order to survive. Fredy Perlman made quite a profound observation about this fifty years ago:

Fredy Perlman

[S]since labor is painful, [the worker] may desire to be "happy," namely inactive, all his life (a condition similar to being born dead).

Conversely, if activity no longer takes the form of labor, and as such is no longer painful, then inactivity ceases to appear as happiness, as something desirable. "Motivating" or "compelling" people to "work" is as likely to be a problem for communist society as building temples to the sun god: not at all, as both would be responses to social and historical conditions that no longer exist.

explainthingstome

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by explainthingstome on June 28, 2019

"So everyone has to be means tested and is given the heads up or down."

Why would everyone have to be "means tested"?

"The free society requires cashiers to make sure we all get our just deserts. Perhaps as an incentive the cashiers could be awarded any leftover goodies."

I don't really understand why you bring up the idea that cashiers should become more privileged than others. I haven't suggested this.

"Yes, and if anyone is caught cheating the system then righteous coercion would fall upon their heads. Can I use a pointed stick?"

1) Why would cheaters have to be physically harmed or imprisoned? If my baby escaped his crib I would just put him back in it, I wouldn't attack the baby with a pointed stick.

2) Do you oppose any kind of coercion? Beacause it's going to be pretty hard to abolish private property unless you're going to use the threat of force.

"Not sure I understand the logic of this statement."

People don't have to work > A sizeable amount of able-bodied people might not work > less people working means less products or less units, which in a free access society could mean that there's too many people consuming and not enough people working to make enough products.

"All the enterprises relating to finance disappear. Capitalism creates work only if it generates profit."

And you don't think that communism would produce any new important types of work?

"If we were creating things because they were needed, the drive to endless creation of commodities solely for profit/consumption would wind down."

If I've understood you correctly (and I might not have done so), you're saying that consumption would be lower under communism because the advertising industry would dissappear.
I think that's true to an extent, but I'm not sure if that's really going to mean that people are going to want only a fraction of what they presently consume.

"With the end of wage slavery, the drudgery of everyday life shrinks. People are free to pursue new or deferred activities."

But that's just a statement, it's not an argument to what I said.

"Not everyone who teaches likes the job."

I never said so.

"These discussions about 'who will scrub the toilets' or 'who will do the dishes' are pretty out of touch imo, considering we have restaurants today that are fully automated, automated commercial vacuum cleaners, automated 'lights out' factories, and so on."

But that's the exception and not the rule though is it? I think it would take a lot of work and time to make a majority of bathrooms and restaurants automated.

"Conversely, if activity no longer takes the form of labor, and as such is no longer painful, then inactivity ceases to appear as happiness, as something desirable."

So why would activity no longer take the "form of labor"?

___

One point that some people here appear to have made is that I'm talking as though communism has been established by non-communists. And that's true, I have. If we have a communist population, these problems of slacking shouldn't be a problem. So let's change the question a bit.
Is it really possible to make the slackers and the selfish people of this world into good communists? Or are they too small to matter? Is everyone already so willing to help out for free, without any economic repercussions?
Each new generation under communism will produce new slackers who need to be convinced of the communist principle of helping out in society. But that doesn't mean that each new generation of slackers can't be convinced, I just wanted to mention it is all.

Auld-bod

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Auld-bod on June 28, 2019

Explainthingstome #21:

‘Why would everyone have to be "means tested"?’

You have written that people should be tested to ascertain whether they can perform ‘work’. Means = ‘that by which a result is brought about’.

‘I don't really understand why you bring up the idea that cashiers should become more privileged than others. I haven't suggested this.’

‘Why would cheaters have to be physically harmed or imprisoned? If my baby escaped his crib I would just put him back in it, I wouldn't attack the baby with a pointed stick.’

I suggested this as most people would resent having to ‘police’ their fellows so some incentive may be required. You do advocate coercion, so wouldn’t a ‘carrot’ be more humane?

I enquired about a pointed stick, as a metaphor for your attitude about the necessity to control ‘lazy’ people’s lives. Treating people as children – lord love a duck!

A Wotsit

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by A Wotsit on June 28, 2019

(Hey Noah!)

I’ve not caught up with all replies so apologies for repeating stuff

The phrase “how does one distinguish between a gifted slacker and a slightly dim grafter?” basically means - how do you tell the difference between a person who is lazy, but good at appearing to be productive / being productive with little effort, and someone who works hard as hard as they are able, but is not that smart.

Re. "What more would they enjoy than a freeloader? The sense of accomplishment? The respect of others? I think that would personally motivate me."

I think the things you listed are a big part of what would motivate most people. Being an active participant in productive social life will present us with more opportunities for fulfilling experiences and building meaningful relationships with those around us.

Regarding the impact of people who don't care, I think they would soon learn to care, as it would benefit them beyond peoples’ perception of them. There would be positives in terms of their general social wellbeing, and possibly on a material level as well.

I think when we don't have an external authority to appeal to in terms of dealing with anti-social behaviour, people will soon collectively intervene where they see someone doing something harmful, and the culprits wouldn't persist for long. I also think there won't be as much litter because who is going to bother wasting their time manufacturing single use disposable packaging, and then managing the waste. We'll find better ways to produce, store, move and consume things when we take collective responsibility

I guess if anything was scarce, those who actively participated in making it would probably be the first to have an opportunity to enjoy whatever product it was, and decide how to share it with others. I think scarcity will be less of a problem and we’ll all be clothed, housed and fed with a fraction of the wasted effort put into capitalism - with our abundant free time we can help create abundance of whatever type we want. I think most people will want to grow, cook and share great food, create comfortable spaces to live in, make beautiful and useful stuff they can share with others, pursue their own interests, support those around them and look after each other.

“But how do we know that? "There would be less work under communism because a lot of work activities would disappear."

No one will be spending any time selling anything, or making stuff purely for profit, call centres or retail jobs - that’s most current jobs gone! No more politics jobs or military or police.
Much less transport and warehousing of shoddy consumer goods which are designed to break and could be made local to where they’re needed.
No more banking or finance jobs or estate agents, no one would have to clean or drive or cook or garden or do PR etc etc etc for the rich.
Anything we make under communist conditions will be built as well as we can make it, because we actually want it and need it.
Basically, everything would be different.

“While some types of work would dissappear, new types of work would surely also be created?”

What would be created by replacing capitalism with communism is free time, and better conditions for organising the necessary tasks we need to complete in order to enjoy life to the fullest.

I think unpleasant jobs now are primarily unpleasant because of capitalism. For example cleaning for a couple of hours, before moving on to another task, is OK, cleaning for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, is too much. Polishing the furniture in a mansion or waxing the floors of a mall, feel pointless, helping someone who isn't able to clean themselves, or participating in maintaining a communal space on your own terms, is worth doing.

Some difficult and unpleasant tasks will remain, but the way they are divided will be much less unequal and much more down to people participating in what seems necessary.

““under communism people will no longer be alienated", ..there isn't much proof that this is the case as far as I know.”

Non-capitalist societies have existed at various points in history, people still worked together (admittedly many societies used coercion and hierarchy of other forms, but not always and at all times) and there are relationships that aren’t directly mediated by capital / class that are evidence of this today - such as helping out a stranger you see struggling with something, or any relationship based on companionship / mutual aid rather than employment and wage labour or coercion.

If anarchism / communism exists as the dominant form of social organisation, social relationships would have undergone a profound transformation via the revolution. No more bosses and workers, no more officials and citizens, just each other, and looking out for one another. If you saw someone in need you would be free to help out, and I think most people do help, especially when the social conditions are right.

Noah Fence

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Noah Fence on June 28, 2019

I think it’s important to remember here that cooperation and mutual aid have been a massively important part of humanity’s development and progress. It appears to be ingrained in us to consider others as well as ourselves. Essentially it’s our nature to help each other and to take responsibility for our part in our communities. It’s a mistake to judge ourselves on the way we behave in a capitalist society, where our nature is denied and we are pitted against each other.
Of course there will be problems, this perversion won’t be eradicated overnight, but to try to deal with this by creating a meritocratic culture would be a big mistake.

Auld-bod

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Auld-bod on June 28, 2019

Well put, young Noah.

AnythingForProximity

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by AnythingForProximity on June 28, 2019

explainthingstome

So why would activity no longer take the "form of labor"?

Because it will not be alienated from those who engage in it; it will not have to be exchanged for wages in order for people to obtain their means of survival.

explainthingstome

And you don't think that communism would produce any new important types of work?

Why should it?

explainthingstome

Each new generation under communism will produce new slackers who need to be convinced of the communist principle of helping out in society.

No, it will not, just as there is no need to convince each new generation born under capitalism that they should not keep slaves for the purpose of building temples. Instead, capitalist society structures their behavior in such a way that the thought never even crosses their minds, and if it does, then only as what it is – a comical, clearly impracticable anachronism, incompatible with the way society operates and with their continued existence within it. You are making the very basic mistake of seeing people respond to the currently existing social relations in which they are embedded (e.g., by being, or wanting to be, "slackers" or "freeloaders" who need to be "motivated" to "work") and assuming that those responses are natural and eternal, part of some intrinsic and transhistorical "human nature". They are not. New and different social relations will correspond to new and different modes of behavior.

You seem to think that this argument lacks force ("[…] a bit of a weak answer"), and in some ways that's completely fair. We have been embedded in capitalist social relations our whole lives, and so were the generations of our parents and grandparents; we cannot extricate ourselves from them by our individual efforts. We know nothing else; there is nothing exterior to them, no living example of how things could be done differently. And yet, all of that used to be true of completely different social relations, too. To use what has almost become a communist cliché, a European peasant in the year 1000 would have felt exactly the same way about the divine right of kings.

But yes, the currently existing social relations obviously have a material force that no intellectual argument can match, and for now, intellectual arguments are all we have: by analyzing the workings and contradictions of the present-day society, and with the help of people like Marx and Bordiga in whose thought there crystallized the experience of years of proletarian struggles, we can glimpse some of the features of the society that will come to replace it.

jef costello

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jef costello on June 28, 2019

I think this "Who is going to clean the toilets?" arrgument is a bit flawed. Pub toilets are disgusting because they are used by drunk people (so not the most thoughtful or precise) who know that they don't personally have to clean them. In a communist society, if you missed you wouldn't think "glad I'm not sitting on that seat" you'd clean it off. Collective responsibility is not just about doing things, it is also about not doing things.

Even more likeable activities such as teaching would still feel like work, because that what it is. It means keeping discipline in the classroom, correcting tests etc. Not that work can't lead to satisfaction. But it's still work

Teaching is a difficult job, partly because our system is about teaching, not about learning. I am not entirely sure what communist education would be like, but it would be much more intensive in terms of labour, it wouldn't be groups of 30 kids listening to someone at a board. (Incidentally independent learning generally does require a carefully thought out framework, but may not do so under communism, where we won't have bludgeoned out a child's love of learning)

So many more people would be involved in education, I think there would be specialists, but people would largely participate. Instead of grades and qualifications we would look at skills and knowledge, once someone has mastered a skill there is no reason to keep them in a class. But education would be life-long, not just something we put together to provide a supply of trained workers. That would also remove the tyranny of choice, the -Alevels you choose limit degree choices, then your degree limits your employment choices, and for some the career that they worked towards doesn't please them. But they can't afford to leave it.

We can't always trust children to make the decisions, but an education system that involved them would certainly reduce the pointless imposition of discipline.In a real system there wouldn't be this pressure, when a student was ready to start applying their knowledge they would do so, and their participation in the community would increase/change. For example a five year-old might be expected to clear up their toys, but a 10 year-old miught be expected to help make dinner, or do the laundry. A fifteen year-old might do something else or extra, depending on whether it was needed and what skills they had.

Obviously some jobs are more pleasurable than others, but a big part of that is because we can pay or coerce people (poorer, browner, more female) to do them. If we can crack equal participation in the home (obviously what we consider a household will probably change too) then people will be able to accept that if a job needs doing, it needs doing.

Society would coerce, but society would also instil values of solidarity that changed mindsets. So a man wouldn't ignore the washing up because on some level he believes it is 'women's work'
People wouldn't hire a cleaner because they wouldn't be able to, there would be no money to coerce. So you would need to provide for yourself on a day to day basis, building an idea of contribution to the collective.

pi

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by pi on June 28, 2019

Great thread. I've found it informative and uplifting actually. Ta.

explainthingstome

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by explainthingstome on June 29, 2019

"You have written that people should be tested to ascertain whether they can perform ‘work’. Means = ‘that by which a result is brought about’."

You and I seem to both believe that most able-bodied people would work. These people will never have to be tested, it's the inactive people that would be tested.
A lot of them would be old people, so they wouldn't have to be tested. I.e. look at the inactive people and exclude those who have old birthyears.

"I suggested this as most people would resent having to ‘police’ their fellows so some incentive may be required. You do advocate coercion, so wouldn’t a ‘carrot’ be more humane?"

So what carrot do you have to offer to lazy people like Jeffrey Lebowski?

"I enquired about a pointed stick, as a metaphor for your attitude about the necessity to control ‘lazy’ people’s lives. Treating people as children – lord love a duck!"

Treating jerks as children, not all people. You're probably not in favour of letting serial killers roam free but you probably don't describe that as "treating people as children".

"how do you tell the difference between a person who is lazy, but good at appearing to be productive / being productive with little effort, and someone who works hard as hard as they are able, but is not that smart."

I don't think we'd have to be able to do that. That's why I mentioned the idea of a reasonable bare minimum amount of labour that people wouldn't consider to be unrealistic.

"Regarding the impact of people who don't care, I think they would soon learn to care, as it would benefit them beyond peoples’ perception of them. There would be positives in terms of their general social wellbeing, and possibly on a material level as well."

What positives of their general social wellbeing would exist?
Assuming that everyone else is working, there is no material gain for the slacker.

"We'll find better ways to produce, store, move and consume things when we take collective responsibility"

That's a good point, but there's probably still going to be garbage around, won't it?

"Non-capitalist societies have existed at various points in history, people still worked together (admittedly many societies used coercion and hierarchy of other forms, but not always and at all times)"

But weren't their consumption levels much lower than now? If so, do you want to go back to their consumption levels?

"Essentially it’s our nature to help each other and to take responsibility for our part in our communities."

I don't think human nature is that narrow. I don't think capitalism could've been established if human nature couldn't mean more than compassion and helping eachother out.

"[Activity would no longer take the form of labor] because it will not be alienated from those who engage in it; it will not have to be exchanged for wages in order for people to obtain their means of survival."

But do you think the only problem people have with work has to do with it being wage labour? Is that really the only reason we're not constantly baking bread and creating automobiles?

"Why [would communism would produce any new important types of work]?"

To me, it sounds like you're implying that capitalism has fulfilled all our material needs and the only thing to do now is to get rid of some types of work. But under capitalism, loads of people have a lesser way of living than for example Frenchmen from a material standpoint.
What about building good housing? Or making everyone have access to good water supplies? Doesn't that require a lot more workers in those fields?
(I'm aware I'm somewhat moving the goalposts but just replace "new important types of work" with "more demand for workers in currently existing fields".)

"No, it will not, just as there is no need to convince each new generation born under capitalism that they should not keep slaves for the purpose of building temples."

In what world is being indifferent comparable to believing in slavery for the purpose of building temples? I believe indifference is a "natural" human emotion that's not limited to any type of society, just like empathy or hatred, and I haven't heard a good argument in favour of a different view on it.
If societies only created the individuals that they wanted to have there would be no anarchists or other critics of capitalism under capitalism. Wouldn't you have to deny your own existence if you're going to maintain your view on this issue?

AnythingForProximity

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by AnythingForProximity on June 30, 2019

explainthingstome

But do you think the only problem people have with work has to do with it being wage labour?

Let me turn that question back on you: do you really believe that when wage labor is abolished, nothing else will change about the ways in which people engage in creative activity? That everything else about it will go on just like before, except that people will no longer receive monetary remuneration for it?

Actually, scratch that. It's a rhetorical question, because it is obvious from your posts that you do believe that. You think that in communism, teachers will still go to work every morning to keep discipline in the classroom, distribute tests, and then grade them. There will still be restaurants whose bathrooms will need to be cleaned, and workers who will swipe in and out as they are entering or leaving their workplace. All the stuff that people do in capitalist society will still have to be done, and then some. (No world without restaurants, I guess.) And not just that; it will need to be done in the same old ways.

That's absurd. For one thing, it implies that wage labor, the fundamental capitalist relationship that structures the reproduction of all of our daily life, is just some unimportant superstructure, a kind of afterthought or outgrowth on top of this daily life, which will continue to be reproduced much like before once wage labor is abolished. With all due respect, to suggest this betrays not just a lack of imagination – no one can be reasonably faulted for insufficient imagination – but a certain intellectual laziness as well. True, we cannot all be Marx or Bordiga, who thought about these issues longer and harder than any of us, but it is another thing entirely not to be able to entertain the possibility of any changes at all, not even slight ones. We do have tools at our disposal that allow us to do that. We can examine the everyday life of pre-capitalist societies, such as the classless ("primitively communist") communities of hunters and gatherers. We can subject our own daily life to critique to reveal the full extent to which it is conditioned by wage labor and other social relations derived therefrom. The one thing we cannot do is assume that everything is set in stone exactly the way it is now, and it's going to be the same old shit from now until the sun burns out.

I don't know exactly what creative activity will look like in communist society; no one does. But – and this is an important point – we can be reasonably sure of some things, because communism is not an empty placeholder for "what will come after the revolution"; there is content to it. There will be no division of labor, no boring or difficult or dirty job one could get stuck in ("to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic"). Membership in any given association of producers "will normally change many times over the course of a person’s active life". The whole boundary between work, a forced, alienated activity one performs for a set number of hours at a dedicated workplace, and leisure, a period of inactivity that is perceived as desirable because it grants one a respite from the unpleasantness of work, will collapse when creative/productive activity is no longer unpleasant.

explainthingstome

To me, it sounds like you're implying that capitalism has fulfilled all our material needs and the only thing to do now is to get rid of some types of work.

It has not fulfilled all our material needs, but it has developed productive forces to an extent that makes the fulfillment of our needs possible. In fact, it has overdeveloped them. So yes, getting rid of some types of work will be the priority.

[url=http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gilles-dauve-communisation]Gilles Dauvé[/url]

As someone said forty years ago, half of the factories will have to be closed.

explainthingstome

What about building good housing? Or making everyone have access to good water supplies? Doesn't that require a lot more workers in those fields?

Maybe. Maybe it will just require some of the work already done in those fields to be done in other places instead. Other than that, the notion that communism is somehow tied to great feats of construction seems to be an anachronistic echo of the 1930s Stalinist industrialization drive.

[url=http://communemag.com/between-the-devil-and-the-green-new-deal/]Jasper Bernes[/url]

[F]or those in the industrialized global north, no more cement, very little steel, almost no air travel, walkable human settlements, passive heating and cooling, a total transformation of agriculture, and a diminishment of animal pasture by an order of magnitude at least.

explainthingstome

If societies only created the individuals that they wanted to have there would be no anarchists or other critics of capitalism under capitalism. Wouldn't you have to deny your own existence if you're going to maintain your view on this issue?

You misunderstand. My anarchism is a response to the conditions of my daily life: to the fact that I go to work 40 hours a week, where I alienate my activity in exchage for a salary; that I have to pay monthly rent for the apartment where I live; that the food I eat, the electricity that keeps me warm are commodities I have to buy with the money I receive in wages. It is a response to the knowledge that if I stopped doing any of those things, I would quite likely die of starvation, or exposure, or some easily preventable or treatable disease.

A hypothetical wish to keep slaves for temple-building would not be a response to the conditions of my daily life. That's what makes the whole suggestion so facetious that you almost seem annoyed to have to reply to it; it has no connection with our lived reality whatsoever.

All my analogy was intended to illustrate was that your hypothetical communist "slackers" would be like the latter, rather than the former. A wish to remain permanently inactive would not be a response to the conditions of daily life in communist society. It would have no connection whatsoever with its lived reality.

explainthingstome

In what world is being indifferent comparable to believing in slavery for the purpose of building temples? I believe indifference is a "natural" human emotion that's not limited to any type of society, just like empathy or hatred, and I haven't heard a good argument in favour of a different view on it.

I made it clear why I refuse to deal in transhistorical "human natures" of any kind. But that doesn't matter, because your argument is not about the emotion of indifference. It is about the action, the decision of refusing to engage in creative activity. And once again, there is nothing much to be said about it, except that in the conditions of abundance and highly developed productive forces, only human beings scarred by capitalism and capitalist labor can perceive creative activity as pain, and inactivity as happiness.

Auld-bod

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Auld-bod on June 30, 2019

Explainthingstome #29:

You go to the left, you go to the right.
I do not want to labour the point, though by stating only some people would undergo the ‘lazybones testing’, means a preliminary selection panel.

‘Carrots’ and lazy people.
There is strong evidence that people generally like to fit in. This can be positive or negative. Social conformity can lead to all kinds of bad results. On the positive side it is possible to ‘model’ desirable behaviour. This is used a lot in primary education, particularly once corporal punishment was outlawed. When I was an apprentice I was expected to emulate good working practices. In turn, I tried to set a positive example when I was given an apprentice. Backed with positive reinforcement, it’s a better carrot, than a kick in the butt.

Evidence on indifference.
Indifference/apathy are ineffectual ways of attempting to mitigate the effects of an often cold and heartless society. It belies the real damage inflicted on many people. Mental illness, suicide, violent crime, etc., are all symptomatic of this attack on human sensibilities. Genuine ‘indifference’ is I would suggest very rare.

explainthingstome

4 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by explainthingstome on June 30, 2019

[i]"t is obvious from your posts that you do believe that [when wage labor is abolished, nothing else will change about the ways in which people engage in creative activity]."

I don't think I would agree with that. Work in general would probably be more enjoyable under communism than now. But I don't know if that means that work would not stop being seen as work. (More on that later.) So the whole paragraph about me being intellectually lazy becomes meaningless in this discussion.

"All the stuff that people do in capitalist society will still have to be done, and then some."

No, I believe that many types of work will be gone. Like advertising, the military, banking etc.
It was someone else who brought up restaurants, I started talking about it without thinking too much about it. But it wasn't really a big part of the discussion.

Then you bring up hunter-gatherer societies, and while I certainly agree that they worked without wages, they didn't have much work to do. I would assume that future communism would be a lot more labour-intensive.

"There will be no division of labor"

But some work demands years of education, like surgery or engineering. Isn't it likely that surgeons , to a great extent atleast, are going to remain in that field and not be mathematicians aswell?
They could do other work aswell, but if I was an engineer I would probably do some other kind of work that didn't require as much knowledge.
I think the division of labour would be less "narrow", but I don't think specializing would dissappear.

"It has not fulfilled all our material needs, but it has developed productive forces to an extent that makes the fulfillment of our needs possible. In fact, it has overdeveloped them. So yes, getting rid of some types of work will be the priority."

That capitalism has developed the productive forces to the extent that we will be able fulfill our needs doesn't say anything about whether or not we have to build a lot more houses.
But maybe I don't understand what "productive forces" means and you're saying that we basically already have enough houses etc, but they're not being used?

"As someone said forty years ago, half of the factories will have to be closed."

That's just a statement without any motivation for it, and so is your Jasper Berens quote.

"Maybe. Maybe it will just require some of the work already done in those fields to be done in other places instead."

I don't fully understand what you mean here. Do you mean that the same amount of labour will be required under communism as under today, and we just have to move that labour to some other location?

"Other than that, the notion that communism is somehow tied to great feats of construction seems to be an anachronistic echo of the 1930s Stalinist industrialization drive."

Come on, that's just guilt by association. I can do the same to you and make a link between you and other people who don't want the people living in carboard boxes to get better housing.

"My anarchism is a response to the conditions of my daily life"

Many other working people in your part of the world aren't anarchists but adherents to the present system.
Just like how anarchists and anti-socialists are formed under similar social conditions, I believe that there will be working people and slackers who grow up under communism. The activity of slacking off just doesn't appear strange to me, limited only to capitalist society.

"A wish to remain permanently inactive would not be a response to the conditions of daily life in communist society."

I'm not just talking about people who want to remain "permanently inactive" or people who identify "inactivity as happiness", I'm also talking about people who might do two hours of work a week, and then engage in activities that do not in general produce any product to society, such as cycling, baking a cake for themselves, watching TV etc. Which kind of brings me to the question of "work will be like leisure time".
Do you spend your whole days washing the dishes, cleaning your apartment, picking up garbage in the street etc? These are not wage labour activities, so do you not see any difference between doing these things and any activity that you would describe as "fun"?

"[That] people would undergo the ‘lazybones testing’, means a preliminary selection panel."

I guess so. Membership of the panel could rotate around the population.

"Backed with positive reinforcement, it’s a better carrot, than a kick in the butt. [...] Genuine ‘indifference’ is I would suggest very rare."

And with positive reinforcement you mean showing gratitude, smiling at them etc? I don't know if I believe that that's enough for a minor but nevertheless significant part of the population.

Lucky Black Cat

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lucky Black Cat on July 5, 2019

Explainthingstome: To what extent are you convinced of the position that you're arguing here? Are these just doubts and uncertainties you have? Or are they things you are quite firmly convinced of? Or are you just frustrated by the level of optimism here and thus playing "devil's advocate"? (Not to equate your position with the devil, but you know what I mean!)

explainthingstome

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by explainthingstome on July 5, 2019

I don't know if I would say that I am extremely convinced of what I say in this thread. But I do kind of believe in most of what I've said. I'm open to changing my mind, as that would make things less complicated for me. However...

I feel that a lot of the answers that have been given here aren't convincing enough to make me change my views. One example is the answer that labour will be like leisure just because wage labour will dissappear. My answer to that is that people do non-wage work today (taking out the dishes, mowing the lawn, cleaning the room etc) and are often not particurarily thrilled about doing it. How would you respond to this argument?

adri

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by adri on July 5, 2019

explainthingstome

I don't know if I would say that I am extremely convinced of what I say in this thread. But I do kind of believe in most of what I've said. I'm open to changing my mind, as that would make things less complicated for me. However...

I feel that a lot of the answers that have been given here aren't convincing enough to make me change my views. One example is the answer that labour will be like leisure just because wage labour will dissappear. My answer to that is that people do non-wage work today (taking out the dishes, mowing the lawn, cleaning the room etc) and are often not particurarily thrilled about doing it. How would you respond to this argument?

There are people who actually derive pleasure from doing things like landscaping, gardening etc., not to mention people for example who enjoy writing code in their leisure. I'd imagine people might enjoy tending to their lawn even more without all the stresses/worries of capitalism, coming home from work exhausted etc.

Mike Harman

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Mike Harman on July 5, 2019

Jef Costello

I am not entirely sure what communist education would be like, but it would be much more intensive in terms of labour, it wouldn't be groups of 30 kids listening to someone at a board. (Incidentally independent learning generally does require a carefully thought out framework, but may not do so under communism, where we won't have bludgeoned out a child's love of learning)

There have been a lot of attempts at transforming schooling in the past century, so we can look at some of them as examples:

Since 1976, some nursing homes and nurseries have either officially combined, or organise regular visits: https://www.ageukmobility.co.uk/mobility-news/article/intergenerational-care

This obviously massively increases the adult to child ratio for interaction, and also the interaction that the residents get.

Summerhill is a school in Suffolk that used to have 100% optional lessons, restorative justice etc. it's still going but I don't think it's like that any more. Also while it was internally very radical it was obviously a private school where generally well off families sent 'difficult' kids who weren't handling regular schooling, but this doesn't mean there's not lots to learn from the internal stuff.
https://libcom.org/library/summerhill-education-versus-standard-education-s-neill

Going back further Franciso Ferrer and the Modern School.

Also stuff like outdoor nurseries: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/dec/09/the-school-in-the-woods-outdoor-education-modern-britain

Then there's the whole system of extra-curricular activities - martial arts, sports, dance lessons and groups, music lessons, orchestras, drama clubs and similar, that are able to run without any kind of disciplinary system because the kids generally want to be there. There's various problems with these as well (not least cost, although that's one that wouldn't exist with wage labour abolished).

Also sort of at the other extreme but relevant to the cleaning discussion. In Japanese schools they have 'cleaning time' every day, where kids clean their classrooms, the hallway floors and windows collectively with the teachers right from 6-7 years old into secondary school. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLo0phnh-kA. They still have actual janitors, not sure how much difference the kids cleaning actually makes although probably a bit.

Part of it is creating situations where kids can pick things up naturally, part of it is making it a participatory experience for adults rather than simply 'teaching' so it's enjoyable for them too.

Also for basics like reading, the current system works against this. Kids tend to learn vocabulary best from actually reading books with family and similar, but if you spend almost the entire time they're awake out at work, while they're looked after in under-staffed day care, there's not much time for that. Then schools end up trying to compensate for this by having supervised reading classes or 'embedding' literacy and numeracy all the way up to post-16. So just having less time in work and formal education would allow this sort of one-to-one interaction to happen more rather than less.

Noah Fence

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Noah Fence on July 5, 2019

Certainly I take pleasure in doing some unpaid work, simply because I know it needs to be done, or that some sort advantageous outcome can be achieved for myself or others. I don’t think there’s anything unusual about that.

ne example is the answer that labour will be like leisure just because wage labour will dissappear. My answer to that is that people do non-wage work today (taking out the dishes, mowing the lawn, cleaning the room etc) and are often not particurarily thrilled about doing it. How would you respond to this argument?

Well, I’d agree that I don’t think labour and leisure will become universally indistinguishable, but I also think there will often be a blurred line between them and sometimes the indistinguishability will be complete. Hell, I’ve even experienced that in a wage labour so I’m sure it will be reasonably common in communism.
I understand your viewpoint but I think you lean too far into pessimism. You know doubt think that me and others are too optimistic which is fair enough. To some degree at least we’re only going to be able to answer such questions once the culture is being established. I dare say it will vary from area to area and it will probably be the case that in different areas both our perspectives will be prove to be the most realistic. However, whatever the reality, I feel sure that trying to set out some sort of meritocratic framework that guides the distribution of goods would be a bad thing in both principle and praxis.

explainthingstome

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by explainthingstome on July 6, 2019

I agree that a lot of people very much enjoy some kind of leisure-activity that demands labour. In fact I think this applies to most if not all people. But I don't think that this means that communism would mean that all or even most of the types of work that's currently wage labour would be as enjoyable as todays leisure activities. It's therefore a risk that most people will do work but not enough of it to fulfill societies needs, and there's also a risk that a minority of lazy people will find work almost as boring as they do now.

"Certainly I take pleasure in doing some unpaid work, simply because I know it needs to be done, or that some sort advantageous outcome can be achieved for myself or others. I don’t think there’s anything unusual about that."

But have you ever been in a situation where you felt that you had to do an unfair amount of work because a flatmate or whatever wasn't making an effort? If so, didn't that make your labour feel a lot less enjoyable?

"To some degree at least we’re only going to be able to answer such questions once the culture is being established."

Isn't that a bit of a pig in a poke? I mean if it's the case that the amount of work done isn't enough then we're pretty screwed, assuming that no meritocratic framework is possible or good?

Noah Fence

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Noah Fence on July 6, 2019

But I don't think that this means that communism would mean that all or even most of the types of work that's currently wage labour would be as enjoyable as todays leisure activities.

I agree with this statement, where we probably differ is in how important a consideration we think this is

But have you ever been in a situation where you felt that you had to do an unfair amount of work because a flatmate or whatever wasn't making an effort? If so, didn't that make your labour feel a lot less enjoyable?

Yes, I’ve been in that situation, but whilst it was very annoying, it didn’t make doing the dishes less enjoyable - I never enjoyed doing the dishes in the first place! However, I can still derive pleasure from it, the pleasure of knowing something that needed to be done, has been done. The pleasure of having a clean, tidy environment to prepare a meal in. The pleasure of knowing that I have done something for the common good. Maybe some people would let their resentment guide their actions? If so, yes, that could be a problem, my view is only conjecture, as is yours, both highly subjective - I have very little to go on apart from my own experience, which is that the vast majority of people are willing to do their bit. I think that in a non coercive culture, that willingness will be increased.
I’m kind of neutral to washing dishes but I actually hate sweeping the yard - it’s large and the surface is uneven, it takes around an hour to do and I always need to take a shower after coz I’m filthy dirty. Fuck knows where all the dust comes from! I hate doing this but nobody else in the household is prepared to do it and I know it needs to be done so every week or so I get on with it. So I hate doing it, nobody will help me, yet I consistently do this work and of all the work I do, both paid and unpaid, it’s the work that, once completed, gives me by far the greatest satisfaction. I’m so glad it’s done, the yard looks lovely and clean, and I know that for a few days at least, me and my family can sit out there at the table and enjoy the clean environment. This pleasure/satisfaction is not insignificant, and I’m sure will apply to broader societal relations too.

Isn't that a bit of a pig in a poke? I mean if it's the case that the amount of work done isn't enough then we're pretty screwed, assuming that no meritocratic framework is possible or good?

Not sure what a ‘pig in a poke’ is but it doesn’t sound very vegan so I hope I haven’t created one! Seriously though, we’re supposed to be dismantling hierarchies aren’t we, not creating new ones? We don’t know if a labour shortage will occur due to laziness or whatever, and if the problem did develop we don’t know if a meritocratic framework would be effective. Why build somethings don’t know will be effective, for a problem that we don’t know will occur?
If this problem did occur then we can apply directly contextualised thought to the matter and see what solutions we can create. Surely if we’ve managed to create a revolution, we can manage to find other solutions to this issue than deprivation fuelled coercion?

explainthingstome

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by explainthingstome on July 6, 2019

"I think that in a non coercive culture, that willingness [to do their bit] will be increased."

What argument makes you the most convinced of this?

"I’m so glad it’s done, the yard looks lovely and clean, and I know that for a few days at least, me and my family can sit out there at the table and enjoy the clean environment. This pleasure/satisfaction is not insignificant, and I’m sure will apply to broader societal relations too.

This made me think of another thing. Cleaning the yard gives you the possibility to "consume" the yard. Your work activity had a clear link to your own consumption. But working in a computer factory might not have the same satisfaction, assuming that you don't need all the computers that you help produce. So in that situation, you're producing something that you don't consume.
Do you think that this situation would be common under communism, and if so, do you think it would decrease the willingness to work?

"Not sure what a ‘pig in a poke’ is"

A pig in a poke is a thing that is bought without first being inspected, and thus of unknown authenticity or quality. The pig in this case is communism.
You ask "why build something [that we] don't know will be effective, for a problem that we don’t know will occur?" But what would you say to the generic anti-communist who says "why establish a society that we don't know will work properly?"
My answer to such a question would perhaps be that it's very likely that we would be able to produce the bare minimum for a decent life under communism without having to have labour vouchers or something similar.
Such a society, while having a more limited supply of products, would probably be workable since only producing what is necessary and maybe a bit more (books and footballs etc) would probably not require that much work by everyone compared to having a lot of the "luxurious" items that we have today (such as cars).

adri

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by adri on July 6, 2019

explainthingstome

"I think that in a non coercive culture, that willingness [to do their bit] will be increased."

What argument makes you the most convinced of this?

"I’m so glad it’s done, the yard looks lovely and clean, and I know that for a few days at least, me and my family can sit out there at the table and enjoy the clean environment. This pleasure/satisfaction is not insignificant, and I’m sure will apply to broader societal relations too.

This made me think of another thing. Cleaning the yard gives you the possibility to "consume" the yard. Your work activity had a clear link to your own consumption. But working in a computer factory might not have the same satisfaction, assuming that you don't need all the computers that you help produce. So in that situation, you're producing something that you don't consume.
Do you think that this situation would be common under communism, and if so, do you think it would decrease the willingness to work?

People would get together and decide whether they wanted to produce electronic devices like laptop computers or not, which involves more than just a single factory; it also involves digging up the geological material that goes into a computer, transporting it, processing it etc. (We don't really need to worry about people writing software because people already do that in their leisure today, free and open source software e.g.) My hunch is that there also wouldn't be all the competing brands (and waste of resources) of laptops, but maybe a few rational designs.The character of this type of work would also be different. The capitalist division of labour where one worker today might spend their entire workday tending to one machine or tightening screws would not exist in a communist society (because that's not enjoyable), and also, as mentioned, technology could be used to make work lighter and eliminate certain work altogether (as they're already discussing now in Foxconn factories through automation, not to the benefit of workers of course). I think it also goes without saying that Nike sweatshops and fastfood restaurants wouldn't just 'continue existing' in a communist society.

Noah Fence

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Noah Fence on July 6, 2019

What argument makes you the most convinced of this?

No argument as such, just a lifetime of experience.

This made me think of another thing. Cleaning the yard gives you the possibility to "consume" the yard. Your work activity had a clear link to your own consumption. But working in a computer factory might not have the same satisfaction, assuming that you don't need all the computers that you help produce. So in that situation, you're producing something that you don't consume.
Do you think that this situation would be common under communism, and if so, do you think it would decrease the willingness to work?

The situation in a wider social setting seems to me to be analogous with the situation I described in my household. Yes, I ‘consume’ the clean dishes and the tidy yard, but in a broader context I would consume computers and I would consume public spaces, I mean fuck man, I would even consume sewers! The fact that I don’t need all of the computers doesn’t make it nonsensical for me to play a part in producing a number of computers, one of which I will use. Anyways, why would I not want to contribute to the production of a range of goods and services? I’ve no personal use for a wheelchair, yet I’d be very happy to build them, I don’t like certain fruits but I’d be happy to pick them.
Maybe you think that people are too selfish and lazy to contribute to anything beyond their immediate needs and surroundings? If so, there’s not much I can do about it except tell you that I don’t agree.
Maybe I’m an silly optimistic utopian, maybe you’re a negative minded misery guts? Hell, I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure you’re as frustrated with my position as I am with yours, right?
Essentially, we’re repeating our disagreement in different scenarios. You: people are selfish assholes. Me: People are willing to contribute and may be more willing still in communism. Probably best to leave it at that. Or maybe we should meet up and discuss it over a cup of coffee. Would you make us both a cup of coffee though? Or would you only make one for yourself? I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have to make my own coffee!

Noah Fence

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Noah Fence on July 6, 2019

Maybe take a look at this...

https://libcom.org/library/mutual-aid-peter-kropotkin

Or even dig up Darwin’s views on the tendency for humans to cooperate and it’s relation to evolution.

jef costello

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jef costello on July 6, 2019

explainthingstome

What argument makes you the most convinced of this?

...

You ask "why build something [that we] don't know will be effective, for a problem that we don’t know will occur?" But what would you say to the generic anti-communist who says "why establish a society that we don't know will work properly?"

People perform unpaid labour every single day in spite of living in a system that degrades such labour. Honestly I worry if men wil be the problem, because women shoulder a larger proportion of this labour.

We want to establish a society that we do know will work, we just don't know exactly how the details will work. What is certain is that we are barreling towards environmental collapse. Capitalism has shown itself unable to deal with that problem. The mental and physical toll that this system takes is too high, why should we be angry and stressed because we are doing useless things for people who don't need them? Why should workers die from industrial accidents? Why should our healthcare systems enrich some and leave millions to die?

Auld-bod

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Auld-bod on July 7, 2019

This is a bit random, hope it makes some sense.

Taking up Noah’s point about examples from everyday life - there is several activities I don’t like. An example - it has been many years since I’ve ironed any clothes, I buy drip dry.

A general principle I try and live by, is not to ask, or expect, anyone to do anything I would not do myself.

Being a bit claustrophobic I am not prepared to go down a mine, etc. Many people probably do not feel the same way – good, if it is thought essential, let them do the work. If no one wishes to, then we’ll all adapt.

I have always been amazed that there is no shortage of volunteers to be coastguards* or mountain rescuers. I have had the privilege of knowing a good number workers who took pride in doing their tasks diligently. I had an operation a few years ago and it was obvious the pride and satisfaction these people took in their work. Again this work is not for everyone. I’ve had friends who loved to exercise their mechanical engineering skills. One was working on repairing his taxi only hours before he died of a long term illness.

Perhaps there are some poor individuals, who will find no place in a free communist world, and can only exist by being parasites. Well I do not agree with Jane Austin who wrote that:

“Selfishness must always be forgiven you know, because there is no hope of a cure.”

However if it’s true then how wasteful to spend time fretting over some sad people to whom the idea of mutual aid must be a mystery.

It is in part a question of power, who is entitled to force/coerce another to act against their will? No one. (The exception is having to intercede to protect oneself or others.)

*Edit
Meant to write lifeboat volunteers not coastguards.

Noah Fence

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Noah Fence on July 7, 2019

Selfishness must always be forgiven you know, because there is no hope of a cure.”

However if it’s true then how wasteful to spend time fretting over some sad people to whom the idea of mutual aid must be a mystery.

I don’t agree with Jane in that the selfish most certainly can change and if fact after some sort of epiphany the most selfish of people can become the most selfless, However, it’s not uncommon for some people to be uncooperative and self seeking their entire lives. My feelings are that such people are more to be pitied than censured. For the lack of a little effort and consideration they miss out on the very stuff that brings so much gratification and meaning to life.

Ugg

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Ugg on July 7, 2019

My own opinion is that I think there should be a lot of things like free access, rationing, "universal basic income", even for able-bodied people who supposedly are choosing not to work out of laziness. But I also think that people who go to work should maybe get to buy a few more nonessential consumer items, and that people who work less desirable jobs should maybe be paid more as a reward.

Here are some thoughts I have on this thread if anyone is interested. Sorry for the length:

1. I think it's good to tell people that libertarian communists have a bunch of different ideas about how we could handle these issues and don't always agree. That way people don't feel that in order to be a libertarian communist they need to agree with us on everything.

2. Libertarian communism should be possible with or without scarcity and so we should be prepared for both.

There's an article called "not by politics alone" by Andrew Kliman written a few years ago where he states that if we equally distributed the total world income it would only be 22% of the average US income. This is before doing things that would likely lower productivity such as decreasing work hours, improving work conditions and lessening our ecological impact.

Maybe we'll be lucky and libertarian communism will be 6 times more efficient than capitalism and people will want less nonessential consumer items. This would be great but it doesn't mean scarcity couldn't sometimes be an issue.

We as a society might even want to limit consumption of things that can be abundantly produced. Maybe we want to make sure that people who need them most have the most access, to lower ecological damage, or because we don't really need them and would rather spend more resources on more important things like medical research.

Economic coordination is still important. I think we need to measure how much labour-time (plus other costs) it generally takes to produce different goods and services and how much of those things should be available over a certain period. Then we could compare those numbers to how fast we are consuming those things or how fast we predict they will be used up.

This would be really helpful even in a completely free access society. Imagine a cafeteria that offers free food but still take stock of how fast pizzas were being consumed compared to how fast they were being made. They could also compare this statistic to other foods.

This could then be used to inform food producers about shortages and give them information of how many more pizzas they need to produce compared to other foods. Other cafeterias that had an oversupply of pizza could send theirs to that cafeteria as well. This could also be something that would come up in community and workplace council meetings.

Cafeterias could also use this information to inform customers about availability of different foods. This way people could know there was only enough pizza slices for one per person or something.

If people wanted they could make it so this wasn't a rule people had to follow but just a suggestion. If food producers decide they would rather make a product that was in low demand rather than more pizzas because it made them happier then this could be allowed. People could choose to take more than one pizza slice if they felt they needed it or if there was extra.

I personally think economic decisions should be made democratically by federations of workplace and/or community councils. Credits wouldn't become private property of one workplace or another but would only be used as a statistic for us to democratically monitor supply and demand.

3. A lot of people choosing not to work probably have something wrong going on in their lives like a mental health issue.

I have to imagine there have been depressed people who stopped going to work, got fired and ran out of money and ended up committing suicide or became homeless or something.

Others that choose not to work are recluses who have low self-esteem or anxiety problems who probably feel really bad about the way they live and want to change. Even if someone is just struggling to motivate themselves, I don't think cutting them off and giving them tough love is necessarily the only way of helping them.

Plus many people can just fall through the cracks. A lot of homeless people can't get services, or end up having issues with homeless shelters and stuff like that. Other people don't qualify for services just because they're on the borderline. Sometimes people have hidden disabilities or needs. I also just think there are some people who for whatever reason are incapable of holding down a job, even if they might overcome that problem in the future.

I just think it's kind of sketchy to be deciding whether someone eats based on whether they have a job or not when you don't always know what's going on with them, or because they almost qualify to get some benefit but they're just over the borderline.

Maybe some people can't work as many hours as others can as well.

Having a society where a person can go to a restaurant and get a free meal or get a free place to stay would make all of these peoples' lives easier and prevent them from falling through the cracks. We can still deal with their other issues while making sure they're taken care of.

In addition free access (as well as rations, universal basic income, etc.) means we all have a stake in those things and we therefore have an incentive plus the awareness to make sure those goods and services are decent enough for everybody.

Maybe it could help improve self esteem and include people who don't work, making them feel a part of the community.

If there are people don't work solely because they're selfish and are otherwise normal, happy individuals with social lives I still think you can argue it's a bit harsh to let them starve. Most sane people believe even murderers deserve food, shelter even entertainment. Many leftists don't even think murderers should be kept in jail. Maybe this is an unfair comparison because someone could always go to work the next day but what if they still don't?

Even if it's a crazy number like literally 1 in 10 people choosing not to work at all it's only 11% more work for the other 9 people. That's significant and a problem but it doesn't mean it's no longer worth it for us to have a society based on compassion and solidarity. I'd rather live in a society where maybe some slackers than one in which there are multi-billionaires ordering us around while others live on less than a dollar a day.

I think a most people will be motivated to work because they care about others, don't want to upset their peers and/or find their jobs fulfilling. There's also the fact that going to work is in most people's self-interest as it adds to the total amount of wealth they can consume, even if some people are slacking off. If people stop going to work because others don't then everyone starves and no one benefits lol.

I think a bigger issue in today's society is the fact that a lot of people don't take benefits they're entitled to because capitalist society has made them feel they don't deserve them because they're not a "job creator" or whatever.

4. I think there should be at least some amount of free access, equal rationing and rationing based on need.

I also think we should use a method kind of like universal basic income that anarchist collectives in Spain used where each person was entitled to a certain amount of credits which they could then exchange for different goods.

This way if people had a choice on how to spend their rations of things in low supply. If someone didn't need a sweater but needed a second pair of shoes they could choose to take a second pair of shoes instead of everyone getting one sweater and one pair of shoes.

The amount of credits people get could be based on need- for example a mother should probably get extra credit because they have to take care of their kids.

5. There are many ways a libertarian-communist society could deal with questions like how we could allocate labour and how we would fairly deal with the fact that some jobs are more desirable than others. I think we could maybe use all of them together or perhaps people could be given a choice.

a) We could just choose to not consume things that require difficult work, or consume less.

b) We could do those things ourselves (ie. think of people shovelling their driveways or picking up litter around their community).

c) We could spend resources or find new methods to improve the conditions of jobs that are less desirable.

d) We could give people who do those jobs more vacation time.

e) We could rotate jobs. This could be done where everyone has to say be a janitor for a month or you could use something like Parecon's "Balanced Job Complex" where we give different jobs ratings based on desirability. We would then all agree to try to make sure we worked a similar amount of good, bad and/or average rated jobs.

f) We could also entitle people who work less desirable jobs to receive more credits or other goods and services.

g) We could praise people who worked less desirable jobs and maybe give out awards or something. Maybe knowing that others will appreciate them would motivate people to take on these jobs.

h) Maybe people would like to do less desirable jobs because they help others. Maybe we could try to create a society that values helping others like this.

6. I'm personally in favour of giving people who do less desirable jobs the option of having more pay than others.

I don't think it's fair if some people are suffering doing bad jobs while everyone else is having fun doing good jobs. I think those of us who have good jobs should make it up to them. I think a lot of people deserve to be paid more than I get because of the physical and mental stress and risk of their jobs. I don't need to be paid the same as a nurse. Even if that nurse finds their job fulfilling I'm glad they can afford to go on one more vacation than I can or something. I feel like a person who does those jobs have a higher need for those things than I do.

I think there should be a limit to this because sometimes it's more important everyone has a good living standard. For example it would be morally wrong if during a famine we prioritized rewarding nurses for their hard work over making sure people had enough to eat.

I'm not sure why some libertarian communists are so against this.

You don't need a "surveillance state" to do this. It could literally be done using the honour system.

I don't think there's a danger of nurses hoarding their credits and then buying up all the necessities and then forcing other people to be their slaves or something to get access to them. You could limit the number of items people can purchase of certain necessities (eg. you can't buy 100 loaves of bread a day as a consumer), You could make it so that extra credits can only purchase non-necessities. I also don't think this is a likely scenario because it would require nurses coordinating with each other to starve themselves hoarding a massive amount of wealth and then spending all their credits to cause a temporary shortage.

One problem could be that because becoming a doctor is hard and requires a certain amount of talent that doctors could then take advantage of this and demand that they be paid higher than they really deserve. Because it isn't easy to just train a bunch of other people to be doctor we might have to acquiesce to their unfair demands. However doctors could just as easily exploit other methods people propose as alternatives to paying people more. For example doctors could demand more vacation time and more resources dedicated to improving their work conditions. Even job rotation could be exploited- Doctors could rate their job as being way less desirable than it really is which would entitle them to rotate to way more enjoyable jobs for longer periods of time than they should. These other proposals also aren't as beneficial to the rest of society- for example maybe doctors can't always be on vacation or rotating jobs because there are lots of sick people who need them. Maybe there is only so much about their work conditions that can be improved. I don't see what the big deal is about society showing its appreciation to these people by letting them buy an extra fancy suit or dress or go on a nice vacation. I think it would make everyone else's life worse, not better if we didn't sometimes use this as an option.

I've heard people concerned there's a potential for inter-generational transfer of wealth to lower opportunities for people from families with low paying jobs which could lead to inequality. Kids growing up in poor families might not have the funds to attend university and instead have to work full time, or even if they can attend university they would also need to work affecting their studying. But you could deal with this by just making university free access and paying kids to go to university, the same way you get paid at a job, or making sure kids that go to university have enough funds to properly study.

I've thought about how it's arguably unfair if some kids grow up in families that haver lower income while others grow up in families with higher income. But I think it could also be unfair if a kid grew up with parents who were stressed out all the time because of their jobs. I still think a kid growing up with a nurse as a parent might still have to deal with some negative things that kids of other parents wouldn't. I also imagine that one of the main incentives to taking a bad job would being able to maybe to use those extra funds for your kids. Kids with parents doing easy jobs would also be free to become nurses themselves in the future. I'm still open to the idea that it's still unfair for kids to grow up in families with lower incomes but it's also the case that a lot of the other ways of dealing with undesirable jobs would cause this same inequality for children. If we praised people for being nurses then this might effect the self esteem of kids of parents who do easy jobs. If we gave nurses more vacation time then this would be more time to spend with their kids.

I've also thought about maybe if there was five generations of nurses then one of their kids might end up would end up having way more wealth than others, which might be unfair. But you could probably deal with this in a number of ways. Maybe society could have some redistributive taxes, inheritance taxes, limits on how much income you can hoard or only allow you to rent some things after which they become property of the community. We could also set a limit on how high people can get paid so you don't end up with crazy wealth differentials. I also don't think it would be possible to hoard enough credits over generations and then try to purchase every good and service or inflate their cost for a long enough period of time that they would be able to force people into slavery or something. Also in a libertarian communist society the community would probably step in and set limits on how much a person could buy.

AnythingForProximity

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by AnythingForProximity on July 7, 2019

Ugg

I think it's good to tell people that libertarian communists have a bunch of different ideas about how we could handle these issues and don't always agree.

Indeed we do not. I, for one, think that this idea of "libertarian communism, now with income taxes and people with better jobs getting to buy luxury items!" reflects very poorly on your understanding of what communism even is.

Ugg

I'm personally in favour of giving people who do less desirable jobs the option of having more pay than others.

[url=http://libcom.org/library/commentary-manuscripts-1844-amadeo-bordiga]Amadeo Bordiga[/url]

Wages, even if they were equal for all, always mean non-socialism. And if they are not leveled or equal, there can be no talk of socialism whatsoever.

Ugg

I've heard people concerned there's a potential for inter-generational transfer of wealth to lower opportunities for people from families with low paying jobs which could lead to inequality. Kids growing up in poor families might not have the funds to attend university and instead have to work full time, or even if they can attend university they would also need to work affecting their studying.

You sure this is communism you're describing?

explainthingstome

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by explainthingstome on July 8, 2019

zugzwang: "I think it also goes without saying that Nike sweatshops and fastfood restaurants wouldn't just 'continue existing' in a communist society."

Hey, I never said that they would!

jef costello: "People perform unpaid labour every single day in spite of living in a system that degrades such labour."

But the amount of unpaid labour would increase compared to today. Not that I think that this means that this means that communism is impossible. I believe that the system would definitely work if we choose to eliminate a lot of the stuff that we produce (and enjoy) today. It's an acceptable sacrifice. As you said, capitalism is killing the planet.

fingers malone

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by fingers malone on July 8, 2019

Loads of essential activity in this society is done without there being a wages per hour calculation involved. Cooking, cleaning, childcare, also organising social events, home repair, outside cities a lot of growing crops isn't for cash it's for consumption. People do those things. Some people also get away with not doing them and sit around chatting and having a beer while other people do them, those people are usually men. It might be constructive to think about how this stuff works in our current society, it might be even better if all the men on this thread went and cleaned the toilet while they reflected on it.

fingers malone

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by fingers malone on July 8, 2019

I just went to a big family do and there were loads of babies and one guy was telling everyone he took one (1) day off work when their baby was born but it was ok because his wife's sister came and stayed for a MONTH to help, and he was telling us this while drinking a beer and I was watching the wife's sister running around after the baby while he was saying it. I also suggested I go and introduce myself to the sister and was told it was not necessary as she couldn't speak English. I am still pissed off about this, to explain my pissed off post above.

Noah Fence

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Noah Fence on July 8, 2019

fingers malone

Loads of essential activity in this society is done without there being a wages per hour calculation involved. Cooking, cleaning, childcare, also organising social events, home repair, outside cities a lot of growing crops isn't for cash it's for consumption. People do those things. Some people also get away with not doing them and sit around chatting and having a beer while other people do them, those people are usually men. It might be constructive to think about how this stuff works in our current society, it might be even better if all the men on this thread went and cleaned the toilet while they reflected on it.

Great post for truth based lols!

darren p

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by darren p on July 8, 2019

explainthingstome

But the amount of unpaid labour would increase compared to today.

Well yes, to 100%

explainthingstome

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by explainthingstome on July 8, 2019

fingers malone: "Loads of essential activity in this society is done without there being a wages per hour calculation involved. Cooking, cleaning, childcare, also organising social events, home repair, outside cities a lot of growing crops isn't for cash it's for consumption. People do those things."

Well yes but that doesn't mean that there isn't a limit to the quantity of work people are willing to do for free. So I think some useful but unnecessary products of today might dissappear.

darren p: "Well yes, to 100%"

Haha, well I meant of course a "real" increase and not just a percentual one

fingers malone

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by fingers malone on July 8, 2019

explainthingstome

Well yes but that doesn't mean that there isn't a limit to the quantity of work people are willing to do for free..

If wages and money disappear then the distinction between paid work and work for free also disappears.

Unlike a lot of people I think life after the revolution might be a lot harder for many people in a lot of ways, hopefully it will also be better in other ways. This is because we would need to focus a lot of time energy and resources ensuring everyone's basic needs are met, and also drastically reduce emissions, pollution, resource extraction etc. I think these will be the really big questions we will wrestle with, that and the civil war that you usually get alongside a revolution.

Ugg

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Ugg on July 8, 2019

fingers malone

Loads of essential activity in this society is done without there being a wages per hour calculation involved. Cooking, cleaning, childcare, also organising social events, home repair, outside cities a lot of growing crops isn't for cash it's for consumption. People do those things. Some people also get away with not doing them and sit around chatting and having a beer while other people do them, those people are usually men. It might be constructive to think about how this stuff works in our current society, it might be even better if all the men on this thread went and cleaned the toilet while they reflected on it.

I think this currently unpaid labour should be compensated for in some way or the work should be shared (within families and/or communities).

I don't think the fact that women typically do more unpaid work than men is a good argument against compensating people in some way for doing less desirable work (including housework, carework,etc.). This is specifically the unfairness that people are concerned about.

In some cases it's possible for us to compensate this by just sharing the labour, but I don't think this is always possible for us to share every single undesirable task society needs. There are probably only a few hundred different tasks a household needs to do vs. the tens of thousands of different jobs that exist in society, many of which require highly skilled labour and coordination of much larger groups of people than households.

Even if we're sharing labour we might want to make this equitable, even if it was an informal thing in our personal lives. For example if you cook dinner the other person should wash the dishes.

You use an example of women spending more time watching kids than men did. How does it benefit women in this situation for them to not tell those men that they just spent 5 hours chasing after kids when they'd rather be sitting down like the men were?

adri

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by adri on July 8, 2019

Ugg

fingers malone

Loads of essential activity in this society is done without there being a wages per hour calculation involved. Cooking, cleaning, childcare, also organising social events, home repair, outside cities a lot of growing crops isn't for cash it's for consumption. People do those things. Some people also get away with not doing them and sit around chatting and having a beer while other people do them, those people are usually men. It might be constructive to think about how this stuff works in our current society, it might be even better if all the men on this thread went and cleaned the toilet while they reflected on it.

I think this currently unpaid labour should be compensated for in some way or the work should be shared (within families and/or communities).

As afp and others have pointed out, a communist society means free access, so there would be no 'compensating', because everyone would be able to satisfy all their needs (unless in special cases where something is scarce etc.) Waged work itself is unpaid labour (the unpaid labour that typically falls on women today is equally essential in capitalist reproduction) in that workers create more value than they're paid in wages.

fingers malone

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by fingers malone on July 8, 2019

Ugg

You use an example of women spending more time watching kids than men did. How does it benefit women in this situation for them to not tell those men that they just spent 5 hours chasing after kids when they'd rather be sitting down like the men were?

Hey I definitely think this division of labour is crap, to make that clear.

kib

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by kib on July 11, 2019

The issue that I think may be the most pressing here isn’t a sociological shift, it’s a psychological one based on sociological influence. I believe emotionally healthy people *like* to work. I think we’re born hardwired to enjoy feeling productive and useful, to feel that in a valuable, personal, understandable way, we’re contributing. Take a three year old who’s been treated kindly, included in his family as a valuable member capable of doing good things for others as well as himself, you’re looking at an enthusiastic little sh1t who wants to be a part of it all.

So the question isn’t so much *should* people be allowed to take before they contribute, with some expectation that no one contributes anything til their height stabilizes, it’s *how* do we shape a society in which contribution is an expected, comfortable norm that feels good to people right from the start. A society in which almost from the moment you're born, you see yourself without any analytical thought about it as a valuable, useful part of the whole. And how do we create that healthy seminal environment for children, that first-shaping environment, when we ourselves don't feel that way about work or family and the norm is to treat children like they're some sort of useless pets (or pests, depending on your family).

I'm not advocating child labor here, just some sort of meaningful participation. How do we create a world, given the mess we’re currently in, where everyone gets to participate and enjoy it, and no one has to look at work like it’s a punishment meagerly rewarded - if they’re lucky - with the marginal gifts of food and shelter.

kib

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by kib on July 11, 2019

So my very first post I took half an hour to write has been flagged by some algorithm as inappropriate. Great. Let's see if I can rephrase this without setting off the nanny cam.

I think the issue is not whether to allow people to partake before they participate. The issue is that human beings should be seen as participants from they day they're born. Take a toddler who's been included in his family as a valuable participant, you're looking at an enthusiastic little kid who wants to "work". Treating children like useless pets (or pests, depending on your family), the "you must be this tall to ride" social model, takes away people's natural impulse to be valuable participants, as well as the esteem that comes from contributing. The question, really, is how do we re-frame work as a natural part of being and inclusion from the very beginning, a desirable part of life that brings emotional and social reward.

Obviously I'm not advocating exploitative child labor, but I feel early useful participation wires humans to believe in themselves and naturally wish to be participants. Especially given our technological advances that ought to be reducing our overall workload, a few hours of work ought to be enough to provide life's necessary and enjoyable goods, with no slitted eyes throwing daggers at the "slackers".

Ugg

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Ugg on July 16, 2019

Sorry for another really long post. I don't know what's wrong with me lol :(.

Thanks for reading!

AnythingForProximity

Indeed we do not. I, for one, think that this idea of "libertarian communism, now with income taxes and people with better jobs getting to buy luxury items!" reflects very poorly on your understanding of what communism even is.

That's fine. To be honest I actually think this might be a useful way for you to explain why someone like me is wrong lol :).

I've just never got why we should NEVER,EVER use this one method when to me it seems potentially really helpful.


I was arguing that maybe in a libertarian communist society we should consider giving people who do WORSE jobs (not better ones) the option of receiving a few more non-essential items as a way of making it up to them.

To clarify I'm against meritocracy. I don't think just because you're supposedly smarter, more talented or competent in some way that you deserve to be wealthier.

I'm also against workers and workplaces competing to outproduce one another for more reward. For example I think it's morally wrong if in a warehouse a man got paid more because he lifted more boxes than a woman who was physically weaker than him.

I'm opposed to punishing slow factories and rewarding fast ones. I think competition leads to inequality which is why I oppose both capitalism and market socialism.

I also don't support rewarding "effort" like the writers of Parecon argue for or rewarding "according to deed".

My only concern is that some people will be significantly suffering or less happy than others because their job sucks. I know it's not possible to have a perfect society where everyone has an equally great quality of life but that doesn't mean we shouldn't ever try to minimize those differences.

Maybe people in a communist society will do undesirable jobs and sacrifice more than others because they get the satisfaction of helping people. But I don't think this is up for us to decide for them, just like I shouldn't assume all women will be happy doing all the housework.


As far as I know, most libertarian communists are at least open to the idea of making it up those who do undesirable work in some way either formally or informally.

Perhaps we would get together in assemblies or amongst friends and decide that people who do worse jobs should get more time off, shorter working hours, be rotated periodically to more enjoyable jobs or that we as a society should spend more resources improving those jobs.

Alternatively we could be less formal like how free access gift economies are supposed to work. Maybe there would be a cultural norm where if nurses spend 2 hours a day working, it would be nice if you spent 3.

Or maybe people would personally decide solely out of the goodness of their hearts that they would like work longer because they want to make it up to those who do bad jobs. If people see their co-workers working longer just to be kind this might inspire them to do the same. Maybe people knowing they have an easier job one day would go volunteer to work a bad job the next day just to be kind.

Do you agree with any of these methods?

I actually think in many cases these ones would be more ideal because they tackle the source of problem at the very least temporarily if not permanently. For example it's obviously better to make a job less dangerous than to give someone a reward for doing a dangerous job.

I just don't understand how allowing people who have less desirable jobs to get a luxury item is uniquely dangerous compared to any of these other methods.


Giving people luxury items could certainly lead to unjust inequality or be abused. But this is equally true for all of the other methods I mentioned.

To just take one of the methods I mentioned let's say we have a free access economy where we all tell people who have undesirable jobs like nursing to work an hour less than the rest of us do. This doesn't even have to a formal arrangement, but could be a completely voluntary decision we all make.

Workers in this system could still take advantage of this by pretending their job is harder than it is and threatening to withhold their labour or barely work unless others give them more time off or agree to work longer hours themselves. People may be forced to give into their unfair demands if doing these jobs require years of training or require relatively rare natural talents that other people might not have.

This method could also produce intergenerational inequality. If it is unfair for one kid to grow up with a parent that has slightly more luxury items than another kid's parents then it's equally unfair if one kid gets to spend an extra hour a day with their parents. Additionally this could affect the opportunities kids have because a parent that is home earlier can help their kid with homework that will help them get jobs like being a nurse.

Free time could also be hoarded and then used at one time unless we place restrictions on it. For example it would be just as disruptive if a doctor went on vacation for 5 years as it would if someone hoarded luxury credits and spent them all at once. In fact a person spending all their luxury credits at once is only disruptive if luxury goods are perishable and therefore people have more luxury credits available than there are luxury items and they try to spend them all at once. If luxury items have just been stockpiling it isn't disruptive at all. In contrast people saving their vacation time could always be disruptive.

Free time could even be used to increase material inequality. People could go home an hour early and work on their personal garden, build themselves a deck, etc.

Pretty much any method I can think of can be abused or lead to inequality in many of the above ways and in their own different ways as well.


Giving luxury credits would not limit the amount of goods the rest of society could consume compared to other methods. For example telling people who do undesirable jobs to go home an hour earlier could limit the amount of goods available for the rest of society just as much if not more than if we gave those people luxury credits. Even rotating undesirable jobs could lower productivity because the job switching process which could lower the total amount of goods available to consume.

The only way our average consumption would not be limited is if we did nothing to improve the work conditions or mitigate negative aspects of these undesirable jobs, something which I imagine all of us would agree is immoral.


Ultimately if society is bothered by the fact that some people have bad jobs that make them unhappy and are therefore willing to spend extra resources to improve job conditions or to ask them to take more time off, what's the difference between those things and giving them a luxury item if it makes those workers happier?

Why is it fine if society decides nurses should only work 2 hours a day while everyone else works 3 but NOT FINE if nurses say they would like to work 3 hours a day if they could also go on a tropical vacation once every year?

This could be really useful and might even save lives if for example there are a lot of sick people who need nurses who would extremely benefit from their extra hour of labour. It's primarily situations like these that I think giving luxury items could help.


In my opinion trying to improve the happiness and well being of those who do bad jobs is consistent with the idea we should give according to needs.

To me it's similar to the way a single mom could need more consumer items than someone without kids, an older person needing reading glasses, children needing toys to play with when adults don't, etcetera.

What if a community council approved a decision to allow hospitals to give luxury items like stuffed animals and video games to sick or injured kids to cheer them up- are we suddenly in a capitalist dystopian class society where the law of value is in effect?

What would be the difference between giving a sick kid a gameboy vs. also giving the nurses that treat those sick kids a gameboy?

I don't think the needs of people who do bad jobs are nearly as important as any of these other priorities however I don't think they should be discounted.

In contrast meritocracy or competition between workers is NOT consistent with giving according to needs, which is why I don't support them.


I wouldn't be upset if a libertarian-communist society decided against giving luxury items to those who work undesirable jobs. I just think it wouldn't be the end of the world if people discussed it or even applied it when both the people who do these jobs and the rest of society thought it was preferable. This could always be a minimal, limited, voluntary program if people wanted.

Giving luxury items could totally be done by honour system where there is no one stopping people with fun jobs taking as many luxury items as those who have bad jobs.

It might even be socially acceptable for people to do this sometimes. For example maybe if people saw someone they knew had a very fun job take a luxury item they would assume that person had a bad day and deserved it.

I'd even be okay if people who were morally opposed to this could opt out. For example maybe I would be the only one volunteering to stay after work producing luxury items for grief counsellors and sewer cleaners.

Is this still so bad that you would need to prevent me and potentially other volunteers from doing this? Would you strongly discourage it?

Can't any of you guys think of a job you would find extremely hard to bare? For example I imagine being a grief counsellor is a very emotionally painful job, even if it is rewarding.

Would you guys be THAT upset if you were ASKED (not even forced!) to consume ONE less non essential item so that they could go on a relaxing spa vacation or whatever as a way of paying them back for all the pain they go through everyday?

I don't think giving people these things would make them any less compassionate or turn them into greedy people.

I don't think this would be an issue that would come up all the time because many jobs are equally desirable/undesirable.

I also don't think it should be our number one priority- Making sure everyone has a good living standard no matter what is more important than compensating people for having bad jobs (either through luxury items or the other methods I mentioned).

I'd even be in favour of using luxury credits for people with undesirable jobs as a last resort. I only brought them up because there are 3 situations in which I think they could maybe help:

1. Perhaps other methods can't significantly improve the desirability of some bad jobs.

2. Maybe people don't want to rotate jobs, either out of their personal preferences or because they think it would benefit society more for people to spend more time specializing in certain jobs. The option of luxury credits could give people more choice in how they would like to spend their time or could potentially increase the amount of goods and services that would be available for everyone. Even if you strongly disagree with these decisions I still feel like it would be okay for people to discuss this in a libertarian communist society.

3. Maybe there are certain important jobs that require special skills that not everyone can learn or take a very long time to learn. Rotating the people away from doing these jobs could be detrimental to the rest of society. For example having nurses spend all their time on vacation or rotated to fun jobs would be really bad for the patients that need them.

It's okay if you disagree, and maybe I should reconsider my position. But I've tried to think and read a lot about this issue and I've just never understood why doing what I advocated would be so bad and end up hurting people :(

AnythingForProximity

You sure this is communism you're describing?

I don't understand what you're criticizing- In this paragraph I was literally advocating for universities being free access and students not having to work to support themselves or their families (eg. Free food, free dorms, free books, free courses, free events and places to go, free libraries and rec centres, free everything basically etc.).

I think we should provide the necessities of life free access or rationed to everyone. Most things can be made free access immediately after the revolution even luxury things like going to the movies. Even things today under capitalism can be made free access or already are.

I think my own position on this is more compassionate than libertarian-communists like Anton Pannekoek who personally advocated equal labour-vouchers but that "those who don't work will not eat".

I basically agree with Kropotkin who wrote:

Conquest of Bread Ch. 12 by Peter Kropotkin

Take, for example, an association stipulating that each of its members should carry out the following contract: "We undertake to give you the use of our houses, stores, streets, means of transport, schools, museums, etc., on condition that, from twenty to forty-five or fifty years of age, you consecrate four or five hours a day to some work recognized as necessary to existence. Choose yourself the producing groups which you wish to join, or organize a new group, provided that it will undertake to produce necessaries. And as for the remainder of your time, combine together with those you like for recreation, art, or science, according to the bent of your taste.

"Twelve or fifteen hundred hours of work a year, in a group producing food, clothes, or houses, or employed in public health, transport, etc., is all we ask of you. For this work we guarantee to you all that these groups produce or will produce. But if not one, of the thousands of groups of our federation, will receive you, whatever be their motive; if you are absolutely incapable of producing anything useful, or if you refuse to do it, then live like an isolated man or like an invalid. If we are rich enough to give you the necessaries of life we shall be delighted to give them to you. You are a man, and you have the right to live.

I just personally think that it would be okay if those who worked, especially those who do undesirable work could within limits receive some extra luxury items, if people who did these jobs and the rest of society thought it made sense.

I agree with many of Kropotkin's criticisms of the wage system.

I don't think we should reward according to deed. Doctors and nurses should not be paid more because of their privileged backgrounds, natural talents and education nor how many patients they've saved or cures they've found.

Even if you could determine how much exactly each person's deeds contributed to society I would still argue rewarding people for their deeds instead of focusing on needs is wrong.

However just because deciding which jobs suck more would be a subjective decision decided by all of us with no perfect answers doesn't mean we should never attempt to do so.

If this were true not only could we not decide to give people luxury items for doing bad jobs, it would also mean that we could never rationally use any of the other methods I mentioned as well. We wouldn't be able to decide which jobs need their working conditions improved or that nurses should work a half hour less each day either since all of these decisions are just as arbitrary and imperfect as saying nurses should receive a fancy coat for having a stressful job.

We would never be able to eliminate undesirable jobs because deciding which jobs are undesirable is subjective.

It would also mean that we as a society or individuals could literally never make decisions regarding human needs at all. Deciding whether or not we should build more hospitals, schools, do more medical research, build playgrounds, etcetera are open-ended questions with only subjective answers.

Kropotkin advocates people should spend a small part of their day performing socially useful labour. But deciding what to do would be impossible as well- How do I decide whether I would be helping others more if I became a farmer, a vet, or a musician? Even if you say that I should just do whatever makes me happy how do I decide just how happy each job makes me? That decision is also completely subjective and can't be answered perfectly.

Just because some things can't be done perfectly doesn't mean we should never try.

***

fingers malone

Hey I definitely think this division of labour is crap, to make that clear.

lol sorry, I just was worried that something I said came across as if I didn't think those issues were important.

***

zugzwang

As afp and others have pointed out, a communist society means free access, so there would be no 'compensating', because everyone would be able to satisfy all their needs (unless in special cases where something is scarce etc.) Waged work itself is unpaid labour (the unpaid labour that typically falls on women today is equally essential in capitalist reproduction) in that workers create more value than they're paid in wages.

I was actually meaning compensating in a general sense which could also include things like job rotation, telling others to take time off, etc.

Also when does something become a wage in your opinion? Is a ration of a scarce item a wage? What if a cafeteria notices there are shortages of pizza slices, sandwiches and cups of soup so they decide to give each person a ticket that they can spend on either a pizza slice, sandwich or cup of soup?

In anarchist Spain some of the collectives had systems where each member was entitled to a certain amount of points which could be exchanged for different goods. They used this method instead of rationing because it gave people the choice to spend their rations on what they actually needed. Was this a wage?

Is what Kropotkin is advocating here a wage since it is asking people to work 4 or 5 hours a day to receive all that the community produces?

Conquest of Bread, Ch. 12 by Petr Kropotkin

Take, for example, an association stipulating that each of its members should carry out the following contract: "We undertake to give you the use of our houses, stores, streets, means of transport, schools, museums, etc., on condition that, from twenty to forty-five or fifty years of age, you consecrate four or five hours a day to some work recognized as necessary to existence. Choose yourself the producing groups which you wish to join, or organize a new group, provided that it will undertake to produce necessaries. And as for the remainder of your time, combine together with those you like for recreation, art, or science, according to the bent of your taste.

Mike Harman

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Mike Harman on July 17, 2019

kib

So my very first post I took half an hour to write has been flagged by some algorithm as inappropriate. Great. Let's see if I can rephrase this without setting off the nanny cam.

It should be visible now and you've been freed from algorithmic moderation. Also good post.

Noah Fence

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Noah Fence on July 17, 2019

kib

The issue that I think may be the most pressing here isn’t a sociological shift, it’s a psychological one based on sociological influence. I believe emotionally healthy people *like* to work. I think we’re born hardwired to enjoy feeling productive and useful, to feel that in a valuable, personal, understandable way, we’re contributing. Take a three year old who’s been treated kindly, included in his family as a valuable member capable of doing good things for others as well as himself, you’re looking at an enthusiastic little sh1t who wants to be a part of it all.

So the question isn’t so much *should* people be allowed to take before they contribute, with some expectation that no one contributes anything til their height stabilizes, it’s *how* do we shape a society in which contribution is an expected, comfortable norm that feels good to people right from the start. A society in which almost from the moment you're born, you see yourself without any analytical thought about it as a valuable, useful part of the whole. And how do we create that healthy seminal environment for children, that first-shaping environment, when we ourselves don't feel that way about work or family and the norm is to treat children like they're some sort of useless pets (or pests, depending on your family).

I'm not advocating child labor here, just some sort of meaningful participation. How do we create a world, given the mess we’re currently in, where everyone gets to participate and enjoy it, and no one has to look at work like it’s a punishment meagerly rewarded - if they’re lucky - with the marginal gifts of food and shelter.

Kib That’s an excellent point. Thanks.

adri

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by adri on July 18, 2019

I was actually meaning compensating in a general sense which could also include things like job rotation, telling others to take time off, etc.

Also when does something become a wage in your opinion? Is a ration of a scarce item a wage? What if a cafeteria notices there are shortages of pizza slices, sandwiches and cups of soup so they decide to give each person a ticket that they can spend on either a pizza slice, sandwich or cup of soup?

In anarchist Spain some of the collectives had systems where each member was entitled to a certain amount of points which could be exchanged for different goods. They used this method instead of rationing because it gave people the choice to spend their rations on what they actually needed. Was this a wage?

Is what Kropotkin is advocating here a wage since it is asking people to work 4 or 5 hours a day to receive all that the community produces?

Those aren't wages, at least not in the capitalist sense of workers selling their labour-power for money (reproducing their wages in the commodities they make, which get sold/are realized in money, in addition to a surplus), which workers then exchange for stuff they need. Rationing, giving out a definite amount of some goods, really shouldn't characterize all of communist society (except in special cases when something's scarce etc.) Marx argued for labour vouchers coming out of capitalist society, but not as a permanent feature of socialist society, and that was also the 1800s. It again seems strange to me that we're concerned about shortages of stuff, when we have an abundance now, and "laziness"/people not wanting to work, when workers are being thrown out of the production process and made superfluous by technology etc.

Lucky Black Cat

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lucky Black Cat on July 18, 2019

Trying to catch up on this thread after not peeking at it since my post @ #33. I only read up to post #60 (sorry to those who posted after).

explainthingstome

I don't know if I would say that I am extremely convinced of what I say in this thread. But I do kind of believe in most of what I've said. I'm open to changing my mind, as that would make things less complicated for me. However...

I feel that a lot of the answers that have been given here aren't convincing enough to make me change my views. One example is the answer that labour will be like leisure just because wage labour will dissappear. My answer to that is that people do non-wage work today (taking out the dishes, mowing the lawn, cleaning the room etc) and are often not particurarily thrilled about doing it. How would you respond to this argument?

I for one am really lazy about cleaning my apartment. I spend nearly all my free time working on other things that are meaningful to me (mainly the youtube channel and things related to that project) and I deeply resent needing to take time away from that to wash a damn dish! Luckily my boyfriend (and only roommate) gives as few fucks about mess as I do, so it's ok.

In terms of implications for a communist society, I see your point, that various types of work will, for some or perhaps most people, not have an inherent satisfaction to it.

Even still, I'm confident that free access will work just fine, though I'm more skeptical when it comes to whether we can achieve this immediately after workers seize the means of production. I think perhaps we might need a transitional phase, though I'm hoping we can avoid that.

My question for you is: Do you think it makes sense to begin with a communist (free access) society, see how that goes and, if we run into problems like serious shortages, then it's only at that point when we introduce labor vouchers?

This is what makes sense to me, and I also don't think that labor vouchers would be the only solution we should try if such a scenario did arise. I'd hope that different communities would experiment with different ways of tackling this problem, and then through trial and error we could see what is working.

Edit: I should have said different regions, not different communities.

Lucky Black Cat

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lucky Black Cat on July 18, 2019

Hey Ugg. I have various disagreements with your post, but you also make points that I like, and I especially think these two things are important:

Ugg

1. I think it's good to tell people that libertarian communists have a bunch of different ideas about how we could handle these issues and don't always agree. That way people don't feel that in order to be a libertarian communist they need to agree with us on everything.

2. Libertarian communism should be possible with or without scarcity and so we should be prepared for both.

Re #1: Like I said I think this is a really good point! But what you describe is not communism.

I suppose it could fit under the wider umbrella of socialism (a system with socially owned means of production), but the standard definition of communism necessitates free access.

For the record, I would also consider communism as falling under the wider umbrella of socialism, but it's distinct.

Re #2: I think this is important, considering global warming and the havoc that will cause. It's likely that after the revolution, we will inherit a world of scarcity, and we'll need to adapt to that. "Luxury communism" may have to wait many generations.

explainthingstome

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by explainthingstome on July 18, 2019

Lucky Black Cat: "My question for you is: Do you think it makes sense to begin with a communist (free access) society, see how that goes and, if we run into problems like serious shortages, then it's only at that point when we introduce labor vouchers"

Yes, that makes sense if you ask me. Also, if free access doesn't work out we could just stop producing a lot of the non-essential items. See my second last paragraph in post #40.
___

I feel that I have gotten everything that I wanted so I'm probably not going to post anything else on this thread. I thank Lucky Black Cat and Noah Fence in particular for replying to me.

But I have two things that I want to say to the few who think that hostile or condescending posts are worth writing or upvoting:

1) As communism is not a religion with Marx or Bordiga as prophets incapable of error, quoting parts of "scripture" that are not argumentative but merely statements is not a good reply to any argument or question.

2) Just because a bad person was in favour of X it doesn't mean that X is bad.

Agent of the I…

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Agent of the I… on July 18, 2019

Labor vouchers make no sense whatsoever and aren't even practical. I understand the reasons made for implementing it but when you think about it's application in a socialist society, it doesn't seem to square with the principals or nature of such a society. In a socialist society, production will be planned to meet the needs of the entire community, and a lot of thought and effort will go into doing that. I think all socialists (excluding marketeers) recognise that essential fact, even collectivists who believe in 'from each according to ability, to each according to contribution'. So why then do we need some mechanism (in this case, labor vouchers) having a role in determining how goods and services are distributed after the fact?

Sure, we will need to deal with the possibility of scarcity in the future, but in what way are labor vouchers a fix to that problem other than being an unnecessary burden? What if it just brings along a whole heap of problems unto society?

Auld-bod

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Auld-bod on July 19, 2019

The phrase ‘luxury communism’ is a bit of a contradiction. If luxury means a choice of costly surroundings, possessions, food, etc., implying this kind of material consumption is a fruition of communist desires, where capitalist values move into a communist future, and human pleasure supposedly correlates to the price paid.

I do not wish to suggest that communism should or will be austere, only that the word luxury, and its meaning, would be redundant. Rather than cost, the hallmark of free communism should be quality.

P.S.
LBC like your video.

Lucky Black Cat

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lucky Black Cat on July 20, 2019

Thanks, Auld-bod. Perhaps I'm choosing the wrong word. I was riffing off the "Fully Automated Gay Luxury Space Communism" meme. My intended meaning of "luxury" was anything that is desired but is far beyond what is needed for survival and practical functioning.

Lucky Black Cat

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lucky Black Cat on July 20, 2019

Hm, I just realized that there are many things that qualify as "desired but is far beyond what is needed for survival and practical functioning" which would be easily obtainable even in a situation of scarcity. Like playing soccer/football: you just need a field and a ball.

So I should change my intended meaning to: anything that is desired but is far beyond what is needed for survival and practical functioning, and requires a significant amount of resources to produce.

I realize that's not the greatest definition, either, since any amount of resources, however small, could qualify as significant. So I need a better word there, but can't think of the right one.

Auld-bod

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Auld-bod on July 20, 2019

LBC #70

Yes, I can be a bit of a pedant at times. Sorry. It crossed my mind that words like luxury can be very relative, probably the majority of working class people worldwide would consider decent sanitation and medical services luxurious living.

Lucky Black Cat

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lucky Black Cat on July 22, 2019

Auld-bod

probably the majority of working class people worldwide would consider decent sanitation and medical services luxurious living.

Yes, tragically and outrageously :(

Ivysyn

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Ivysyn on July 22, 2019

I think if you are going to use deprivation of the means to life to make people work then the set up won't be much different to wage labor. I think people will do labor because an "Anarchist", or "libertarian communist" society would be one based on collective participation to provide each person with a decent life. This is just as people compete with and screw each other over in a capitalist society based on competition and exploitation.

Ugg

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Ugg on July 24, 2019

zugzwang

Those aren't wages, at least not in the capitalist sense of workers selling their labour-power for money (reproducing their wages in the commodities they make, which get sold/are realized in money, in addition to a surplus), which workers then exchange for stuff they need. Rationing, giving out a definite amount of some goods, really shouldn't characterize all of communist society (except in special cases when something's scarce etc.) Marx argued for labour vouchers coming out of capitalist society, but not as a permanent feature of socialist society, and that was also the 1800s. It again seems strange to me that we're concerned about shortages of stuff, when we have an abundance now, and "laziness"/people not wanting to work, when workers are being thrown out of the production process and made superfluous by technology etc.

Thanks for clarifying; I was just asking because I wasn't sure where you and others were disagreeing with me. I think some of those ideas could still be useful in a totally free access society, even if they aren't always needed. But I also agree that rationing shouldn't characterize all of communist society. Free access might be more efficient and would work better for people's needs.

Lucky Black Cat

Hey Ugg. I have various disagreements with your post, but you also make points that I like, and I especially think these two things are important:

Thanks :). I was worried that one opinion I had would overshadow other points I wanted to make that were unrelated lol.

Lucky Black Cat

Re #1: Like I said I think this is a really good point! But what you describe is not communism.

I suppose it could fit under the wider umbrella of socialism (a system with socially owned means of production), but the standard definition of communism necessitates free access.

For the record, I would also consider communism as falling under the wider umbrella of socialism, but it's distinct.

I've always thought communism meant "to each according to their needs" and that not everything that is distributed according to needs has to be freely available- for example people might not be allowed to just go to the hospital and just get a catscan for fun (I don't know why they would do this but still).

I think people who do bad jobs that make them less happy than others technically have "needs" that we as a society should address in some way if we are trying to maximize the happiness of everyone in the world as much as we can.

Prioritizing the well being of those people can often be done directly by giving more time off, improving job conditions, providing healthcare to treat the physical and mental injuries. But I think there are situations where giving "luxury items" could be effective at mitigating negative aspects of people's jobs while also being better for everyone else.

There is some evidence that things like trips to other countries can improve people's well being. Giving someone with an emotionally stressful job a vacation like this could prevent burnout in a way that other methods can't and would probably mean a lot to those people.

Lucky Black Cat

Re #2: I think this is important, considering global warming and the havoc that will cause. It's likely that after the revolution, we will inherit a world of scarcity, and we'll need to adapt to that. "Luxury communism" may have to wait many generations.

That's how I feel. I used to not think scarcity was a big deal in the past myself but I've started to change my mind on this. It might take a while or require sacrifices for us to provide everyone in the world with the living standard of someone in Norway, even if communism is multiple times more productive and everyone decides they don't want fancy consumer products.

We have so many goals that may lower how much is available for us as individuals. Lowering the intensity and duration of work, improving work conditions, making communities accessible, expanding healthcare, researching medicine, ending world wide wealth inequality, protecting the environment, democratizing society and the economy, improving consumer safety, etc. Even things like expanding public transportation that would be more efficient in the long haul could require initially large expenditures of resources that involve sacrifice.

This doesn't mean that creating a libertarian communist society isn't possible, it just means we need to make sure we allocate scarce resources and coordinate production in a libertarian communist way.

We can still do that while having totally free access communism.

On the other hand I still think it's very important to point out all the ways libertarian communism could more efficiently provide for our needs much better than capitalism.

Lucky Black Cat

My question for you is: Do you think it makes sense to begin with a communist (free access) society, see how that goes and, if we run into problems like serious shortages, then it's only at that point when we introduce labor vouchers?

I think many things could start providing many things free access after a revolution. We already have a few free access restaurants in the world, libraries, many countries have free access healthcare and stuff like that. Many stores today could be run like libraries where you can borrow things, sports equipment and other things could be sent to rec centres to be used in common, etcetera. I actually find it hard to think about what things couldn't be made free access, rationed or shared. Maybe I should think harder lol.

If some things are in limited supply I feel like we could use something like the points/credits system that some Spanish anarchist collectives used. Everyone no matter what gets a certain amount of points each day they can spend on limited goods and services.

Is there a particular reason why you said we might consider labour-vouchers instead of a system like that? Maybe it could be a backup plan if we were all wrong and actually no one wants to work lol. But even then I think labour-vouchers should be limited to things like nonessential items while everything else is free access.

Lucky Black Cat

4 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lucky Black Cat on July 26, 2019

Hey Ugg, sorry I don't have time to respond to your entire post. But I will answer the question you ask at the end.

So, I prefer a free access system, and feel confident it will work well, but am less sure about whether it will work in the early period after workers take control of the means of production.

If it turns out that it's not working in that early period, then I think we should experiment with different solutions as a temporary measure. Labor vouchers would be one solution to try, but not the only option. Another solution we could try is what you mention in your post about giving everyone a limited number of credits/points to spend on scarce goods.

And I agree that, no matter what, essential items should always be free. As Ivysyn said:

Ivysyn

I think if you are going to use deprivation of the means to life to make people work then the set up won't be much different to wage labor

I would not support a "revolution" where some are deprived of the means of life. (And I think everyone on this thread would agree with that.)

Also, I liked your joke about getting cat-scans just for fun, lol. :D