Organisation of work and free access

[Sotionov]

Hello to everyone.

 

I agree with the WSM politically (educating people about socialism, organizing democratically, using the elections) and economically for the most part (establishing a classless and moneyless society), but I do have a few questions about concrete implications of the free access view.

 

The core question I have for the people who hold the free-access view is: how is the principle "from each according to their ability, for each according to their need" concretely to be implemented? If someone just assumes that it will, without people establishing mechanisms that would see to it's implementation- I find that level of anthropological optimism utopian. If someone holds such a view and has arguments for it, I am willing to consider them.

 

If someone doesn't hold such a view, the question remains of how this principle is to be implemented, specifically it's first part- "from each according to their ability". I think it's safe to assume that none of us support forcing anyone to work, but it is my opinion that people organising a system that is based on the mentioned principle should stop individuals that start following an alternative principle of "to each according to his needs, but from each according to his mood, or not at all".

This is not only a question concerning hypothetical people in a post-capitalist society who want to consume but contribute nothing, or very little, but it is also a question about the "dirty" and dangerous work. Even if we are to accept that with the development of technology jobs that are hard work would be made easier, and thus more likely to be done completely volutarily, it is simply a fact that there are, and that in a socialist society there will contiue to be- job that few, if any, will want to do- like cleaning sewage, mining, etc.

My view is that there should be some form of labor quotas for those able to work that they would have to fulfill in order to have (full) access to the benefits that the laborers of the community produce, and that such a framework should include clauses like- that centrain minute portion of that quota should be spent doing some unpleasent job, that no one or almost no one would volunteer to do, and that people doing a lot of unpleasant work (e.g. professional miners) should have their labor quota lowered as a result.

AFAIK, my view is supported empirically by the experience of the (democratically organized) intentional communities, so called communes, which as a rule fail if not organized in the manner similar to the one I expressed, but thrive if they establish mechanisms that prevent the neglect of the first part of the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need".

 

 

 

[alanjjohnstone]

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.  

[LBird]

Sotionov wrote:

The core question I have for the people who hold the free-access view is: how is the principle "from each according to their ability, for each according to their need" concretely to be implemented?

Related to this 'core question' are the additional questions of "Who decides what 'ability' and 'need' consist of?" and "At what level is 'free-access' defined?'.From my previous discussions with comrades and on LibCom, it seems to be assumed by many Communists that 'ability', 'need' and 'free-access' will be determined by 'each individual'.I've argued in the past that all three have to be defined/determined at the level of the commune/community/Workers' Council. That is, 'ability', 'need' and 'free-access' are social issues, not individual issues.This definition thus begins to undermine the problems of individuals and their supposed laziness, selfishness and greed (which supposed 'innateness in humans' is always the philosophical starting point for arguments by anti-Communists), but then raises the issue of 'social authority' within Communist society.I know from past experience that many Communists, influenced by this society, still hold to a notion of 'individual sovereignty' when it comes to defining these terms, of 'ability', 'need' and 'free-access'.What do others think about this issue of the level of definition, individual or social?

[alanjjohnstone]

LBird wrote:

From my previous discussions with comrades and on LibCom, it seems to be assumed by many Communists that 'ability', 'need' and 'free-access' will be determined by 'each individual'.

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.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

In present society there are numerous organisations that determine ability… 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.

Yes, I agree, with the caveat the 'arbitrator' is subject to democratic controls, ie. elected, mandated, revokable, etc. 'Authority' in itself is not necessarily 'authoritarian'.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I think when it comes to production issues then it can only be social.

Yeah, same comment as previous.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

It is the summation of individual decisions about consumption…

This point, though, I think requires further elaboration. I would regard 'consumption decisions', too, to be as social as 'ability' and 'production', rather than, as you've put it, 'individual decisions'.That is, some products would be socially determined to be classed as 'come and take, at individual whim', but other products would require the sanction of the community within which the 'individual' is an active member.That is, 'free-access' is determined at the social level: the commune determines both the 'on whim' and the 'on consultation with comrades' levels of 'access'. 'Free', here, is a social freedom, not a 'freedom' subject to individuals' tantrums, of 'I want! I want! I want!'.To me, this is why it's called 'Communism', and not 'Individualism'.We are 'social individual', not 'free individuals' (sic), as bourgeois ideology teaches us. Indeed, brainwashes us.

[ALB]

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.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

…as long as it is understood that it can only be free access to what society has decided should be produced…

[my bold]This seems to be saying much the same as I've said, ALB.'Free access' is a socially-determined term, not an individually-determined one.

[Sotionov]

Even though I am not a marxists, and reject many tenets of marxism, I do accept the notion found in some marxist thought that socialism should be scientific instead of utopian in order to succeed. It is my opinion that a view calling for free access rests preciselly on utopianism, one kind of which I mentioned- the utopian notion of the new man, and the other being technological utopianism. Both are assumptions, wishful thinking, and even if there are arguments in favor of such assumptions, it is irresponsible and counter-productive to base our aspirations and struggle solely on assumptions.What is the abolition of capitalism doesn't usher an era where people will as a rule have a new human nature that would make the system impossible to fail, where there would be never be any shortage of volunteers to do the hard, dirty and dangerous work?What if the abolition of capitalism doesn't coincide with or isn't shortly followed by such a progress of technology that would allow for the machines to do all the unpleasant work?It is simply irrational to claim that we can know, instead of assume, that such developments will surely happen. And what if they dont?Should we really conduct our struggle and on it's completion establish a society with no mechanisms to keep it functioning in the case if these assumptions do not come true, or at least for those mechanism to be in place until these ideas do come true?Comrade LBird is right that it also the question of need versus want that can be raised concerning the principle of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", but I want for now to remain on the question about the first part of that principle, and find out the view of WSM concerning that.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", or does it just assume that such a perversion will simply not happen?

[Ed]

Could you objectively define human nature? Because there are a million and one different definitions. The only one I find to actually be objective is that we are carbon based life forms made up of about 57% water. We usually have two eyes two arms and two legs but not in all cases. We must eat, defecate, sleep and require a safe environment in which to do so. This is the nature of human beings. Just as the nature of a table is to have four legs and be made of wood (although not in all cases). After that human beings will react to the situation they are in. If they are deprived of their basic necessities they will do whatever is necessary to obtain them, whether that be innovation or force. George Orwell spoke well on this subject.

George Orwell wrote:

The proper answer, it seems to me, is that this argument belongs to the Stone Age. It presupposes that material goods will always be desperately scarce…but there is no reason for thinking that the greed for mere wealth is a permanent human characteristic. We are selfish in economic matters because we all live in terror of poverty but when a commodity is not scarce, no one tries to grab more than his fair share of it. No one tries to make a corner in air, for instance. The millionaire as well as the beggar is content with just so much air as he can breathe.

Next I'd like an objective list of necessary jobs which no one wants to do. I doubt anyone could provide one, as good and bad are subjective terms. One person may love sitting in a comfortable office, another might prefer outdoors work, manual labour. Now I know what you're going to say cleaning the sewers or something like that. It's usually pretty high up on most lists. But consider this, does anyone enjoy doing the washing up? I'd guess not many. Personally I abhor it. Yet I know it still has to get done and so I do it. I would expect with the exception of some university students that the entire human race acts similarly. We don't like doing some things but we do them anyway. Same thing in a socialist society, socially necessary labour, it has to get done. Perhaps the people who do take on these imagined unpopular yet vital roles will receive benefits in other ways, perhaps in the form of respect and even adulation for performing tasks that no one else wants to do. The cleaners become the new rock stars. Not saying it will happen but it's not an absurd concept in a society which recognizes and values an individuals input into the collective good. This already occurs with doctors, I can't think of a more disgusting job than looking at people's athletes foot or cutting them open and fiddling with their internal organs. Yet we respect and value those people who do that important work, why should it not apply to other labour? Lastly jobs now which are unpopular, or deemed bad can be made much better, not through getting robots to do them for us, but by the workers themselves having the power to change the conditions under which they work. There is no need for a technological revolution to follow the political and social one. It is the other way around. We have had the technological revolution thanks to capitalism, this technological revolution of the last 200 years has brought us to a time and place where a society based on free access is finally possible. That's not to say there won't be technological advancement. Already under capitalism technology which would be more efficient is being suppressed due to the side effects of damaging the profitability of other industries.

[alanjjohnstone]

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?  

[Sotionov]

To talk about absolute post-scarcity is to delude oneself with technological utopianism that dreams about Star Trek becoming reality, with 'replicators' making eveything we need, and machines doing all the work, maybe even making and repairing themselves. That's a topic for a Trekkie convention, not for people wanting to abolish capitalism.Exaclty- people don't like to do certain jobs, and it is likely they would not miraculously start liking to do them in a socialist society. If we stop imagining a Trekkie utopia where all hard, dirty and dangerous work will not exist being done by machines, we need to ask ourselves how will we make sure that such work will get done. We don't like to do stuff, but we still do them- why? Because there are forces that make us experience consequences for not doing them. If i don't clean my house, it's going to turn into a hazardous and inhabitable pile of waste, and I'd have to move out and live on the street or rent a place or buy a new one. The only difference would be that in a socialist society forces that motivate people to do the unpleasant work would be removed, and people would have all the incentive to stop doing it. Let someone else do it, I have free access to everything. If my place turns into a waste pit, what do I care, I'll just go into another place, it's free.The only way I see free access can be possible is with either the utopian concept of the new man or with technological utopianism, and I see neither as a fitting guiding-idea for a socialist movement.If a view is to be presented that we should not abolish oppression and exploitation until one of those two ideas arise, I find that a particullary grim view, and just another attempt at justification of the wrong of the current system.

[alanjjohnstone]

“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.

[ALB]

Sotionov wrote:

I have free access to everything. If my place turns into a waste pit, what do I care, I'll just go into another place, it's free.

That's just the usual anti-socialist crap we get from open supporters of capitalism. You'll have to do better than that.to justify not making housing and utilities free. And who said that in socialism people would have free access to "everything"? Next you'll be telling us that people will be demanding free access to Porsches, as if we'd not heard it all before from open supporters of capitalism.

[LBird]

Sotionov, post #8, wrote:

It is my opinion that a view calling for free access rests preciselly on utopianism, one kind of which I mentioned- the utopian notion of the new man… Both are assumptions, wishful thinking, and even if there are arguments in favor of such assumptions, it is irresponsible and counter-productive to base our aspirations and struggle solely on assumptions.

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'.

Sotionov, post #8, wrote:

What i[f] the abolition of capitalism doesn't usher an era where people will as a rule have a new human nature that would make the system impossible to fail…

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'.

Sotionov, post #11, wrote:

Because there are forces that make us experience consequences for not doing them. If i don't clean my house, it's going to turn into a hazardous and inhabitable pile of waste, and I'd have to move out and live on the street or rent a place or buy a new one. The only difference would be that in a socialist society forces that motivate people to do the unpleasant work would be removed, and people would have all the incentive to stop doing it. Let someone else do it, I have free access to everything. If my place turns into a waste pit, what do I care, I'll just go into another place, it's free.

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).

[Sotionov]

"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 is assuming that regulation of labor cannot be done by democratic mechanisms, which is simply false. You youself mention the possibility of rationing by the democratic community, which is regulation of consumption, a more complex proccess then regulation of contribution to production..I will repeat my position which was not concretely answered, and I will rephrase it a little.Today we have two facts of life: 1. In order to provide for people's needs, people need to work. 2. People don't like to do (hard, dirty and dangerous) work, and will avoid it if they can.Now, I see three positions you could take in relation these facts.- If you don't think that these two facts will be overcame with the abolition of capitalism, then we are going to need mechanisms to ensure that if someone consumes, he should also contribute accoding to his abilities.- If you do think that these facts will be overcame, that's, to use a understatement- simply an assumption. What if they aren't done away with by the abolition of capitalism, we would have to either establish mechanisms that will regulate contribution to production, or let everything collapse.- If you are to say that we shouldn't even try and establish a democratic, classless, cooperative society until one of these two facts becomes obsolete, I find such a view a reactionary attempt to justify oppression and exploitation and prolong it.

[Author]

Posts