Organisation of work and free access

Your post unfortunately calls for an extensive explanation and unlikely to be covered in a one simple reply so please bear with all of us who do try to answer.  I think we have to always remember that we are not beginning from nothing. Marx (and socialists) have always acknowledged the progressive nature of capitalism's past in developing the means of production and distribution and its vast planning. These are in place just waiting to be re-focused and re-prioritised to serve the needs of people and not just for the accumulation of wealth for the few. There are also the non-state administrative organisations like WHO, FAO, and a host of well structured and experienced NGOs such as Oxfam that can be adapted to a socialist world. One of the reasons we advocated capturing the state machinery is to make use of the non-coercive parts of the state that could perform a constructive purpose inside socialist society onc it is stripped of their profit making ethos, the departments of environment , agriculture, health, education and so on.  Even private capitalism has developed methods that can be of use to ourselves. Multi-nationals employ a whole variety of statistics and logistic systems to maintain a supply chain and provide raw materials for the factories and assembly centres and computerised stock-control networks to fill the supermarket shelves with stuff. We will make use of that capitalist knowledge when the workers in these industries and corporations, along with the communities,  assert control over the decision-making in them. One reason why socialism holds an advantage over capitalism is by eliminating the need to tie up vast quantities of resources and labour  in its system of monetary/pricing accounting. Your question about who will perform the dirty work is a familiar one. Oscar Wilde offered an answer that still remains largely valid if not more so today “All unintellectual labour, all monotonous, dull labour, all labour that deals with dreadful things, and involves unpleasant conditions, must be done by machinery”. So unappealing dirty work can probably be taken care of by utilising labour-saving machines.  But where it is impossible and where dirty work will have to be done in socialist society we can be quite sure of two things: Firstly, it will NOT be done by the same people ALL the time.  All able members of society will take turns at such work. And also not to be forgotten is that it will be carried out by socially conscious men and women who appreciate that society belongs to them and therefore its less pleasant tasks must be performed by them. In the knowledge that we own and control the earth, and all that is in and on it, it is unlikely i think that people will refuse to attend to the dirty work within socialism. Present day society imposes intolerable conditions on the actual workers (speed-up, pain, stress, boredom, long hours, night work, shiftwork, accidents). Such conditions will be eliminated.  If the health, comfort and enjoyment of those who perform work , certain methods are going to be ruled out altogether. The fast moving production lines associated with the manufacture of cars would be stopped for ever; night work would be reduced to the strict minimum; particularly dangerous or unhealthy jobs would be automated (or completely abandoned). Work can, in fact,  must, become enjoyable. But to the extent that work becomes enjoyable, measurement by minimum average working time would be completely meaningless, since people would not be seeking to minimize or rush such work.  A basic need of an individual for a  healthy stable existence is the acceptance and approval of others.  People act selfishly or anti-socially only when they can see no other way of getting what they want. If there is another way by co-operation, for instance there is no reason to suppose that they will not choose it when they see it is better to do so.The sense of mutual obligations and the realisation of universal interdependency arising from this would profoundly colour people’s perceptions and influence their behaviour in such a society. We may characterise such a society as a system of generalised reciprocity. Socialism is a society that can support the free-loaders and shirkers that some critics insist will leech off the rest of the community. First we must define what is a free-loader. Are authors like JK Rawling scrounging when she sat in a cafe writing her Harry Potter book while living on benefits. Was Van Gogh a parasite when he devoted his life to painting and never sold a single one. Was Marx too when he lived off the charity of Engels?  Socialist society will contain millions of babies and infants . There will be those too old or too disabled to work.  Therefore those people who are too idle to work will not be a drain on society. But of course if people didn’t work then society would obviously fall apart. If people cannot change their behaviour and take control and responsibility for their decisions, socialism will fail. However let us get this into perspective. Having organised and struggled and fought the class war to displace the capitalist class, no modest feat in itself,  it is then imagined that the majority of people will sabotage the society they had participated in building by engaging in sloth. Its a strand of thought i find extremely unlikely.  I am aware this is no full answer but i leave others to contribute and for you to ask for clarification.  

In present society there are numerous organisations that determine ability. The Civil Aviation Authority checks on the proficience of pilots and air traffic controllers at various levels of expertise and experience , the British Medical Association , the Royal College of Nursing on health workers, architects, engineers, even personal drivers through a driving test have a means where ability is determined by an accepted, neutral arbitrator, not the individual. I do not see them disappearing when socialism is established. Nor do i view them as authoritarian.  I think when it comes to production issues then it can only be social. We can only collate a collective demand for a particular item. No doubt you have read Robin Cox responses on Libcom that demand is an aggregate demand,. " Aggregate changes in the pattern of consumer demand will express itself spontaneously in shifts in the pattern of output and by extension in the way resources are allocated furtjher down the production chain." It is the summation of individual decisions about consumption which leads to availabilty. Most libertarian communists argue for consumer feedback in this process and again this something that capitalism has itself turned into quite an accurate science through consumer research, customer surveys and shop loyalty cards. We simply require to apply those tools in our interests. Again this question cannot lead to a short answer and others will have their own emphasis.

I don't think that the "to each according to their needs" part, i.e free access according to individually determined need,  poses a problem as long as it is understood that it can only be free access to what society has decided should be produced (or to what you yourself grow or make). Where this exists, in however distorted a form, under capitalism people eventually adjust to taking or using only what they need, a behaviour pattern that will be re-inforced in socialism when people can be certain that free access will continue. There is a "social" element here, yes, but it's the decision about what should be produced to be made freely available, not the individual decision to assess "need".The first part "from each according to their ability" is the one that doesn't fit it with anarchist-type "individual sovereignity" as it presupposes a degree of organisation that cannot be left to individual choice. Individuals will have to fit in with the work process and commit themselves to being at work at agreed times, i.e. when (or even whether) to work cannot be completely "self-determined".  But I would think that the solution will lie along the lines of ensuring that everyone has a job (or jobs) that suits them and being part of a co-operating working community. I don't see anything wrong in principle with a rota system for tasks considered uninteresting to which people would also be committed, but I don't see that coercive measures (such as reduced access to what you need to live) would be any part of the solution.In the end, this sort of discussion is really about what people think "human nature" is: if you think people are "naturally" lazy and unco-operative then you will tend to envisage coercive measures. If you don't then you won't.

Sotionov said “ Does WSM have in mind any (non-oppressive and democratic of course) mechanisms for preventing “from each according to their ability” being turned into “from each according to their mood or not at all”

---

 One of the primary purposes of free access is to thwart any potential bureaucracy or as Parcon call them, the co-ordinator class, from arising.  Free access to goods and services denies to any group or individuals the political leverage with which to dominate others which has been a feature of all private-property or class based systems through through the control of and restrictions to the means of life. This will ensure that a socialist society is run on the basis of democratic consensus.  It is the actual essence of free access to goods and services that it denies to any one particular group the political leverage with which to rule over others. So where will this power come from, if it cannot withhold the means of life or restrict access to society’s wealth from those it wishes to subjugate or exploit or take advantage of. Certainly there may be situations that genuine rationing will have to be imposed by communities, for instance,  a failed harvest which depletes the buffer reserve stocks and causes  temporary shortage. These can be tackled by  prioritising indviduals (according to needs by vulnerability) , and if there is no call for that criteria, by a simple lottery, or even simpler – first come, first served.  Referendums can easily and quickly be organised by various  communities to decide such issues.  As Adam remarked, earlier,  ultimately critics of free access end up question it on the basis of present behaviour of people. Under capitalism people tend to acquire and hoard goods because possession provides some security. People have a tendency to distrust others because the system is a dog-eat-dog one. In capitalist society there is a tendency for individuals to seek to validate their sense of worth through the accumulation of possessions. In socialism, status based upon the material wealth would be a meaningless since everything would be freely available so  why take more than you need when you can freely take what you need?  In socialism the only way in which individuals can command the esteem of others is through their contribution to society, and the more the movement for socialism grows the more will it subvert the prevailing capitalist ethos, in general, and its anachronistic notion of status, in particular. How can the status of conspicuous consumption be used as a reward as it is now for a privileged elite when all have equal free access.  We should  not project on to socialism the insatiable consumerism of capitalism. After all, there is a vast advertising industry. Regardless of how modest one’s real needs may be or how easily they may be met capitalism has created a “consumer culture” that leads one to want more than one may materially need since – an insatiable desire to enhance his or her status within this hierarchal culture of consumerism.  Socialism does not require us all to become altruists, putting the interests of others above our own. In fact socialism doesn’t require people to be any more altruistic than they are today. We will still be concerned primarily with ourselves, with satisfying our needs, our need to be well considered by others as well as our material and sexual needs. No doubt too, we will want to “possess” personal belongings , and to feel secure in our physical occupation of the house we live in, but this will be just that – our home and not a financial asset. Such “selfish” behaviour will still exist in socialism but the acquisitiveness encouraged by capitalism will no longer exist. The coming of socialism will not require great changes in the way we behave, essentially only the accentuation of some of the behaviours which people exhibit today (friendliness, helpfulness, co-operation) at the expense of other more negative ones which capitalism encourages. The establishment of socialism presupposes the existence of a mass socialist movement and a change in social outlook. It is simply not reasonable to suppose that the desire for socialism on such a large scale, and the conscious understanding of what it entails on the part of all concerned, would not influence the way people behaved in socialism and towards each other. Why would they want to jeopardise the new society they had just helped create?  

“If my place turns into a waste pit, what do I care, I’ll just go into another place, it’s free.” Are you judging others by your own standards? ; PAnyways, this is simply a variation of the discredited “tragedy of  the commons” theory, that without property rights then people would abuse what is commonly owned.  see herehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/depth-articles/socialism/co-operation-makes-sense   According to the Corporation for National and Community Service, about 64.3 million Americans, or 26.8 percent of the adult population, gave 7.9 billion hours of volunteer service. 94% of the America’s Red Cross are volunteers. In the UK almost 20 million had performed some sort of voluntary work in the last year. During 2010/11, 39% of adults in England said that they had volunteered formally at least once in the previous 12 months, with 25% volunteering formally at least once a month.In Australia in 2010, 6.1 million people aged 18 years and more (36% of the Australian population aged 18 years and over) had undertaken some form of voluntary work in the previous 12 month. That of course probably does not include good neighbours popping in and out of one another’s houses to do some DIY or running errands for others less able or whatever.  I’m sure with more googling i can find plenty of other statistics to demonstrate that even in this callous heartless capitalist world, people will get together and help each other for mutual benefit.

Well, not so much 'the new man', the 'the new human', I think we'd argue! Women and men will both be involved.But I think you're right to highlight this, as I think Communists do have an assumption, that the process of humans coming to realise that capitalism doesn't work for most humans and that a better way of structuring our socio-economic arrangements can be achieved by humans with Communism. This is an assumption, but I wouldn't call it 'utopian' or 'wishful thinking'. I fact, in contrast, I'd call it 'irresponsible and counter-productive' not to share this assumption. The alternative is to believe that human actions that we all see in this society are 'natural' and can't be changed. Again, I, like most Communists, don't share that static view of 'human nature'.

But 'abolition' is only one half of the equation: there has to be a 'creative' aspect to the 'systemic' changes you are discussing. Whether that creative process constitutes 'a new human nature', or just a 'coming to consciousness' by most humans of the essential inhumanity of capitalism, is perhaps a matter of emphasis. But clearly, the use of the term 'human nature' is usually employed by conservative thinkers, who are keen to stress, for obvious reasons, the 'fixedness' of human behaviour. On the whole, Communists do not share this notion of a 'fixed human nature'.

I think that it's more correct to say that the nature of these social forces will change, rather than that they will be entirely removed. But that opinion is linked to my earlier post about 'social authority' and the social determination of 'free access'.Again, those who stress the 'individual' nature of the concept of 'free access' (your 'waste pit' analogy) tend to have a more anarchistic view of the term.Perhaps we can discuss those differing 'social forces', which have always existed in all human societies, and always will. And I think this is linked to the notion of a 'social individual', as opposed to the bourgeois myth of the 'free individual' (the serial 'waste pit' creator, who just doesn't care about their relations, friends and comrades).